Julian Fellows-But not Downton Abbey!
586001
It was enjoyable, but I thought Julian Fellows' commentary at the beginning of each detracted from the series.
4592292
Tedious beyond tolerance. I watched the first one and a half episodes and just had to shut it off. It's not as if I don't like British dramas, even slow-paced melodramas focused on the elite of early 20th century or 19th century British society. But this one crawled and truly had stretches which were apparently intentionally incomprehensible. Like what's the deal with the minister who starts talking about self-abuse right in the middle of mixed company in the dinner party? Was he nuts? What's the point? The cuckolded "hero" has zero personality and one has no sympathy for him since he seems to create, or at least aid and abet, his own problems. His fornicating cheating wife, she's cute enough but she's one-dimensional as a classically jaded useless member of the British upper crust. Rather than evoking a sense of sympathy for the destruction the coming World War will inflict on this class of British society you, or I at least, find myself thinking it to be a fortunate event if it leads to end of this kind of uselessness.

I suspect the books are better, as is often the case, but I think I can find about 1000 novels to read before I test this thesis. I'm certainly glad I paid only the "used" price for this.
1709837
How many of you have READ The Forsyte Saga?  (No, not watched it on TV.) I certainly have avoided it since I started reading long, long books back in the '50s. I couldn't believe it would be modern (published in 1912). It sounded so boring; the characters were said to be unpleasant; the naughty bits not naughty enough; the nature descriptions totally sappy.  Well....all true except the "boring" part. What an awful and slightly modern family!!!  And in a long and fecund career Galsworthy wasn't to give up easily his descriptions of the middle-to-upper crust of British society.  I got hold of a 1932 novel ("One More River") in which he was still beating on the tired old horse of what the nice girl is supposed to do when she gets in over her head with a brutish man (don't let me spoil it, but that's the theme of the whole Forsyte Saga).
D-I-V-O-R-C-E and sex by every other euphemism are his life-long obsessions. Galsworthy's detailed descriptions are mesmerizing: before we're done we know the interior decoration of every room of every home or club, what each character is wearing each day, each person's facial expression and utterance of same.  We even get to know the inner lives of a family dog. Talk about a saga--"The Young and the Restless" has nothing on "The Old and the Ruthless" in late Victorian and early Edwardian England.  Get comfortable and give it a try!
3658388
This is not your traditional Regency.  It's much slower paced and deals with country people in comfortable circumstances.  It gave me a better idea of life in those times than a more traditional book in the genre.  It's well written in terms of technique.

I liked the characters, except for the two villains.  I'd like to read a follow on book about the young woman who wants to be a doctor and her husband.  That would be interesting.

This book is maybe worth reading as a lazy afternoon book, but in general not much interesting happens.  I'd give it two and a half stars if that were available, because it's just kind of dull.
3097468
Enjoyable and yet not any where neart the level of 'Downton Abbey.' While the acting and staging showed promise from the beginning the show never seemed to find its groove. It felt very much like Fellowes rushed this production to market simply to fill the void left by Downton. We were always going to be measuring Doctor Thorne against the ridiculous high standards achieved by 'Downton Abbey.' And I suppose we were always going to have the aforementioned withdrawal from such a long running, marvelously produced, written and acted spectacle as 'Downton Abbey.'

I thoroughly enjoyed Tom Hollander and Stefanie Martini and thought they gave truly first rate performances. It will be interesting to follow Ms Martini's career and see what becomes of shiny new RADA alum.
3897814
I did not care for this series at all and rarely there is a british series that leaves saying  that and the point is but this is one of them .  Even though two of the actors has since gone on to star in prominent roles on  Downton Abbey they cannot save it in my mind ...
 .I hung in there and watched it to the end but to be honest with you  I really do not know why .
 It took them a very long time to tell this story and resolve the plot and after a while I really did not care that much . it was all very dramatic and involved lots of tears and I mean lots of tears except for the children who seemed quite stoic or maybe they were hoping if they could get it right they could now go out and play !!
 It had a very disjointed plot with lots of gaps that left you wondering .. Did I miss something here ??? . Nope you did not they just did not bother to let you know about that  .
 If I were you I would skip it and go to the movies !!
3691427
Would give it 5 stars except for the intro and ending by Julian Fellowes which made me think of Jon Lovitz "Tales of Ribaldry!"
4683122
The Cazalet film version (i.e., this Masterpiece edition) does nothing positive for reputations. The whole feeling in it is one of false acting (overdone, contrived, poorly directed, not well-managed), inept script (expected lines - in the sense one watches and hears some dialogue and is able to predict exactly what the next-spoken cliche will be), and hot-potato-in-mouth accents (false parody - these are NOT how well-educated middle-class [and upper-middle-class] English speak normally - nor is it how they spoke in the late 1930s to early 1940s). My group watched the first three episodes but collectively decided to not continue with the 4th and 5th. In fact, by the middle of episode 2, our private theater became almost rowdy with groans and semi-catcalls as the Cazalet characters woodenly worked through the pathetic script; by the end of episode 3 we had had enough and sent the DVDs back to the shelves. We have seen other British presentations of similar period and have respected, enjoyed, and been educated by them (examples are Downton Abbey, Love in a Cold Climate, and so on, all of which so favorably impressed us, and were so well done, that we decided to purchase them for our permanent collection). But this Cazalet series is junk, bruises reputations all round, and astonishes us ... What were its producer/s, directorate, screenwriter/s and cast thinking?
4814207
At the open of the Boulting brothers' production of HEAVENS ABOVE (1963)!, Peter Sellers is a prison chaplin. As one of two Anglican ministers named John Smallwood, he's errantly appointed reverend to the stodgy village of Orbiston Parva. (The "other" Smallwood appears later. He's played by Ian Carmichael.)

Rev. John's socialistic beliefs are immediately at odds with the town's leading citizen, wealthy matron Lady Despard (Isabel Jeans), whose family fortune is derived from "Tranquilax," a 3-in-1 curative product. The vicar's earnest concern for her immortal soul and a biblical reminder about rich folks and "the eye of a needle" convince Lady D. to disperse her millions to the needy. She and Smallwood set up a non-denominational free food distribution center that in short order puts the town's butchers, grocers and dairymen out of work.

The minister's superiors are alerted to unrest in Orbiston Parva and visit Smallwood who, in an act of charity has taken in the Smiths, an enormous family of vagabonds. (Cast note: the oldest Smith boy, Jack is Steve Marriott, late of David Merrick's&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/OLIVER/dp/B000025BD5/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">OLIVER!</a>&nbsp;and soon a member of rock group the&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Small-Faces/dp/B000083GPQ/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Small Faces</a>). Archdeacon Aspinall (Ian Parker) is shocked at the vicarage's rundown condition and concerned about commercial griping over Smallwood's food bank. He summons Rev. John for a psychiatric examination. The shrink mistakenly speaks with the "other" Smallwood, who's outraged that his plumb post was usurped by our hero. The psychiatrist diagnoses him as a violent paranoid schizophrenic, while Rev. John waits quietly for his appointment.

From this point our man of the cloth's good fortune rapidly turns quite sour. There's unruly crowds, strife, and the wistful realization of failure. The story ends most ludicrously, on a small arctic island being used by the fledglng British space program. An ill-considered, tacked-on attempt at humor makes for a desperately weak finale. Those last 10 minutes spoil what was a most engaging movie, but it's still well-worth seeing.

"Heaven's Above!" is available on&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/DVD/dp/B00007AJE7/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">DVD</a>, also as one-sixth of&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/THE-PETER-SELLERS-COLLECTION/dp/B00007AJEC/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">THE PETER SELLERS COLLECTION</a>.
2583436
I forgot this was done in the 1960-70s when productions like this (and the original Upstairs/Downstars) were done on sets.  It is so obviously a theater set that it detracts from the plot and acting.  This story is also not particularly unique (just like Downton Abbey is certainly not unique) but at least Downton Abbey is shot sometimes on location.
2372841
I was excited to have a recommendation for a nice British cozy with just a touch of romance. I was wary about the nearly thirty-year age difference between the main characters and my wariness was proved correct. Instead of a mystery to sink into, Ice Blue reads like a typical romance novel with the much older, wealth aristocrat male and the younger, commoner female. This plotline is similar to historical wherein the wealthy older Duke breaks all social rank to marry his governess.

However, I did like Anthony Hetheridge refined, intelligent character.  His character, likely due to his age and experience, was very well developed. Which is why I could hardly suspend my belief that he would be interested Kate whose messy family life includes having the responsibility of an adult, mentally challenged brother and nephew abandoned by her drug-addicted sister and on top of all that drama, Kate is pregnant by her loser ex-boyfriend. If I had to read one more scene where Kate is checking her cotton thongs for menstrual blood I thought Id gag. This plotline was similar to typical historical romance plotlines wherein the noble aristocrat Lord Hetheridge offers marriage to the over-wrought Kate after she blurts out her secret following tragic news. Unplanned pregnancies in modern times with birth control is such a clich&eacute;d plot device for manufacturing conflict.

I don't mind the series being a light-weight mystery, I wasn't looking for brevity when I bought this book. However, I was disappointed that so much of the story focuses on the personal lives of the characters. Also the secondary characters, especially Beepal, are rather bland, and stereotypical. I want to give the series a fair chance and since this first book was free on Kindle, I will read one more book in the series before deciding whether to continue with the series or letting it go.
2912692
I don't think it should have been put in a catagory with Downton Abbey. It did not deliver any of the wonderful elements that were in Downton Abbey!
4048372
There are certain historical figures that are nearly impossible to get to know in anything approaching an objective sense. Something about them compels us to a judgement. Julian the Apostate is  one of those rare figures who forces us to react emotionally -  no matter  how objective we think we are. And our reaction often says more about who  WE are, than about the object of our judgement.

 Flavius  Julianus was the last pagan Emperor of Rome. He briefly attempted to  reverse the ongoing Christianization of the Roman Empire begun by his  detested uncle, the Emperor Constantine.  He failed miserably and died  young, but his attempt to reverse the cultural tides of his day will always  fascinate any who encounter Julian and his century.

 Glen  Bowersock's book is a classic example of 20th Century historical  revisionism. The historical consensus concerning Julian since the time of  Gibbon and Voltaire has been cautiously admiring on the whole.  Bowersock  seeks to reverse that consensus by reinterpeting the abundant historical  evidence.  In doing so his dislike of Julian is displayed on nearly every  page. I can't go into detail here, but there are numerous instances in  which the author achieves a "new" interpretation by placing the  very worst construction on the evidence. In nearly every case he favors  whatever presents Julian in the least favorable light. Nowhere is this more  evident than in Bowersock's account of Julian's "usurpation" of  the title of Augustus in 361.  He strains every nerve to prove the mutiny  of the soldiers was engineered by Julian and his friends and that they lied  about it later, all against formidable evidence to the contrary.

  That being said, this is an interesting book.  The author does a good job introducing the historical context, and his scholarly account of the facts  of Julian's life is lively. Read the darn thing, but do yourself a favor  and read the best account ever written of Julian's reign, that contained in the Res Gestae of Ammianus Marcellinus. It is available in translation as a  Penguin paperback.  Ammianus served in Julian's army and was a balanced  witness of the Apostate's good and bad qualities. Julian was a complex man.  He was a soldier, emperor, scholar, orator, philosopher, even a political prisoner for some years, and a deeply  religious pagan.  He was also credulous, didactic, a fanatic, an egomaniac, and even a public nuisance upon occasion.  In the end however, our very  best witness, Ammianus, admired Julian greatly.  I must confess, so do I.
2804932
this is certainly no "downton abbey".  i've not read the book from which it is adapted, but if it lives up to the introductions and end commentary fellowes provides in each episode (ala "masterpiece theater") this series needed to be at least twice as long as it is.  the redemption of the villains comes as a sentence or two on a deathbed and in no way shows trollope (author of the book) as a deep student of character motivations or as having any interest in providing more than two dimensions for his characters, and those two dimensions are layed on as broadly as possible. why only 4 episodes?  there is very little treatment of any backstory aside from this happened, then this happened...no exploration of how events affected anyone and so very little sympathy engendered for any of the characters.  and they are, except the title character and the star crossed lovers, all reprehensible in one way or another.

i was so disappointed in the story itself that i'm not going into too much detail on the production which, while handsome, also seemed hollow. aside from dr. thorne, i've seen better acting in high school plays. even ian mcshane, whom i've always loved, is hamming it up like an easter dinner. it is as if everyone involved had to lay the archetypes (drunk, snooty, angelic, befuddled) on so thickly so the audience would "get it" immediately as there was not going to be time to develop these characters naturally.

i'm a prime member, so at least i didn't have to pay extra for this. such a let down.
1284553
As a big fan of Downton Abbey, I was disappointed in Doctor Thorne.  Despite Julian Fellowes introduction to the contrary, the character twists were pretty predictable to me. I have not read the Anthony Trollope novel on which the show was based so I can't say whether the novel has the same problems, but the series was mildly interesting. Historical fiction always holds some interest for me, as there are generally new details of information to be gleaned.
2726850
Amazon! For heaven sake, this is not a literary anthology!
3022542
First, a word to people who are wondering "what's all this in so many reviews about Terry Pratchett? Who is that, and why does anybody care, when this book is not by Pratchett-whoever-that-is?" The comparisons to the author Terry Pratchett are a tempest in a teapot; because both this book and Pratchett's are fantasies based on slightly skewed parodies of our Earth, apparently some folks expected them to have exactly the same style. If you're not already familiar with Pratchett's style, you can disregard all this blather and skip to the stuff that's strictly about this book on its own merits. (Although, who knows, you might want to try Pratchett, too.)

Okay, lots of people seem disappointed that this book isn't an identical clone of Terry Pratchett, judging by some of the other reviews. Get over it, people! Do you really want a world consisting only of Pratchett clones? Look at all the wretched imitations of Tolkein out there; do you want that? I am a Pratchett fan, but that's not the only stuff I read; I like other writing styles as well. In fact, I read this book the same week as I read "Going Postal." I enjoyed them both, but they are both very different. I didn't expect them to be the same, and I wasn't disappointed. Kage Baker is starting from an entirely different place; her science fiction series about The Company is far more serious and more - "technical," I guess. I read this book expecting more Kage Baker, but in a fantasy vein, and I wasn't disappointed.

Let me point out that there are some similarities: the world view that humans are often stupid and overlook the obvious; that many people who try to help others tend to offer theoretical help rather than practical help, and so they ain't much help (Willowspear's sudden realization: "I've been teaching them meditation, when I should have been teaching them gardening!"); the view that some of the other species of upright featherless bipeds in fantasy may well be a better lot than humans - not in the sense of good, wise, elves a la Tolkein, but in the sense of more practical, more able to see the consequences of their actions, be they trolls or demons.

A few reviewers have commented on the rather extensive prologue, setting our stage. I liked it, and felt it was necessary; otherwise, later on, when Mrs. Smith is telling some of her history, you'd wonder why Smith doesn't already know a lot of this. You have to read the prologue to know that Smith gained Mrs. Smith sort of ad hoc as part of the family business, that she was a Mrs. Smith before she ever met him.

This novel features Lord Ermenwyr, who has appeared in quite a few short stories. In this book, he is still a teenager. We also meet a couple of his brothers and a sister whom we have only heard about in other stories. We acquire far more background about his unusual parents. The older brother, Erdway, really is a dolt.

Other things to like about this book:

*real estate developers as incarnation of evil

*supernatural cabbage moths

*demons run insurance companies (does that really surprise you?)

In short: it's not Kage Baker's Company series; it's funnier, and at least as well written. It's not Terry Pratchett; deal with it, you fanatics. It's an unusual fantasy with a happy ending and some inspired scenes along the way.