ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

PlatinumRead Just so...so bad

SpunkySelfTwitter It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Longshot356 The music is lazily anachronistic. Nothing else seems to have been given any more attention. Lacks style, drama and narrative. Characters are paper thin clichés, dialogue utterly predictable and inauthentic.Shockingly disappointing.Why are BBC attempts at this kind of thing always so embarrassingly inferior to their American counterparts. I refuse to believe we don't have script writers, actors and DOPs every bit as good. My suspicion is it has something to do with BBC management/ production.In all ways terrible.Off to reread Evelyn Waugh to get the bad taste out of my mouth.

ferdinand1932 While this makes every effort to appear genuine to the period, it is a superficial experience. The realization comes in the third episode when Lady Cremone (Bisset) says of a party that it will be "fun". Anyone who has read Mitford or Waugh, and Gibbons in "Cold Comfort Farm", knows that 'fun' was a banished adjective among people of that class in that period. It's something that the writer ought to know. And while the set design and costumes and overall production is glossy it's like a fashion shoot. That fact comes out in the lack of story and drama - nothing much happens and very slowly for a long time. It has a contrived and much smaller stamp to it. Certainly, it does not justify its time or structure. It might have been done much better in half the time.The music which ought to be central is not and seems of a decade later; in arrangement, style and solo voicing, unconnected to the early 1930s, false when matched against recordings of that time.As to the characters. They are standard TV fare, but only half-formed. They say things as ciphers in some mimicry of what real characters might have said in that period.

pawebster Good points: Matthew Goode was excellent in his role as Stanley. His character was original and he carried the show, in my opinion. Most of the others were all right and did what they could with the material. The story kept me watching and interested to the end.Bad points: It took place in a depopulated London (reminding me of 'Survivors' or 'Day of the Triffids') and never convinced me for a second that it was 1933. The tame music seemed very unlikely to offend anybody at that date, when much 'hotter' jazz had been available for at least a decade previously. Some of it sounded more like the swing music of the forties. Tom Hughes' character and acting was ho-hum. The hiding from the police became silly and unbelievable in the last episode.Like others, I cannot understand why the BBC think this director is something special and throw money in his direction. But it's worth seeing.

stephanie alden This new series has been trailed for weeks and the trailer certainly caught my attention so it already had a lot to live up to. I am pleased to say that it did not fail and I have very much enjoyed the first two episodes and looking forward to next week's already. Some of the music is quite exciting but I am not sure it is true to the jazz music which was being listened to in the early thirties but nevertheless very enjoyable. I like the casting,particularly the female roles and specifically Jess, Rosie,Pamela and the photographer. Jacqueline Bisset is excellent as is the Stanley character. Hope it maintains the momentum but it will be disappointing if Jess has been killed off already. Would expect to see more of Rosie as there must be some sort of love triangle to develop.