User Reviews

It is an excellent show, great playing, costumes, soundtrack, scenography. But it has a very disappointing ending for those who expected a real Austenian transposition.

I absolutely loved series 1 apart from the ending definitely had me in tears but I do hope series 2 would turn it around and see our heroine Charlotte get her man which is Mr Sidney Parker. But overall great first series and made with fantastic actors who I loved playing the characters. Also series 2 would be great as lot more story to tell.

They took the germ of an idea, characters partially developed, and twisted it into a travesty. This took a very normal appearing Austen outline and made it as dark and wicked as possible.

All the tropes are there. The poor gentleman's daughter heroine and the arrogant rich love interest. His family is filled with stock characters: silly siblings, the elder brother who is a lovely man but is ruining his family's fortune with foolish investments. There's the cranky old rich woman who meddles in her relative's lives as well as those of her circle. The young, romantic girl destined to ruin herself. The handsome but lowly young man to attract Charlotte's fancy for a time. There all there. Unfortunately most of them are deeply unlikeable outside of the Parker family.

The heroine, Charlotte lacks every aspect of a gentlewoman. The love interest, Mr. Parker is fiery tempered with violent public outbursts. There's absolutely no reason they would be attracted to each other. For the first few episodes they followed the typical pattern of misunderstanding and then becoming friends. Then they turned that on its head by having Charlotte be part of Parker's ward's ruination.

There are step siblings in a quasi incestuous relationship, Charlotte seeing Parker nude and not being embarrassed, but bantering about it and so many anachronistic events your head will spin. There's a random sexual encounter between cousins outdoors, discussions of childhood sexual abuse, just everything an Austen novel is not.

I kept hoping they'd get this back on track but sadly, no.

They could have chosen to do this story using original characters and I have no idea why they did this. It's as bad as the adaptation of Mansfield Park made a few years ago that had the father of the family depicted as a rapist.

I delved into this series on accident. It was a random recommendation from a tv show website. I'm generally too cynical for rom coms or Jane Austen films, but this seemed like a decent way to pass the time. I was expecting to sit in my bed with my hot chocolate, huddled in a pile of blankets, rediscovering hope in love and humanity... or something like that. We'll just say it didn't go as expected.

The first few episodes were a bit slow, but that seems to be Austen's style. I had the feeling that we were building up to something, which one would suppose to be Charlotte and Sidney's happily ever after. We were building to something, but something perhaps a bit more realistic--- sacrificing one's love and future on the altar of familial love. Needless to say that I'm guessing it's all a ploy to get a second season, but in any case I'm preserving my Austenesque escapism by pretending that last episode never happened.

The good points of this show were numerous. The acting was quite good, even from Theo James. Boy can act--- now please apologize for all those horrid films you tortured us with, like "The Benefactor" and "Divergent". Perhaps Sidney's miserable marriage to Mrs. C is a form of atonement. In fact, all the roles seemed perfectly cast. Miss Lambe was especially interesting as a spunky addition, and I enjoyed immensely when she broke out into was it pidgin or creole?

The bad parts, however, are also quite numerous. Parts felt ripped straight from Pride and Prejudice. Then again, all that forced dancing would probably get to the best of us. Parts seemed trite and too modern like Charlotte's ability to play cricket (and win!). Some of the scandalous parts would probably have been more appropriately hinted at, rather than splayed on the screen in all their scandal. Also, the ending. What can we say about the ending? Life is hard enough. Don't rob us of our expected Happily Ever Afters in the interest of getting an as of yet unsure second season!

All in all, it wasn't bad. Without a second season, it's not one I'd be keen to recommend. There are too many loose ends as of yet.

Why does Miss Lambe still insist Sidney is a bad person? Why didn't Miss Lambe or Susan donate money to preserve Charlotte and Sidney's happiness? Why didn't token proletariat bricklayer seize the opportunity to bare his soul? Why did Sidney happen to know houses of ill repute in London seemingly well? Why does Mrs. C want to marry someone who doesn't love her anymore? Why don't they let their brother rot in debtor's prison? I mean, the first rule of adulting is to buy every kind of insurance available. If you don't, you'll catch ebola and die alone outside of the hospital. Or your city will burn down. Something like that. So why not let him suffer the consequences of adulting like most of us do?

So while the series was captivating and fun, it did have its weak points. But everything happens for a reason. Perhaps this happened in order for us to get another season, or perhaps it was a warning to never fall in love with sulking gold diggers who ride horses and wear odd hats. They may seem fun to date, but they're not going to marry you, honey. Or perhaps it's better this way... Sid and Nancy ended in tragedy. Sid and Lottie is a much smaller tragedy by comparison.

So I am sure I am amongst the millions who initially worried that Andrew Davies had done a disservice to Jane Austen by finishing what she started in a decidedly more modern tone. And as for the ending, well, I think steam was rising from the UK on the night it finished as we all self-combusted with sadness and rage and love.

But, may I say on behalf of myself and those I know who don't use social media, that really all being said and done this was a truly exceptional piece of drama. Well cast, well acted and (cough) well written. Davies wit, aptitude to blend Austen's era with the requirement of a modern audience and subtle literary weavings as a nod to Jane and a nod to the plot, are outstanding. Watch again to realise this.

To conclude, This is surely only the beginning of Sanditon. For we: the saddened, the cross, the down-right disapproving and the delighted would all like another 'go' at this one. First class. A second series would draw us all back like moths to a flame.

If the old saying was 'Those who cannot do, Teach' the new saying should be 'Those who cannot do, adapt' Andrew Davies after his success in adapting Pride and Prejudice (1995) for the BBC became the go to man for adapting Jane Austen and other historical novels, has been criticised for unnecessary, anachronistic and sexualised content into some other adaptations that has irked Austen purists, but nothing could compare to an Andrew Davies let loose on an unfinished (in fact, hardly started) novel. Not only has this suffered from the anachronisms and sexualisation that plagued some other adaptations, it also suffered from being derivative, in some cases not even bothering to hide its attempt to reproduce the dynamic between Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet but unfortunately with characters lacking the character and wit of the originals and romantic leads lacking the charisma and chemistry of Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle.

The anachronistic dialogue was cringeworthy, I am all for simplifying and reducing some of the more flowery prose that passed for regular conversations in 18th/19thc. novels, but this was not just simplified, it was fairly modern, with idioms taken right out of modern day and first names used in an inappropriate way between people hardly acquainted. Did Emma ever call Mr. Knightly anything other than Mr. Knightly? A man she had known since childhood? NO! And yet, this production had people using first names after a very short acquaintance even between the sexes.

I consider myself a lover of bawdy comedies, restoration plays and 'Carry on' level comedy, I am by no means a prude, sex is a part of life and sexual attraction vital when it comes to romance but the blatant sexualisation of the relationship between Sir Edward Denham and Miss Clara Brereton seemed like a slap in the face of Jane Austen's legacy. It wasn't necessary. She wouldn't have done that, this was not Austen, it was pure Davies.

I can see clearly that ITV are looking for another historical soap opera to replace Downton but THIS horror of a production is an abuse of Jane Austen and her writing, taking female characters with integrity and making them subject to modern middle aged male mindsets with offensive female stereotypes and blatant copies of earlier characters such as:

'Rich mean old lady. 'Rebellious stupid teen who away for true love and instantly gets in trouble and needs to be saved.' 'Angel put upon ever supportive wife with no personality' 'Innocent but spirited ingenue saved from rape by romantic lead' And let us not forget 'Miss No really means yes, so please, don't take no for an answer Denham' (Because this is exactly the type of messaging we want post 'Me too')

There are other problems related to this production unrelated to the appalling script, namely the production design, for example, who decided to have Charlotte Heywoods rats nest hair loose in every scene except the balls? Is she a child or a prostitute? No. She isn't, yet a respectable ADULT daughter of a Gentleman farmer should NEVER be seen like she was, the scene where she goes to give her condolences to Young Stringer made me want to claw my own eyeballs out, her hair looked unkempt and ridiculous in that bonnet. And no, I have no time for the old 'We wanted to show she was an unsophisticated country girl' BS. Almost ALL Jane Austen heroines are from the country. Women in the country knew how to do her hair and someone would have fixed that quick sharp. The idea that all those women let her walk around like that was unthinkable. She looked STUPID. Not innocent, not country-like, but moronic, as if there was something wrong with her. And the idea that she could possibly run off to walk around London at night, a girl who had never been to London. What? And of course, saved from rape plot device with perfect timing. Honestly, this was a gross neglect of duty by the Parkers and would have ruined a girl. I have to believe that Andrew Davies actually KNOWS this already and just didn't care because it suited the story and of course his attempt to make Theo James's 'I am supposed to be angry but look constipated instead' Sidney Parker, more heroic. And let us not forget Miss Lambe who was actually kidnapped and alone with a man who meant to steal her money and force her into marriage (but NOT rape her in the meanwhile to ACTUALLY force the marriage by causing her ruination? How noble of the kidnapper).

That love story was so weak and unrealistic and in fact the most realistic of this terrible production was the fact that Sidney Parker would have never married such a girl as Charlotte Heywood an obviously simple minded rebellious girl of low character who can't even do her hair.

I consider myself an historical film/TV buff who loves a bit of fluff and romance but I felt that this made my blood pressure rise and I was only hate watching it to justify this review because I do not believe in reviewing productions if you haven't bothered to watch it or pay attention.

If I could give this no points at all I would. If this stupid production ever came back for a second series/season I would lose ALL faith in British television which is falling ever quicker into the mire of appealing to the 'lowest common denominator' by simplifying historical adaptations in the hope of appealing to the Big Brother/Towie crowds.

Thanks for ruining Austen for us Andrew Davies. Please, someone stop.

Americans beware, save yourselves, don't bother watching this.