SnoopyStyle It's A.D. 1120. A royal ship with the only heir burns and sinks. This leads to a long war known as The Anarchy. The king only has his daughter Maud. 18 years later, the Kingsbridge priory is in disrepair. It's a world of political intrigue, powerful church, corruption on all levels, power grabs, medieval economics and the building of a cathedral.The start is a bit scattered as it has to follow many characters in three different story lines. This mini-series can be boiled down to bad things happening to good people. The great thing about this is that it digs deep into the medieval world. Most shows would be satisfied with big battles and warriors. This actually makes the construction of a cathedral compelling. This is filled with solid lesser known actors. Some of them would become big stars in coming years.

VaticanAssassinWarlock I really enjoyed the first 6 episodes of this mini series but found the last two very weak. Overall I thought it was one of the better historical dramas I have seen. The series has a very book-like pacing and even though a lot of it is understated, the show always gives you enough to fill in the blanks. It has excellent performances, all the main cast are superb. I was hoping for something a bit more historical (like I, Claudius) but by the second episode I had become invested in the characters and the motif of the growing cathedral was very effective. The battles were well executed and mostly existed to service the plot, the costumes and the use of SFX were all very high quality. I liked that it didn't rely on moralising or pandering to 21st Century mindset. It's true that Aleina was too much of a modern 'girl power' archetype, but her suffering and situation were sympathetic and interesting enough to negate this in my opinion. A modern series would have been all about (spoiler) her rape; in this series, though it did play a major part in forming her character, in terms of her actions she pretty much just accepted it and instead focused on something far more meaningful to somebody of that time: her sense of duty to her family and the restoration of her brothers title. The series didn't divide characters into heroes and villains, most of the characters had elements of both and all of their actions can be interpreted in relation to the show's broader themes. Although the villains are a bit two-dimensional, the heroes are all very flawed and the show does not rely on poetic justice to dumb things down for us. This is a terrible world in which awful people (i.e. people) do terrible things to each other. The show is more interested in how the characters deal with this than it is in punishing or rewarding them so that the simpletons in the audience can boo or cheer appropriately.These are my feelings up to episode six anyway. While the last two episodes weren't terrible, I think the show undid a lot of the above. It becomes less interested in looking at how the numerous characters react to complex historical events, instead it begins to appeal to the lowest common demonstrators. The villains motivation becomes even less clear, while we are encouraged to cheer for the heroes doing heroic things without asking us to think about why. The fact that Jack is able to build a wall and hold off the roaming bandits for a few minutes solves absolutely nothing, but we are told to cheer because yay victory music. Why would this make any difference to William? Oh but now he's *spoilered* his *spoiler* so that whole subplot is apparently wrapped up. The 'mystery' elements of the show were always its weakest so when the White Ship and Jack's ring become the focus, the whole show suffers. That the final trial becomes all about Jack's father and resolving the uninteresting and contrived mysteries of the show is such a cliché and it just doesn't work her because they were never what the show was about. A much better ending would have been to return the focus to the historical framing of the series. Show what happened to the king, to Maud's invasion, to the world they were living in, because these are far grander and more interesting than seeing a bad guy fall off a building or the love interests getting married (in a more character-based show then yes, a character based climax is more rewarding, but this show was always about the world and how our characters relate to it than merely about the characters in themselves!).Overall I would rate the series 8/10. It's a shame it didn't finish what it started, but I still think it's one of the best historical dramas in a long time for all the reasons listed in my first paragraph. Better than the silly The Borgias or The Viking, obviously not as good as Game of Thrones.

berlyvonne First let me say that my review has nothing to do with the cast. Follet's novel is indeed epic with rich character & scene development that is nearly impossible to fully translate on screen. I'm an avid reader & movie lover so I completely understand if certain story lines may not translate on screen, or a superfluous scene is written as a means to arrive at the same conclusion etc. However, too many liberties were taking with the storyline to the point that I starting referencing my e-book...I never do that sort of stuff! King Stephen's delusions and obsession with Jack. Jack showing up in scenes where he didn't belong & his surprising resurrection irritated me the most. Also the storyline with Empress Maude, Robert of Gloucester & ransom/child issue was unnecessary. My critique may be too harsh and imperceptible to a viewer that hasn't read the book.

CurledAngel As a huge fan of the book, I had great expectations for the on-screen adaptation of a novel offering such a huge potential. What a disappointment it has been! The cast does not match any of the descriptions in the book. The story has been cut down to such an extent that it is no longer the same story. Facts have been changed or are simply missing. Basically, the writers of this TV adaptation re-wrote the whole thing to their liking but certainly not to mine.For example, Jack is turned into a strong courageous and very assertive young fellow with rather good looks instead of the weak and not so good looking boy in the original story.They have also cut all the erotic content that spiced up the book, which is also a huge let down obviously.The story telling is left to be desired as the dialogue has also suffered from heavy cutting. The whole thing struggles to make any sense and only if you have read the book will you manage to understand what is going on.The pace does not reflect the real time line at all. For instance, at no time do you feel any of the despair the family felt from starvation at the beginning. Their journey was long and extremely difficult. In this adaptation, it feels like a mere walk in the park.In a nutshell, if you have loved the book, you will hate this adaptation. If I were in Ken Follett's shoes, I would be very upset with the result.