You won't be disappointed!

Simply A Masterpiece

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Season two is even better! Why only three episodes though?

Our family so much enjoyed "Cranford" from 2007, and could hardly wait for the "Return to Cranford" to be available on DVD. It is another winner! The cast and crew of these 2 video presentations are wonderfully talented and have presented excellent works. Heidi Thomas surely did her homework in setting up the dialog... the costuming was extraordinary... the music lovely... the acting was superb! We especially appreciated the roles that Michael Gambon (Mr. Holbrook), Judi Dench (Matty), Julia McKenzie (Mrs. Forrester), Imelda Staunton (Ms. Pole), Lisa Dillon (Mary), Claudie Blakely (Martha), Andrew Buchan (Jem Hearne), Simon Woods (Frank Harrison), Alex Etal (Harry), and Tom Hiddleston (William Buxton) played. I do believe that these actors have a way of speaking volumes with their eyes that adds so much to their acting skills. And Miss Pole's little maid, Bertha (Hannah Hobley), was priceless in her part, as well. All the characters did great jobs in providing us with exceptional entertainment. We laughed & cried...were surprised and even shocked at some turns of events, but all was very well presented. We highly recommend the works of Sue Birtwistle, Susie Conklin and Heidi Thomas, incl. "Pride & Prejudice" (1995), "Emma" (1996), "Wives & Daughters" (1999), and "Cranford" (2007 & 2009). We hope that they keep on producing those Jane Austen and Elizabeth Gaskell novels. We are anxiously awaiting to hear that they will be making a "Cranford III" in the near future!

The series lack historical sense and is a typical effort of reworking 19th century themes in order to make them more palatable to 21st century taste. But why not stick to adapting contemporary fiction then? First the short-story "Lady Ludlow" takes place much earlier than "Cranford", in fact during the French Revolution. It's one of the "historical" works of Mrs Gaskell. Besides this, the character Lady Ludlow is already old-fashioned for those times, particularly in her opposition to "lower classes" learning to read. The short-story is both full of light irony (very Austen-like) and pathos (though a long melodramatic story within the story about the French Revolution mars it a little to my mind). But Lady Ludlow becomes annoying in the TV adaptation, because she's no longer in her historical time but transported to a much later time, at least 50 years later, where her prejudices become utterly ridiculous. She and the other people related to her tale seem artificially grafted into Cranford and simply do not belong.As for "Mr Harrison's Confessions" which as a short-story is absolutely hilarious, I find the series only produced a pale imitation of it, only mildly amusing at times. Besides, if, in tone and period, it blends more easily with "Cranford" than "Lady Ludlow", Sophie's characterisation and her father's underwent a great change to make them acceptable to 21st century prejudices. For instance, since he's a clergyman, he has to be bland and cold in the series, yet he is presented as a sort of worthy example in the short-story: a type of the upright and balanced Christian who sometimes appears in Gaskell's fiction. In the short-story, the death of Walter is very moving and depicted as the death of a Christian child with Christian hope. Why was this turned into another occasion for questioning God's mercy and will in classic 21st-century fashion? This shows a total incapacity to even begin to understand the Christian beliefs of the time (which are still held by some). What a pity adapters cannot see that 21st-century pet theories are in no way superior (or more logical or more consistent or indeed more interesting) than those of previous times.

If you thought that North and South 2004, Bleak House 2005 and Jane Eyre 2006 were heroic steps forward in period adaptation you are absolutely going to adore this. I'm hoping, on the strength of the first episode, that we may be about to ascend new heights.Liberties are taken. The material is being reinterpreted for the screen with a dashing disrespect for fidelity that is bound to offend those critics who watch screen adaptations with their Everyman edition on their knee but what Thomas has done here is bring the spirit of Gaskell and the humour of the age (specifically northern humour), magnificently to life.Eileen Atkins' performance alone will carry this series to every Award ceremony worthy of attention but there is so much more you may be left agape with wonder or clapping your hands with glee at the stories surrounding Cranford's womenfolk, many condemned to spinsterhood by the Napoleonic Wars. And there's much more still to come.You won't see the novel reassembled piece by piece, but what you'll get instead is a mordant, hilarious, moving, masterpiece of the art of adaptation and a brilliant cast extracting every last every drop of juice from the fruit (sucked separately, of course).Cranford is vibrantly alive and kicking as it never has been before. Bring on the rest. If you please.