Who payed the critics

Brilliant and touching

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

The one thing that strikes you first about this series is how beautiful it is because of the brilliant cinematography. The series also makes the tale complex by introducing themes of colonialism, slavery, and class oppression. Though the plot is a comedy in the sense that the ending is happy, yet this happiness seems to be forced. This is because Mr. Wilcox is an out and out hypocrite, and yet Margaret and Helen ends up seeking his protection --a tragedy reinforced by the patriarchal society. The prostitute, Jackie is exploited by Mr. Wilcox. Mr. Wilcox hides from Margaret that she is the rightful owner of Howards End, and he is instrumental in the killing of Mr. Bast.Hayley Atwell as Margaret seemed a bit constricted, as did Joseph Quinn as Leonard Bast. I adored Philippa Coulthard's powerful acting in the role of Helen.

What cinematography! What costumes! What music! But above all, what a wonderful story, brought to life by masterful directing and acting. So nice to watch the story of two fascinating, strong, resourceful sisters, over a period of years. The men, of course, are useless, but I think that is the point.Marriage and pregnancy, two key and pivotal events in the life of the Schlegel family. Watch the subtle expressions of these two brilliant actresses; the beauty is in the fine detail of a raised eyebrow, the sweeping back of a stray lock of hair.You can't do better then to spend four hours of your life with this brilliant cast, this brilliant production.

Although I felt the 1992 film was so good that it couldn't be improved on, I found this TV version surprisingly good and the four hours hardly seemed enough to contain all the strands of the story. The acting was perfect, neither overdone nor underdone. As it happens, I live in Stevenage and know the location of Howards End well. The location used was somewhere else of course but I thought it was quite like the original could have been in 1890 when the author would have known it, and perfect for the purposes of the drama. I sympathise with the points people make about black servants and so on, but whether or not these exist in the book, they are certainly quite plausible for the time. The winner for me was E.M. Forster again, as it was in 1992, but I will miss the programme and wish there could be a sequel - perhaps another Passage to India. It's indeed a pity that Forster stopped writing novels so soon, as with his understanding of social mores and change, he would have been a good person to write about the 1930s or 1940s. The last hour was for me a blissful one.

Jacky Bast as an African women, racially mixed marriages in Edwardian England? I don't think so, especially since no one so much as raises an eyebrow. Not to mention the Schlegel's family doctor as an Indian man and the Schlegel's housemaid as an African women? Domestic servants in Edwardian England were white. Many scenes with carefully placed non-Europeans. This is supposed to take place in Edwardian England, not modern day London. Tibby Schlegel's un-Forsterian rant, comparing Henry Wilcox to Joseph Conrad's Kurtz in Heart of Darkness is ridiculous, if not subversive. I cringe to think of what's coming next, so I'll stop watching. It's so consciously politically correct that it distracts from the actual E.M. Forster story. The Schlegel women's strong, resolute personalities however are an important part of E.M. Forster's story. This is not E.M. Forster's though, it's a dishonest representation of Howards End and Edwardian England. For the real thing watch Merchant Ivory's beautiful and respectful 1992 film adaption of E.M. Forster's Howards End.