Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

A 10 part adaptation is pretty rare these days, and this one certainly does justice to Tim Pears' book. The story of the Freeman family over 40 years is a sort of latter-day Forsyte saga, but a good deal rawer and less genteel; more like Thomas Manns' Buddenbrooks, perhaps. The film medium is exploited to the full and the literary origins well hidden. There is some wonderful photography, especially at night in and around the Freeman's ornate mansion. Seen mostly through the eyes of middle son James (Shaun Dingwall), whose solace is photography, the story is told in a very visual way, despite the occasional voice-over. Most of the acting is totally convincing, Robert Pugh's overbearing father, the doomed mother (Helen McCroy), screwed up kids each carrying psychic wounds despite the affluence and big Sunday dinners, and the servants, who play a crucial role in the family history.Behind the family story is the historical background, particularly the social and economic changes in Britain since the Second World War. We go from the Macmillan Era ('you never had it so good') to the industrial conflict of the Thatcher years ('there is no such thing as society'), and we see the migrant influx and its effects and the decline (or at least loosening up) of the class system. But the family story is central here; a number of things contribute to the unhappiness but identifying them is not always easy. Simon (Tony Maudsley, brilliant), the oldest, being both gay and not suited for business is obviously going to have trouble with his father, who sees him in dynastic terms, and Simon, with artistic rather than practical abilities is not going to get on with him either. But it is not easy to explain Robert (Stuart Laing), the wildest and most destructive brother. He just seems bad from the beginning, and grows up worse. The daughters, for some reason, are less troubled.Just why family relationships grow or wither is one of life's eternal mysteries, but it's certain they are not static, a point dynasts like Charles Freeman cannot grasp. They see families as extensions of themselves when in fact the members, like all of us, are water boatmen in the river of life. The emotions generated in this series ring very true, and remind us how little of our destiny we really control.

This was an almost perfect work - the writing and the acting but also the camera work, the production design and the directing. It is a pity that the BBC didn't promote it more vigorously. They must bring it back soon and make sure a much wider audience see it. You simply don't get TV of this quality any more. It sets a yardstick by which all other TV drama will be judged for the next few years. It is extraordinary that all those concerned suddenly appeared - and produced this beacon in a sea of TV dross. The only previous credit I recognised was the Cameraman for the hugely underrated film "Ratcatcher" - which I also recommend.ANTHONY PERRY