This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

A very strange drama. The main protagonist is an incredibly shrewd and cruel villainess. She is Becky Sharp without charm or kindness. Strange how the lives of so many are destroyed by the narcissistic passions of people who tout empty ideals of 'freedom' and vague artistic aspirations. Compellingly and somewhat incomprehensibly, the plot turns on not only on Irene, but other minor characters who are truly hateful and manipulative. And yet, I gather the audience is supposed to find their antics sympathetic. I am not sure if the greater flaw is in the casting or the direction. Damian Lewis is great, though.

Comparisons between the 60s version of this splendid work and the latest one are difficult because they were both great. I have really enjoyed the last version especially as regards the performances of Damian Lewis and Gina McKee.One previous contributor said that he found himself almost liking Soames which 'we were not supposed to do'. Is that right? Galsworthy intended The Forsytes to be representative of the upper middle class with some bad aspects - arrogance, lack of sentiment, conscious always of their respectability - but also with a positive side - sturdy, determined, ambitious, but ultimately concerned with ownership and property. Soames is an extreme example of his kind, to the extent that he regards people - especially his wife - as potential property. Irene, on the other hand, represents the new force which, along with the effects of WWI and the rise of the Welfare State, nationalisation etc will soon overthrow the old order.Superficially at least, Soames is the villain. He appears to terrorise his wife, physically abuses her and more. However, is there another side to this? Irene marries him quite cynically for materialistic reasons. It's not merely a question of 'not loving' him. He positively makes her flesh creep right from the start. We are given the idea that she is forced to marry him by her stepmother and by her poverty. Force her?? As the story goes forward, we see that she is a strong character - no-one can force her to do anything. Her poverty? She has £50 per annum from her father. This might not seem a lot, but it was about what an artisan earned in a year at that time (on which he was expected to keep a family). Despite his treating her as property, Soames does love Irene in his way and he does try his best to give her what she wants. In return she is openly unfaithful to him, denies him children and even conjugal rights. As regards his bad treatment of her, she certainly returns the compliment in kind. She could be looked on as something of a vampire - she sucks the life force from Soames and old Jolyan and wantonly destroys the happiness of her friend June and Bossiney (though admittedly he goes along willingly). As regards her own son her hatred of Soames tempers her dislike of Fleur so even her son is badly affected by her force of character and neurosis.I think Galsworthy, as well as writing a simple commentary on Edwardian and Victorian life was also trying to divide his readers into factions - the pro-Soames camp who like the old ways, and the pro-Irene (the 'new woman' camp) who wanted change.Whatever, I have to congratulate Gina McKee. She carried off that complex character of Irene so well. Her enigmatic Mona Lisa smile, did it display goodness? Or the opposite? I'm still not sure

But gratified that this stunningly "realized" cinematic re-creation of the Galsworthy classic, one that truly merits the reference, scores an 8.6 overall. It's actually better than that, but more than several peers of equal merit have scored lower, undeservingly. Without reading most of the comments from peers and betters, I simply wish to record mine own, subjective and biased? input here, to wit: Whereas the "original," black-and-white filming is likely "superior," or at least closer to the author's vision and intent, I doubt not that the "present" version is equally "superior" technically and in many subtle AND obvious ways to its predecessor. That said. and the likelihood of the original Soames being better "cast" and fuller in film-flesh, it seems to me that Adrian Lewis somehow still manages to project, pinched nostrils and all, the underlying "character" of this "man of property" and child of Imperial Brit moralities and values. He and the remaining points of the psychosexual triangle that lies at the base and heart of Galsworthy's eminently sophisticated and observant appreciation of his peers and times, Gina McKee and Ioan Gruffudd, darn those Celts, are, each in his and her own persona way, essentially inauthentic to character and period?, yet somehow, the trio, by the agencies of excellent scripts and direction, manage a more than convincing and audience-involving dynamic. Together, they fascinate and move the viewer to vicarious identification AND the true test of any theatrical, catharsis. That said, the true and stunning performances are those of the scion of a British royal family of the theater, Colin Redgrave, and relative newcomer Rupert Graves. If there have been finer cinematic performances anywhere, I would like to see them, Redgrave especially. His "Indian Summer" passage is heart-warming and gut-wrenching, down to the twirl of his moustache, and Graves fulfills the promise of his early essay as the fiery-eyed gay gamekeeper in "Maurice." All in all, how could anyone carp at this astonishing "picturization," and a "moving" one at that, of a time and a place and a covey of English "birds," in the bush as well as the boudoir? I, for one, can't.Addendum. After yet one more viewing, even semi-deaf and clouding vision, I find myself moved to amend. First, of course it's CORIN Redgrave, whose elegantly bravura performance is literally nonpareil. Second, misogynist I must appear, BOTH Gina MkKee and Gillian Kearney more than match their male counterparts, the former in a "loveliness" that launches the adoration of fou doughty men, and the latter a cheeky "liberated" woman who would do honor to an Annie Besant. Adrian Lewis, too handsome here for his own portrayal, nevertheless is "heartbreaking" in more than a few scenes, the lack of pallor in his sickbed scene more a matter of makeup. And, finally, both Stephen Mallatratt's scripts and dialog, and Christopher Menaul's direction are, in a word, superb. And each episode maintains both pace AND tenor AND bite. The fact that the "modern" generation of Forsytes fail to match their progenitors is, after all, simply "anticlimax," for the tale peaked before the latter "coda." That noted, this "Forsyte Saga" is an artistic, creative even, benchmark, like Bergman's "Fanny och Alexander," for future pretenders to the throne of cinematic royalty. And each and every single "featured" and "bit" player struck this viewer as close to perfection as possible. Overboard? Likely. But I am certain it is warranted.

Am at a loss to understand why John Carlisle's name was omitted on the cast list for this mini series. His is a key role, since he plays the father of Soames, James Forsyte. I'm seen him at Stratford-upon-Avon, in England in major roles such as Theseus in A Midsummer's Night's Dream and others. Shame.He has also played characters in Shakespeare's Cymbeline, is an outstanding graduate of the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art and has had extensive stage appearances in London and New York. Add to that his numerous appearances in television and you have it. His golden voice has been heard on numerous occasions and audiences have come to identify his work with excellence.