There's no denying that Armitage is a handsome man and Denby-Ashe is a lovely woman. Let's put that on hold, because Mrs. Gaskell is turning over in her grave.Un-Gaskelly, un-Victorian scenes (smelling of Hollywood, not London, and certainly not of Manchester!) are injected out of writer's caprice to motivate the characters more blatantly, to bring sensationalism into the mix for the viewer's consumption. The "railroad scene" ending that so entrances viewers is nowhere to be found in the book. Victorians simply did not display open, public eroticism, because it wasn't that kind of culture in those days. What a disappointment for modern audiences, who like nothing better than sex with a little violence thrown in for emphasis (Armitage's beating the employee in the early part of this dismal adaptation).Other reviewers have said the Margaret/John relationship was not developed, or underdeveloped, and right they are.The 1975 version, even with the liabilities of Rosalind Shanks' uncertain acting, crooked smile and meandering eyebrows (way too many close-ups of that lady as Margaret), is far, far better a telling of what Mrs. Gaskell intended to say. Patrick Stewart makes a believable John - morally straight, forceful, and attempting (nearly succeeding) to be a gentleman, as in the book.Not that the 1975 version is perfect. Margaret, whose graduate degrees in economics are absent, presumes to know how to run a mill successfully, and pontificates frequently and ignorantly, but with sincerity, anyway. Furthermore, the 1975 version omits Leonard's recognition of Frederick at the train station and consequent legal problems for Margaret - but it is one thing to omit, and quite another to fabricate, as the 2004 version does.Norman Jones is appropriately intense and mellow, as the situation calls for, and overall much better as Higgins in 1975, although Brendan Coyle has lots more sex appeal in the 2004 version.This 2004 version is pretty. Nice locations. Mill fluff ten times the size of true mill fluff in those days, so the viewer can take it seriously. But it does not deserve more than two stars, and that's for Sinead Cusack's rowing with the script oars she was given - she does an outstanding job with a flawed script. Her dad was the great Cyril Cusack, an actor's actor, catch one of his later roles as the gunsmith in "The Day of the Jackal."

From the title, "North & South," I thought this was about the American Civil War, but it is not. It is based on the novel by English author Elizabeth Gaskell, published in 1855. A minister and his wife and daughter, Margaret, leave rural southern England and move to the industrial north, to a mill town. The story is about their difficult adjustment, their friendship with cotton mill owner Mr Thorton, and Margaret's friendship with mill worker and union organizer Nicholas (played by Brendan Coyle, Mr Bates on "Downton Abbey") and his daughter Bessie, who is sick from "too much fluff in me lungs" (played by Anna Maxwell Martin, Esther in "Bleak House" and Elizabeth in "Death Comes to Pemberley"). The story is nuanced, and realistic, in that it shows the difficulties of running the mill as well as the hardships of the workers. The characters are three dimensional, not one side all good, one all bad. Richard Armitage is tremendous as Mr Thorton. Everyone in it is great. It is well done, but it is a very, very sad story until the very end. I haven't read the book, so I don't know how faithful the mini-series is. I watched it on Netflix, using closed captions most of the time, the regional accents can be difficult.

I've been wanting to watch this mini-series for a while now, but I never finished the book so long ago, so I felt bad. I really need to give the book a second chance and I will...thanks to this adaptation.Sooooooooo good. I loved the cast and I loved the story. I honestly watched all four episodes in one day, because I needed to know what would happen next. I especially loved Mr. Thornton...even though he was a butt sometimes - I may be biased because I adore Richard Armitage. I did want to punch Margaret though, because she was a pain and wouldn't be honest with Mr. Thornton. Just tell him the truth! GAH! It's so obvious he will believe you and not betray you, because not only does he love you, but he loves your father so that family secret matters not to him. Why can't people just be honest? I get not telling everyone your family secret, but I think the man you love and who loves you deserves the truth.Okay, I did feel bad for Margaret, because she had a nice simple life in southern England with the trees and the house in nature and her father decides to move them to the North for no real reason. The reason - once he tells - is stupid and not really worth the move. Perhaps, in the book they explain it more. We shall see. I am certainly glad that it took a while for the two to get together; it made the first kiss and acceptance of proposal worth the wait. There was a lot they had to work out and prove to each other, before they could get together. Honestly, I am glad they divided this into 4 parts, because they could add more story-line and explain more. Each character also got a good amount of spotlight. The revolt and the people involved got the spotlight it deserved and I'm glad they didn't cut out the dirty truth of the time period. People were being taken advantage of and not getting enough money. Even though they stood up and demanded more, Mr. Thornton was a man of his time period and refused to pay them. Like every romance-y story, he does have a change of heart, but it takes a big event...I will not say what happens, but it does change his heart and see Margaret's point of view. In the end, I am now super excited to give the book a second chance. This was a great adaptation and made me in love with the story. It is not a simple romance, but there are personal issues and society issues that keep them apart for a while. They do come together, but they earned it. They both had to change to be able to love each other fully. I am glad they showed the truth of the time period; there was good, but also people had to suffer and not get paid enough for their work. I recommend this to those that love historical fiction and romance. It is a good story. I stamp this with 5 stars. Favorite Character(s): Mr Thornton (even though he was butt at the beginning), Margaret (even though she deserved a slap for being dumb), Betsy, and Nicholas Not-so Favorite Character(s): Fanny and Hannah Re-watch?: Yes. It was good.

I'm almost ashamed to say that I did not like N&S very much after first watching it. Back then I probably compared it directly to the eternal BBC "Pride&Prejudice" - my period-drama-gateway-drug. Maybe I also watched the (german)synchronised version and that's never as good as the original - I don't remember. So the DVD was ignored for years. BUT THEN one day I watched it again (and numerous times since ;) and was very surprised that I found it truly engaging and very, very romantic. So it may be worth to give it another chance and (to all Germans:) pleeeaaaase, whenever possible watch it in the English original. I think everything else is already said in all the other review. I only want to point out that E. Gaskells work can't and shouldn't be directly compared to Jane Austens work (which I LOVE!). Gaskell emphasizes strongly on social issues and the story is told from different points of view. I also read the book by now and found it a little difficult.It's not a mere love story but focuses also on the above metioned social issues.But once I got into that, I really enjoyed it. And I like the story especially for the fact that we also learn about how John Thorton feels and thinks. Still, I probably would not have read the book unless I had seen the series before. So I'm, glad I did....