If you love George Eliot's writing you'll love Mill on the Floss as a book, because it has everything characteristic of what makes her books so pleasurable to read. Because the characters and situations are so complex, her books are not easy to adapt at all and, despite being the book with the most adaptations, Mill on the Floss is not an exception to this. Of the two versions I've seen, this and the 1978 version both are worth the look but neither do the story justice completely. It's difficult to tell which is better between the two because they have similar flaws and strengths, but as 1978's resonated more emotionally that gets the edge. There are a great many things that are good about this adaptation. It looks absolutely beautiful, the scenery is like looking at a postcard come to life, the production values are evocative and fit very well with the nature of the story and the beginning in particular is strikingly shot. Additionally the music has a genuine swelling richness that accompanies what's happening unobtrusively yet with presence, it's also unmistakably romantic. The ending is very divisive it seems, a lot are understandably going to feel short-changed(if I remember correctly some dislike the ending of the book too), it was very shocking and heart-rending to me. On the most part it is very well-acted, Emily Watson is exceptional, the spirit and delicacy are all here and she makes an effort to explore Maggie's complexity despite the writing not matching her. Bernard Hill and Cheryl Campbell are fine as the parents and James Frain allows you for feel repulsion and pity for Phillip Wakam without manipulation. The adaptation is faithful to the book and it was a good move to excise some of Eliot's musing and moralising, which would have been patronising to some.Not all the performances work, Ifan Meredith is rather dull and wooden as Tom which makes his and Watson's chemistry not as convincing as it should(the 1978 adaptation does it much better). Stephen Guest's annoying traits- that he's shallow and conceited- are amplified to extremities in James Weber Brown's performance that if you were there in person you wouldn't stand to be in the same room as him. The satirical characters are so bland that they're practically out of sight as well. The pacing and that there is little meat to the story and characterisations are the biggest problems. The adaptation is too short in the first place, which immediately does dilute the emotion and complexity, but it also manages to be both rushed and dull. Dull because whereas Eliot's writing is of the flesh and blood kind it is reduced to in some parts one-dimensional stereotyping(especially Stephen) and Maggie and Tom and their relationship are present but with no real substance. And rushed because the details are all there but a lot of it feels very jumpy and skimmed over that there is often not enough emotional connection. Situations happen but too often it is so skimming-the-surface quality that they are just there for the sake of being there with no proper reason or reflection. The scripting has moments where it provokes thought and shows evidence of Eliot's style but it is at the same time too cultivated and could have done with more flow. Overall, has good things but also things that could have been done better, with a longer length it would have been more engaging and powerful I feel. 6/10 Bethany Cox

Emily Watson is magnificent as usual in this film and typically makes it her own with her very presence. Not beautiful in the clichéd, typical Hollywood way, Watson sets the screen on fire with her fiery passion and electric sexuality. When she is in a scene, one finds it impossible to take their eyes off of her. Her eyes are captivating and those uniquely seductive lips fascinate. She is a superb actor and her art is aided dramatically by her sexual power. The viewer is overwhelmed by that sexual intensity whenever she appears. No other actress in the history of film has communicated fantasies of unrestrained passion by simply standing before the camera lens. In fact, the camera is hers to do with as she wishes, just as every man watching this film is. No, she is not fashion model beautiful. This is a real woman, a woman who as she progresses through her 40's is just reaching the epitome of her seductive magnetism now. Emily Watson is this film and it is all her. One star must be subtracted because other actors interfere too often with Watson and are really unnecessary to the pure enjoyment of Watson's fantastic performance and unwavering passion.

Its kind of like walking on a sandy beach, and finding a partially-buried skeleton of some animal. Some of the jumbled bones are sticking up here and there, but there's no meat on them. The book requires a much longer mini-series to do it any justice. Most of the action will be completely incomprehensible to anyone without a general understanding of the social history of the time. The production wastes an amazing amount of time on arty underwater shots.

Great locations, beautiful shots, good if not impressive acting (except for the exceptional Watson). The only thing this movie suffers from is the story itself. The script necessarily pares down the story to its essence - but a good deal is lost in the translation. George Eliot's intelligence has been all but wrung out in favor of a questionable love story between Maggie and her brother Tom.This is the kind of production that takes the points of the plot and hits you with them scene by scene - bang bang bang. At the beginning, we are promised a truly artistic treatment with shots of the mill itself and the beautiful English countryside. But by the end we are bombarded with events without reflection and character motivations that are baffling. It's like watching someone write a sentence out on lined paper - realizing that there won't be room to fit it all on one line, the letters get smashed together towards the end so there is no punctuation, no style, and no white space at all.