The cast was an interesting one and would have really worked well with good material. And Nancy Mitford's 'Love in a Cold Climate' and 'Pursuit of Love' have quickly become favourites as mentioned in my review for the brilliant 1980 version.Sadly, while it is not awful or unwatchable this 2001 version hugely disappointed. There are some big pluses but more even bigger minuses, mixing it very mixed as a standalone. This said, while this reviewer is always for judging adaptations on their own terms rather than book-to-book and other adaptations comparisons there is always an occasion or two when the source material or other adaptations are so good that it is hard to not make comparisons. Felt the same way with the two versions of 'Women in Love', of which the book is a masterpiece, the 1969 film every bit as much and the 2011 version underwhelmed.Despite the negative tone, there are things here that are done well. Although slightly lacking the cosiness of the production values of the 1980 adaptation, the production values are really top-notch. The interiors, locations and scenery are sumptuous and atmospheric, the costumes are elegant and the whole adaptation is beautifully shot. The music is similarly evocative and is not overused or over-scored. And there are some very good performances here. Alan Bates comes out on top with a delightfully contemptuous performance as Uncle Matt, with Sheila Gish not far behind as eerily iron-willed Lady Montdore. Celia Imrie, Anthony Andrews and Frances Barber are strong though not with an awful lot to do. Of the central female trio of Linda, Polly and Fanny, whose performances generally were swamped by those in the supporting cast who came off well, while perhaps too beautiful Rosamund Pike is the only one of the three to stay true to her character (managing to make the least interesting character of the three in the books the most colourful and likable) and does so with real charm.Not all the cast work however. Daniel Evans in the very truncated role of Cedric really overdoes the flamboyant nature of the character, and it came across as more embarrassing than funny. Megan Dodds comes over as hollow and fails to do very much with Polly, while Elizabeth Dermott Walsh is more (rather too much so) frivolous than rueful. The rest of the cast fail to register in very underwritten and colourless roles, even John Wood. The two main problems with this version of 'Love in a Cold Climate' are that it is too short, at only two and a half hours whereas seven or eight would have been better, and too rushed as a result of trying to cram in so much story in a short space of time. Adaptation-wise, it fails to capture both the details, what there is is too truncated and underdeveloped so it comes over as confusing for a first-time watcher, and spirit of both books. The bare bones is there, the meat isn't.It also could have balanced the humour and pathos of the stories much better. Generally, there isn't enough humour and the adaptation feels too overly-serious and one-note. 'Love in a Cold Climate' gets light-hearted and more frothy as it proceeds and 'Pursuit of Love' darker, the 1980 version achieved this wonderfully, but this adaptation missed the point. What there is of the humour fails to sparkle and is too heavy in timing, the froth is mawkish and the darkness and pathos lack atmosphere and genuine emotion. It was a mistake also to run the stories of both books concurrently than in sequence, because it did make things confusing and it caused some very abrupt and jarring tonal shifts.All in all, a huge disappointment though with some merits. 5/10 Bethany Cox

One could say that this attempt to adapt Nancy Mitford's two most notable works for television just suffers by comparison to the very successful 1980s attempt, but it would not be true. The fact is this miniseries is simply atrocious.The problem lies with one word - literary. Mitford's works are superficially about extreme characters (full of charm and idiosyncrasies), but are, at their core, about language and how it reflects the times, relationships, and society. Her stories - The Pursuit of Love and Love in a Cold Climate - unfold gently, and, while the books are luxurious in their story telling, not one word is redundant.So, while adaption of other authors' works can involve stripping everything away until you have the plot, and then building up from there, an adaption of a Mitford work must involve taking the whole piece and then carefully trying to determine what may safely be removed. The creators and writers of the 1980s series understood this perfectly, and those of the 2001 series did not.As a result, in the 2001 version, events and characters seem disconnected and - with no histories (which in the previous version were often offered via the endless discussions that occurred between characters) - certain characters are inexplicably mean, frivolous or stupid. The actors, who have nothing to work with, seem to flounder, and often look embarrassed (they were hired to do a Pride and Prejudice, and find they are doing a cola commercial). Only Alan Bates reaches the end of the this adaption with no, or little, egg on his face. I bet many involved in this terrible project have chosen to leave it off, or at least downplay it on, their resumes.

How can you take an eccentric literary masterpiece, a deceptively casual work of brilliance and manifest it for the screen? Not like this, that's for sure. This three-hour yawn is a hopeless attempt to skim through two books, taking much of it literally from the page and condensing the rest very badly. As usual, the television establishment decide to invest in a classic British period drama adaptation with a painting by numbers approach. All the right locations, props and costumes, but no imagination. This is one classic that needed a mammoth feat of creative interpretation to work. Hopeless, hopeless, hopeless. It's just like British cooking, chuck all the correct ingredients in but don't bother to make it taste of anything. They missed the point entirely. Love in a Cold Climate is about Love. Do we understand why each character loves Linda most of all, with her sweet, sweet nature, her unselfconscious extremes of passions, her infinite compassion for animals, her devotion to love above all else? Are we terrified by Uncle Matthews blue flashing rages? Seduced by Sauveterre's immense, sexy charm? No, no, no. None of the characters are well portrayed, despite a largely excellent cast (particularly Bates, Imrie, Gish, Andrews and Pike). In fact it was only saved by a handful of good, experienced performances in spite of the abysmal direction. The rest were unguided and out of their depth. Despite its condensed nature, the whole thing plods along desperately slowly, and yet gives no substance to anything. It just ticks the necessary boxes, stolidly covering this important plot point, clumsily marking that amusing event from the book. How could they have made everything so boring and dull? Funnily enough, this was the one thing they were supposed to do with Tony Kroesig - of course he seemed rather baby faced and charming. It all comes across like a school play, distinctly amateur, strictly one for our Anglophile cousins.

Having read both of the books that this mini series is based on and recalling the excellent 1980 mini series, I looked forward to this new version with enthusiasm.I have to say that on the whole I found it very disappointing. It certainly covered the bones of the story, but due to its short length, missed out on much of the humour in the original stories. It certainly looked good, casting was excellent, the period was conveyed very convincingly - but, because virtually none of the characters were properly introduced, I kept wondering "just who is this person". Anyone unfamiliar with the story would have found it confusing most of the time.This was obviously not a cheap production, what a pity they didn't spend a bit more and do better justice to one of the classics of twentieth century fiction.