"The Forsyte Saga" is a term vaguely applied to a multi-novel series by John Galsworthy. It turns up a lot in old book sales. The thing was first filmed as an Errol Flynn flick then remade in the 60s back when British television was all videotape or badly filmed exteriors--and its soap-opera plotting kicked off the American love of all things "Masterpiece Theater"-ish. I haven't seen either of the earlier versions, so I can spare you any comparisons.On with the show."The Forsyte Saga" is a saga indeed. It's chock full of Forsytes, a family that must be the size of the House of Saud. Apparently in the dead center, Damian Lewis plays Soames, a pennypincher talked into building a house for 8000 pounds by Ioann Gruffudd, playing a rising architect. Well, apparently they didn't have laws protecting consumers from predatory contractors as Gruffudd's architect robs Soames blind, producing a house for more than twelve thousand pounds. It's hard to like people like that.Not only is Gruffudd siphoning off all Soames' money, he's seducing Soames' wife, and she falls for his charms, even though the rat is engaged to her best friend (who introduced them). It's hard to like people like that.Soames wants to keep his wife so when he learns about her affair and her plans to leave he hopes to win her back--misguidedly--by FORCING his connubial affections on her. It's hard to like people like that.By the end of this interminable saga, one is left musing on how much dynamite it would take to blow up all those Forsytes. It's amazing Galsworthy could create so many characters and not have one of them I'd invite into my home . . . apart, perhaps, from the jilted fiancé, who, since she was also abandoned by her father for her governess at an early age, is the only Forsyte who might deserve being warned about the dynamite charges laid under all the rest.As with the thieving, scheming architect, no expense was spared on the project. So if opulence is your bag, this is a big, creamy, decadent desert. But it left me with indigestion.

An astonishing piece of television, over ten years on. I saw the 1967 series as a - very - small child and enjoyed this one when it was first broadcast in 2002/3(?), then again in recent months (2014). I am utterly blown away by its brilliance and skill. To précis the books (which I adore) and leave no gaping holes or subtlety out is an extraordinary achievement by the writer, director and their team.The cast is pushed way beyond the usual costume drama pomp or 'let's make it contemporary' tricks to convey the era without sacrificing realism.I have to mention the Jolyons - Old &Young - played with exquisite accuracy by Rupert Graves and Corin Redgrave:you won't see more moving or natural portrayals in anything else on TV. Almost every performance - however minor - is worthy of note, whether for its accuracy, its ageing, its humour or its ability to move me to tears (I was so drawn in by these people, I blubbed & laughed a lot in every episode).The make-up, costumes and interiors were painstaking & sumptuous; funerals, jazz & garden parties, Robin Hill, billiard rooms, boating lakes and London parks all so heart-breakingly beautifully realised, you badly want to be there!My only - picky - criticism is that the reverse side of some characters doesn't emerge until series 2... heroes and villains remain strong stereotypes throughout series one and part of Galsworthy's brilliance is his ability to dissect personality so it wrong-foots you just as you've established an opinion. But blimey! Honestly, this is phenomenal television and without question in my Top 3 series ever &, like Superman and the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, I actually believe the Forsytes exist somewhere out there. In fact, like some weird soap opera fan who can't tell fact from fiction, I want to meet the Forsyte freak-show and be their friend! I love it, recommend it and will repeatedly re-visit it.

I looked forward to seeing what modern film makers would do with one of my favorite literary projects, as well as the granddaddy of the mini-series, the impeccable Forsyte Saga. My disappointment as I viewed this insipid, sophomoric mess beggars description. This version feels like a cheap imitation, with dreadful costumes that look as though they came from a jumble sale. To call this garbage an adaptation of Galsworthy's towering literary achievements seems akin to calling a TV dinner an adaptation of a meal served in a five-start restaurant. While the current performers have talent, they are never allowed to show their acting chops, as they struggle to move beyond the horrific script and pathetic production/direction. Annihilating more than half the elder Forsytes, especially the amusingly agoraphobic Timothy, and the middle generation, such as Francie, the composer of those droll little ditties, insults not only the author, but also the audience. Clearly, the writers and producers feel contempt for both, as they imply modern audiences must be too stupid to follow such a large cast. One would think they might at least have included Roger's character, since he is George's father, or Timothy, as Ann, Hester and Juley share his house. Playing with the characters' ages so shamelessly proved equally absurd and irritating. Swithin and James are twins; Swithin dies at 79 during the early 1890s, according to Indian Summer of a Forsyte, but in this TV adaptation, Swithin strangely makes an appearance at James' 90th birthday party, which of course would have been Swithin's 90th, too. Likewise, Galsworthy's Aunt Hester lives until her mid-late 80s, whereas in this production, she seems to outlive the unseen Timothy, the youngest Forsyte, who is last of the elder clan members to die at the ripe old age of 100+ around 1920. One can only call such lapses sloppy, lazy writing/film making. This new version also takes inexcusable liberties with Galsworthy's characterizations. Galsworthy paints his main characters in shades of grey; many are neither good nor evil, but rather simply human, with all the attendant flaws of humanity. This production paints young Jolyon, who is referred to as Jo in the books and original series, and Irene, in a much worse light, in the sense that it unforgivably softens Soames. I haven't read the novels in many years, but when I skimmed some of the early chapters of Man of Property, I found what I expected: Galsworthy offers many hints about the grim, relentlessly possessive Soames, who is described as detesting sunshine. Irene should have known better than to marry him, but the books describe Soames as having finally worn her down on his fifth attempt to propose in the face of some unpleasantness at home. Irene hoped she could handle Soames more easily, but the more she withholds herself, the more desperately he grasps her. He wants what he wants, and the older he grows, the more he wants. Galsworthy describes Jo as a good-hearted person, despite his mistake of leaving his first wife to run off with Helene, whose streak of melancholia/mental illness these writers inexplicably ignore. I never felt Galsworthy censuring Jo, Helene or Irene. The author focuses upon his characters' responsibilities versus their needs, as well as the ravages of time and change upon the entire Forsyte clan, from the second generation to the youngest. Ripping this essential quality from the mini-series sucks the life out of it. Series one and series two become reduced to pure melodrama, without a larger scope. Series Two especially goes overboard by over-softening Soames. It also violates the rules of good story-telling by having Monty live far longer than he did. Monty died in a fall down the stairs after playing baccarat in Paris long before 1920.

As the previous post said a truly excellent cast and a superb adaptation of the book. I was very young at the time of the original 1960's series, so can't remember too much. I therefore sat down to follow this production with interest. Damian Lewis was absolutely outstanding as the cold, emotionally barren Soames. One British reviewer commented that his portrait of Soames made you feel pity for the character - absolutely not! It was it seemed to me a very accurate portrayal which is a testament to his ability as an actor. It was the first time I'd seen him in anything but his performance ensured I would in the future watch him in anything first time without question. Apart from Dreamcatcher he hasn't put a foot wrong.