User Reviews

This series seemed to have everything going for it. I highly enjoyed Downton Abbey, which I'd heard had the same feel- showcasing the family as well as the servants of the house, I absolutely adore Claire Foy, and it looked great in all the teasers I saw. Unfortunately, I thought it was a disappointment.

I don't know if it's because it had the misfortune to be aired so soon after Downton Abbey or what, but I couldn't help comparing the two. I just felt this one paled in comparison. Honestly, it was pretty good…but not great. I don't know if I would think more highly of it if I saw it first or not. I'm inclined to think not, but I'm really not sure.

I'll say one thing I loved about the show- the look. It was gorgeous- the sets, the costumes, the production values were all top-notch. Claire Foy has always been beautiful (and looks great in period clothing) but I have a soft spot for '30s fashions (my favorite part of the 2005 King Kong was the costumes and scenery as well!) and she really shined more than ever in them. I found myself so envious at times and wishing I could look just like her…silly I know. Her character wasn't very nice, but she sure was pretty.

The main point against this show was the lack of likable characters. Jean Marsh was pretty forgettable, which I found surprising, given her history with the show and her performance as Mrs. Ferrars in Sense and Sensibility. I've never been a big fan of Keeley Hawes and she gave the usual blah performance here. It's not that everybody was bad or anything, but most of the decent characters were simply not very memorable.

The other big problem was the storytelling itself. There were a good bit of nice moments throughout, but the whole was less than the sum of its parts here. Everything seemed to move too fast- the character development and everything just didn't seem believable to me. One minute a man and woman are fighting, the next they're in bed, the next they've broken up. A new character is introduced, given a backstory, and killed off in the same episode. Everybody's got all these issues but then at the end everything gets all wrapped up with no explanation.

Maybe with a new screenwriter, the next season could be an improvement? I dunno. I would probably give the show a 6/10 as it is. It wasn't terrible. It had some nice moments and was a beautiful production. Unfortunately, it's not good for the sets and costumes to outshine the actors and story.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and NOT compare this series to the original. I've never seen the original, so I really have no basis for comparison.

IMO, the new US/DS is an enjoyable, if flawed, production. Yes, the musical score _can_ be a little overbearing at times. The acting ranges from fair to good, with no real standouts but nobody really dragging things down either. And as a whole, the servants seem a highly unlikely bunch, even considering that they are being hired "on the cheap." (The exception here was Adrian Scarborough as cruise line Steward-turned-Butler, Mr. Pritchard). The show's saving grace, for me, is that it depicts a part of British history that is usually overlooked - the nation's flirtation with Fascism and the rise and fall of Mosley's British Fascist Party.

I understand and agree with (to a point) those who complain about characters entering and leaving the series too quickly. What must be remembered, however, is that at the time of production, there was no certainty of ever having more than 3 episodes to work with, so plotting was necessarily going to be a bit rushed. I would hope, now that a second series of 6 episodes has been ordered (and possible additional series seem likely), that they will be able to relax the plotting a bit and give the characters time to develop before killing them off.

Overall, I'm looking forward to the next series, but see a considerable amount of room for improvement.

OK I have a theory why there was no episode 3 of this series. I have just watched it for the first time in September 2017 on DVD. My theory is firstly BBC should never have just called it Upstairs Downstairs as i believe some of the viewers thought this was a continuation of 1971 with same or similar cast. WRONG. Its nothing to do with 1971 series only apart from one link Rose Buck.

The first series of 3 commissioned for Xmas 2010 did well and consisted of 3 episodes.

The second series was shown on Sunday 2012 and BBC pitched it up against Downton Abbey, I mean seriously? Now that was a stupid idea. The ratings started to plummet what did they think would happen.

Its really sad, as I enjoyed season 1 it covered some upsetting things, and i actually cried when the Jewish children turned up at the railway station for new homes, as it was so poignant and it really happened.

The series was SO different from the original of 1971. I think BBC should have called it Upstairs Downstairs a new beginning.....or something similar.........

Season 2, six hours well i loved it, kept me interested and i was really upset when it finally completed. Intrigued, scandal, spying, death by suicide, so many things covered the acting was brilliant, and Art Malik a total joy. I loved the fact they brought in a young person with Downs Syndrome to play the part Sarah Gordy was brought in to play Pamela Holland, what a joy. Her mother had told her brother she had died of a fever and was subsequently shut away in an asylum that is what they did in those days sadly but at the end of series 1 they met up again.

The series covered the beginning of the second world war. It was nothing like Downton Abbey or the first Upstairs Downton as the time was very different 1936, and the way people were was different too, servants had more say and they were not kept under-stairs like the other series, they even had rights.

Please don't watch it and think its any of the above series as it isn't. The Holland are so different, they hired Rose Buck who seemed to have left the Bellamy service from 1971 and started her own agency. Sadly there were issues in season 2 which may have caused a few issues for people as Jean Marsh had sadly had a mild stroke in filming and a lot of the series had to be hastily rewritten. Although for me it didn't stop me enjoying it, and I did cry at the end.

I cant believe that BBC decided not to commission a series 3 because it had lower ratings, what did they expect like i said putting it up against Downton. I actually enjoyed this just as much.

If they commissioned season 3 now i think it would go down really well as there are no real costume dramas or good dramas at the moment, perhaps it is time to resurrect it and re show it. Everyone i know who has watched it has loved it.

At least it finished without leaving us up in the air which is something. I wont give out much of the plot you need to watch it.

The rise of Fascism,the persecution of Jews and the abdication were key to our society in the 1930s and they are viewed in "Upstairs Downstairs" through the eyes of the occupants of an imposing residence in one of London's best addresses. Crucial to the first series being re - shown on "Drama" is the redoubtable Miss E.Atkins as the matriarchal figure. Irredeemably "posh" and late Victorian Empire builder she may be,but she's no fool and can sense weakness in both her son and his wife which she sets out to eradicate by subtle and not so subtle means so that the status quo can be properly maintained. Her equivalent below stairs is Miss J.Marsh who has more compassion but is equally determined to maintain the status quo amongst the servants. Between them the house is run just about a well as it could be in such turbulent times. As Mr Stoppard and Miss Hawes seem out of their comfort zones it falls to this veteran pair to carry the show,which they do,at least when one or other is on screen. Butler aside,the servants have unfortunately little to flesh out,and should have been told to watch the rapport between the domestic staff achieved by the performers and writers of "You rang,me lord?",an exemplary combination of skill and experience. I prefer the new "Upstairs Downstairs" to the pretension and overacting of "Downton Abbey",but I'm pretty sure that puts me in a minority. The sheer quality of these shows stood out on a cold dark winter afternoon in Norfolk and nothing on TV the rest of the day came even close to equalling them.

While I agree with most of the author's assessment of the new US/DS, I wanted to comment on a few things mentioned regarding the original series. When Edward came to dinner at 165, he was already King, not the Prince of Wales. Richard Bellamy did not marry his secretary. It was his son, Captain James, who married Richard's secretary, Hazel. Not all of the servants resented Hazel for marrying "above" her class. Rose rather liked the idea and supported Hazel, the new lady of the household. Richard did eventually remarry - to a widow with 2 small children. Also, it was the son, James, who gradually declined following WWI. The brevity of the new series so far (3 episodes) is simply not long enough to adequately develop a character or even to get to know and understand a particular character. Hopefully, there will be more episodes to improve upon what has been started. The personalities do seem to be rather superficial and shallow, almost to the point of being caricatures. But in reality, the shorter and fast-moving productions reflect the preferences and viewing habits of younger audiences. For the rest of us, thank God for Netflix.

The previous reviewer 'marspeach' seemed to find the pacing of the production hard to swallow.

"A new character is introduced, given a backstory, and killed off in the same episode. Everybody's got all these issues but then at the end everything gets all wrapped up with no explanation."

I think marspeach would like all characters to 'last' for at least 2 episodes? What a seemingly arbitrary reason to dismiss an excellent production which handled a great deal of drama quite effortlessly in three one-hour episodes.

And as for the need to have 'everything wrapped up with no explanation'? Explanation of what???! If drama does not provide an explanation by sitting one on its knee and patting one on the head then should one's toys be thrown out of the pram? Actually I would disagree and say that the story lines are believable and compelling and do not end abruptly, and leave one wanting more. I would strongly advise anybody to watch this series.

After the first season I couldn't wait to see what was on the horizon, but the show took a sordid twist early on in season 2 that was simply sickening.

And even though those things happen who wants to dish that up and enjoy it? What were the writers thinking?

I found this serious over ten years after the fact but enjoyed it immensely. I am a huge fan of period dramas, and this one was done incredibly well. The writing and acting were superb. My only real complaint is that it came to an end way too soon. I also wish that Eileen Atkins would have reconsidered her decision to leave the show and her feisty character, Maude.

I was and am a fan of Downton Abby, even though I think it was somewhat of a rip-off of the original Upstairs Downstairs. However, I have to say that, in my opinion, Upstairs Downstairs 2010 was the better show, and it should have been given the chance and seasons it very much deserved!

I agree with the reviewers who were disappointed with the new series. It has little of the charm or true sense of time or place of the original series - who needs a monkey sitting on the dining room table? Supposed to be funny or culturally inclusive? Didn't work for me.

The new series lacks a true historical perspective - instead we are being fed a 21st century version of how things 'ought' to have been or might have been if 21st century people were alive back then. There's blood and violence - splattered blood no less -, rebellious servants, the lady of the house eating fish and chips bought by a servant - give me a break! And then, as someone else pointed out the damn music is all over the place, even when the 'rebellious' girl servant is taking off her gloves to reveal her nail polish we are fed dramatic cords . Silly...I give this a fail.

But I have loved this later version so far. I've loved the story lines and the casting, though I always regret the absence of Eileen Adkins after season one.

Having been a big Fan of the original series and lets face it the Producers in using the Title and music had I am sure hoped to cash in on the very strong loyal following the original series had.In my opinion they could have done so much better by including some of the original cast Anthony Andrews & Lesley Anne Down as Lord & Lady Stockbridge their inclusion in the new series would have shown some continuity and would been a great addition along with Rose to come back to take up residence at 165 Eaton Place as their country home.I wish the Producers would have given this some thought as I feel that a wonderful opportunity has been missed to have that connection between both series.