Critics’ reviews

Howards End (2017)

8 reviews from 8 publications. Critics’ score 72: 6 positive, 1 mixed, 1 negative.

Back to our review of Howards End

72
Positive
6
Mixed
1
Negative
1

Most critics welcome Howards End as a fresh, thoughtful adaptation, with praise clustering around the cast and the attention paid to people and ideas rather than period spectacle. Hayley Atwell is the recurring highlight, while the Schlegel sisters’ relationship gives several reviews their strongest reason to recommend the series. The dialogue, warmth and interest in women’s voices also earn approval, alongside a treatment of class and politics that most critics find relevant and humane.

The spread is wide, however, and the reservations concern pace and dramatic development. Some find the series overly stately or a central romance rushed. The i Paper admires the cast and sensitivity to Forster’s tone but remains mixed about the execution. Variety is the sharpest dissenter: it praises the performers, particularly Julia Ormond, yet finds the adaptation syrupy and messy, its final hour mishandled and its humanity diminished.

IndieWire
5 April 2018 · A · Ben Travers
95

Travers praises the adaptation as lively, incisive, and timely. He especially singles out Hayley Atwell’s joyful, compelling performance as Meg.

Read the full review →
The Hollywood Reporter
3 April 2018 · Tim Goodman
85*

The reviewer finds this adaptation fresh, focused, and successful on its own merits. They especially praise Hayley Atwell and Philippa Coulthard, whose performances make the Schlegel sisters the retelling’s compelling heart.

Read the full review →
Evening Standard
2 November 2017 · Johanna Thomas-Corr
80*

Thomas-Corr calls the adaptation an intelligent, handsome period drama that speaks compellingly to contemporary concerns. She praises its sharp dialogue and thoughtful focus on ideas, especially women’s voices.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
4 December 2017 · Sam Wollaston
80*

Wollaston finds the adaptation thoughtful, humane, witty and bold, despite its lack of a rollicking finale. He especially praises its portrayal of Margaret and Helen’s relationship and the focus on people and ideas over period spectacle.

Read the full review →
Vulture
6 April 2018 · Matt Zoller Seitz
75*

Seitz finds the miniseries a subtly audacious, fresh adaptation that mostly delivers and grows more distinctive as it unfolds. He praises its nuanced treatment of race and class, while noting that a crucial love story feels rushed.

Read the full review →
The i Paper
12 November 2017 · Jeff Robson
55*

Robson finds the adaptation overly stately, though he thinks it could become one of the BBC’s finest literary dramas. He praises its cast and its warm, perceptive capture of Forster’s tone.

Read the full review →
Variety
6 April 2018 · Sonia Saraiya
30*

Saraiya finds the miniseries enjoyable but ultimately a syrupy, messy adaptation that lacks the source novel’s humanity and subtlety. She praises the cast, especially Julia Ormond, while criticizing the final hour’s sloppy handling of key reveals.

Read the full review →
The Ringer
28 April 2018 · Alison Herman
80*

Herman finds the adaptation charming and empathetic, showing that people divided by class and politics can still connect. She particularly praises Hayley Atwell’s performance and the restrained way the series conveys its characters’ growing intimacy.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate