Tweekums I watched Neverwhere when it was first aired on the BBC in 1996 and really enjoyed it, I was rather disappointed when a second series didn't materialise. When I spotted the series for sale on DVD I had to buy it.Being made for television at a time when good quality special effects were too expensive some scenes don't look as good as they might now, thankfully the creators seem to have realised this and kept the effects scenes to a minimum instead relying on underground locations to give the series its atmosphere.Richard Mayhew is an ordinary London office worker who's life is changed when he stops to help an apparently homeless woman. He soon learns that she is Lady Door, a resident of London Below, a strange shadow world who's inhabitants pass barely noticed amongst the people of London Above. After helping Door Richard finds himself trapped in this world; his friends and even his fiancé barely notice him and when he confronts them directly they have no memory of who he was. With nowhere else to go he heads into the sewers of London Below trying to find Door again.Richard isn't the only person seeking Door, she is also being sought by Messrs Croup and Vandemaar, two sinister assassins who have already killed her family and appear to want to do the same to Door. There are several other interesting characters, some who help Richard and Door, some who hinder them and others who are not what they appear to be.The story uses the various parts London to give names to characters in a delightfully literal way, Hammersmith is a blacksmith wielding a hammer, The Angel Islington is literally an Angel called Islington and Earl's Court is where the Earl holds court. The actors did a good job, I particularly liked Laura Fraser's portrayal of Door and Hywel Bennett and Clive Russell as the two assassins.I'd certainly recommend this short series to anybody wanting to see something a little different and likes fantasy drama.

invadertwinkie Yikes.First of all, I would like to say that unlike many people here, I apparently am on of maybe 3 people who are capable of reading the BACK OF A BOOK. Yes, kids. When we are the slightest bit vigilant instead of gazing with gaping maws at a television set, we notice things.THIS IS A SERIES THAT SPAWNED A BOOK, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. SERIES FIRST, BOOK SECOND. Get it? Now that that is out of the way... I was one who picked up the book first and then went to the series. I had great interest in tracking it down to compare the series with my imagination. My boyfriend, in his kindness, found it for me and bought it as a gift.With all respect to his kind endeavor, I almost wish he hadn't spent the money.After crafting characters in your imagination from reading a book, it is expected that your perceptions will not measure up with a visual/audio representation of the same. I was shocked to find Richard to be a clumsy fool who is painful to watch, let alone sympathize with. Door becomes a character with little to no mystique about her, far removed from my perceptions of a charming and oddly elegant ragamuffin. Similarly, the bravado of Hunter is turned into that of a psychotic cave woman, with the brilliantly deadly Croup and Vandemaar far less like their "wolfy and foxy" counterparts that I had dreamt up which amazed and terrified me.That aside, I do realize that there is little sense in comparing the latter to the former and expecting to have something made *BEFORE* the previous medium I had read be considered the thing to be changed.It is for this reason that I beg people who have seen the series to not give up on Gaiman. His novelization of this series is far superior in terms of storytelling, character development, presentation, etc. I do have to say that it was a darn shame to have all of the beautiful characters I had imagined and the intricate world that captivated me so reduced to this. PLEASE read the book if you want a better presentation to a wonderful story. This truly would be unwatchable if it weren't for Gaiman's inventive story and charming dialogue, even if it is utterly butchered by mediocre acting and very poor budgeted sets.All in all, please read the story if you want a great adventure and steer clear of this series unless you are unshakably a Gaiman fan.And I DO mean unshakable.However, if you did get past all of the above problems and loved it still, I highly recommend running headlong from you television sets and diving in to American Gods, The Sandman, or any of the other fine written works of Neil Gaiman.In short, please, just save yourself the time and money and read a book.

Leester37 Neil Gaiman is a genius. I have read the book and immediately sought out the miniseries.Since it was filmed in England, it has that very TV-movie-ish quality, (but that's what it is, so I'm not going to complain too much.) I really thought all the actors involved really brought to life the characters, and it was great to put some faces to some characters.The story is quite possibly one of the smartest I've ever seen. They really do keep it close to the book (or the book is close to this....I or whatever.) Check it out if you like British Humor/Dr. Who type stories, it's up that alley just abit.

reduxredux Neverwhere is a good concept hampered by inept handling on all fronts. Though a little gothy (as opposed to Gothic) for my tastes, I was willing to appreciate the story of a second London existing below and alongside the proper one, and the intrigue that happens there. Unfortunately, there are easily fixable slip-ups at every point in the production.One: the acting is ridiculous. Not hopeless, necessarily, but it is melodramatic and theatrical when it should be subdued and forceful. Case in point: the two main villains are silly when they should be chilling. It is especially bad when anyone has to act as though experiencing extreme emotion, as during Richard's ordeal.Two: the writing; specifically, the dialogue. A world like this should enfold as we are immersed in it. The characters should emote through their mannerisms, not their tortured diatribes. Look at Dark City for a similar movie that was handled expertly (save for the terrible ending).Three: the direction. It is compared to soap opera direction on this site. I agree, but I would add that it is unforgivably bland beyond belief. The underground setting alone should be overflowing with great shots (and indeed many of the sets look wonderful; it is the way they are used that wastes them). Look at City of Lost Children for a movie with a similar setting that looks appropriately beautiful and eerie. The fight direction is also amateurish, as when Hunter fights the Black Friar.I think that the best thing to happen to the SF/fantasy genre in recent memory is the explosion of special effects technology. Movies like Jurassic Park, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Narnia, et cetera, have show us that it is possible to fully realize a foreign world. Do I expect a 1996 BBC production with a budget that wouldn't feed the crew of those movies for a day to be able to compete? No, but it does seem like a waste of time to have tried to do it without the resources necessary. Neverwhere is not as disconcertingly podunk as the BBC Chronicles of Narnia (think the letter from the wolf in the first installment), but it is in the running.I'm sure that Gaiman apologists or pale Wiccan wannabes will disagree with my assessments, or my comparison to films with much more talent and money involved. Unfortunately for them, the last twenty years have shown us that anyone with enough drive and vision can make a movie with next to no budget, such as Primer or even Cube, which maintained its otherworldliness with one square room and enough of another room to make it look like there was another cube beyond it. A minimalist fantasy miniseries, i.e. one involving a second London under London utilizing the underground tunnels, could work impeccably, but not when it is weighted down with boring light filters, ugly art design, grating actors, uninspired direction, appalling dialogue, and bad production. A waste of three hours, and innumerable effort on the part of the cast and crew.