tylinti Best TV show about church building. Ever. Period.(To speak without joking - it has a certain type of naivety that is very charming and gives you a warm feeling. Actors did a good job, they are very natural and believable. It might not be historically accurate, it has flaws, but I think they don't ruin the viewing experience. I think it could be called a great ancestor of Game Of Thrones).

arunspurs What makes Pillars of the Earth click is its impeccable character building; Tom the Builder, Prior Phillip, Bishop Waleron, Aliena, Jack,William, Regan, Ellen- Every character competes for the other;Every character has a purpose; Story itself tries to draw parallel with certain Biblical aspects; One of the key is of course characters who represent the 7 DEADLY SINS;Some of the following could be up for debate;1) Wrath - William Hamleigh 2) Sloth - Percy Hamleigh 3) Lust - Regan Hamleigh 4) Envy - Alfred 5) Gluttony - Prior James 6) Greed - Bishop Waleron Bigod 7) Pride - King StephenPride & Gluttony are debatable, but in general,I believe this is a story of Good v Evil, depicted nicely; Casting is brilliant; Screen chemistry of actors portraying Jack & Aliena is unbelievable & probably one of the finest on-screen pairing everHad the production be on a far larger scale, like Game of Thrones, Pillars of Earth would have beaten it by a country mile by its sheer story line & characterizations; There are certain flaws in the making but I think it can be ignored because this book needed to be told in a TV screen and in fact, done well;10/10 for Pillars of the Earth (the novel) 8.5/10 for Pillars of the Earth (the TV series)

Armand each adaptation is a ball of expectations for its public. this is only a splendid success. because, after many historical movies, after series with great ambitions, it is different. precise, seductive, mixture between respect for novel spirit, realistic atmosphere, the best actors for each role. in last case, the nuances are all and the young Eddie Redmayne represents more than a promise. sure, at first sigh, presence of Ian McShane or Donald Sutherland seems be guarantee for a not bad film. but it is something more than a question of names. it is a remarkable work. this is its secret. and its great virtue. it is a smart invitation to read the novel. it is a clever key to Middle Age realities. at its end, it is just remarkable. and this fact is enough.

EL First of all, I haven't read the book, this is my opinion solely on the series. I do however plan to read the book, since many other reviewers praise it so much.I guess it was a mistake to watch this right after I finished watching Game of Thrones. This is NO Game of Thrones. It is also set in the Middle Ages, but it is not "dark" enough. There is also some bloodshed, but it is nowhere close to the gore in Game of Thrones. And there is some sex in it, but again, that was more fairy tale -ish love, it was not really sexy...There are many flaws in this series, flaws that even someone not familiar with British medieval history, like myself, can notice. Stuff like how the dialogue got so out of place at certain points it made me laugh. Or how after Aliena and Richard are stripped of their title and castle, Aliena decides to make money by working as a merchant. So she just trades fur and just gets rich. Like everybody else around was just stupid and didn't think to work and earn money. She, a woman in the Middle Ages, a princess who had never worked in her entire life, could just do it.Another thing that bothered me was that the actors did not look convincingly medieval, they looked like modern people in an odd setting. I am not sure why... Maybe their make-up, or the way they talked, or the way they carried themselves in general? I cannot really place it, but they felt odd. Especially Ellen. Every scene she was in felt like I had just found Waldo! Not to mention the fact that they weren't aging... The plot covers something like 15 years, yet Ellen looks 30 when her son is 18, and 30 when her son is 30. Another problem with the casting was Alison Pill as Maud. I kept waiting for her to start playing the drums or something! She looked nothing like a medieval Queen.Moreover, this is a clear case of the good guys fighting the bad guys. The bad guys' sole reason of existence is to do bad things to the good guys. Why? We are given some reasons in the beginning, but at the middle of the series I had to try and remember what the reasons were. They seemed to do "bad" things because they enjoyed being mean. And the line "who do you hate the most?" just stresses this. It was like the Queen in Snow White asking her mirror who is the prettiest. The villains in this series are equivalent to villains from a Disney movie. No depth and no character whatsoever.The story revolving around the character of Richard also gives many opportunities for "whaaat...?"s. He was a total coward at first and then miraculously turned to the greatest knight in the kingdom, all because he went to train in France. How exactly did this happen? Then he fought for King Stephen, the one who executed his father for treason. Instead of Maud, the one his father tried to help. And so on.Why I gave this a seven then? Well, despite its flaws, I actually enjoyed it! I liked the many different character plots connected around the building of the Cathedral. Every time I visit a medieval Cathedral I wonder and try to picture its story... How it was used originally, how did they manage to build it. And I know this is not a historically correct answer, but it's a perfectly suitable fictional one. And as far as television making goes, this had a little bit of everything: numerous characters to like or dislike, love, fighting, treason, plotting. And okay I admit, I do have a soft spot for Eddie Redmayne. Even though his character comes out a bit inefficient at times, if not stupid.This is light entertainment, not history, and if you are looking for a fun way to spend a few evenings, it is a nice choice. Not a great one, but good enough.