Doctor Thorne (2016) User Reviews

Thoroughly Entertaining and Whimsically Humorous Trollope Adaptation

[l_rawjalaurence · 8/10 · 27 March 2016]

After a slow beginning, during which time the story unfolds in a series of shot/reverse shot sequences accompanied by Ilan Eshkeri's rather obtrusive music, Julian Fellowes's adaptation of a lesser known Trollope novel proves extremely entertaining.

This is due in no small part to the eternal conflict between money, power, and love that underpins the plot. Pauper Mary Thorne (Stefanie Martini) loves rich Frank Gresham (Harry Richardson), but their path towards true romance is perpetually blocked by Frank's avaricious mother Lady Arabella (Rebecca Front). Add to the mix a drunken baronet (Ian McShane), and his even more loutish son Louis (Edward Franklin), with designs on Mary, not to mention a slob-like nouveau riche man Mr. Moffatt (Danny Kirrane), and we have the perfect recipe for a series of conflicts between characters of different generations and different socio-economic groups.

At the story's heart stands the eponymous Doctor Thorne (Tom Hollander), a basically good-hearted person with a penchant for protecting those less able to defend themselves against unwonted social criticism. Director Niall MacCormick uses the close-up to good effect, showing Thorne's suppressed emotions in the most difficult situations, which only boil over once during a dinner party when Louis unleashes a volley of drunken insults at the entire company.

Fellowes's script is not without its humorous elements, especially in the comic opportunities given to Lady Arabella and her equally avaricious sister-in-law the Countess de Courcy (Phoebe Nicholls). Like a pair of aging dowagers they stride through the Gresham family seat, knocking everything and everyone aside in their attempts to break up Mary and Frank's affair. However they get their comeuppance in the end, when Mary's true social status is revealed. The sight of Lady Arabella's henpecked husband Frank (Richard McCabe) laughing fit to burst is one of the adaptation's most memorable moments.

Filmed in and around stately piles in Wiltshire, Somerset, and Hertfordshire, DOCTOR THORNE convincingly recreates a world of rigid socio-economic divisions where everyone was supposed to know their place and accept it. The fact that Doctor Thorne refuses to conform to his expected role gives this adaptation its dramatic impetus. It is only a short adaptation - 3 episodes of 48 minutes each - but it is extremely watchable.

Visiting Barsetshire with Anthony Fellowes

[ekeby · 7/10 · 22 May 2016]

Anthony Trollope's novels have been mined for TV productions for decades, so we shouldn't be surprised that Downton Abbey creator Julian Fellowes decided to take a crack at one. And he does rather well. Here's hoping he'll serialize Trollope's remaining Barsetshire books.

For readers of Trollope's novels (as with Jane Austen's) it can be a bit of a shock to see them somewhat sensationalized and in a necessarily condensed format. But the needs of present day audiences require it. Consequently, though, the result is often a sort of high-brow soap opera and Fellowes' Dr. Thorne is no exception.

However, the production is pretty, and the characterization right on point, if a bit over the top. Though for me, Ian McShane breathed life and depth into Trollope's somewhat one-dimensional Mr. Scatcherd. Alison Brie does the same for another Victorian cliché: the American heiress in search of a titled husband. With an ever-present smile, she makes Miss Dunstable's gently spoken directness seem downright raunchy. It's a delight to watch.

Why bother saying more. If you like the Downton Abbey genre, you are going to see this and you are going to like it. End of story.

Episodes 1-3

[annaavery · 8/10 · 23 March 2016]

I really enjoyed the first 3 episodes of this new BBC show. BBC has done it again, by taking a novel, and creating a wonderful script for a TV show. These episodes were an entertaining, and a frolicking, good story of romance, comedy and a bit of tragedy thrown in for good measure. This show has a great cast of actors that illuminate the characters with multi-faceted personalities. There is also amazing costume design, as well as wonderful locations and scenery. The music scores as well were very fun, and highlighted the intense, and humorous moments beautifully. I sure hope there are more episodes to come. I would be terribly disappointed if there was only 3 episodes in the mini series. :(

I couldn't agree more

[MovieIQTest · 2 December 2020]

"Unfortunately J. Fellowes fcerezo-9895014 January 2019 Yes, it would be a much higher rating if this Fellow is not at the beginning and the end of each chapter. I cannot stand him. Hope I don't have to skip every first 60s to avoid his introduction. It is a bad format. It is passé and it is a poor copycat of Osborne and others in TMC classics."

Jesus, this old guy should not appear at the beginning and at the end. Totally anti-climax (was there climax?). His image and blah, blah talking were like a man with three legs, not only weird but absolutely unnecessary. It's like after every Jacki Chan's movie, there were stupid Bloopers to show how the movies were made and how some actions were repeatedly tried and tried again again. These clips not only unnecessary but also ruined the movies we just saw. It's just so stupid!

Beautifully set but a disappointing race through and dilution of a masterpiece

[ToneBalone60 · 7/10 · 5 March 2024]

Trollope's third Barchester Chronicles novel is one of his best and whilst marriage is again at the centre of the plot he filled his novel with over 600 pages of craftily built mystery, deceit and psychological play.

Unfortunately a three 30 minute episode mini series cannot give justice to that. The twists are revealed to early, large sections of the journey are cut leaving a rather predictable and somewhat unfulfilling package for TV.

Mary is kept from ever meeting Roger Scratcherd in the book which is a huge part of the dynamics between Scratched and Thorne.

She only meets the Scratcherds after Sir Roger had died.

Here they have rewritten that which removes much of the intrigue and setup for the final will.

Beautiful settings with a collection of gorgeous country houses, a reasonable bunch of actors but they don't have a lot to be work with because the script is clumsy, not true to the novel and overall rushed.

Julian Fellows is better working with a longer series and this should have been written over 10 episodes.

Unfortunately Fellows also had a habit of delivering more soap opera than period classic. Hence much of the psychological drama of the original is replaced here with inane character behaviour and overall banality.

Andrew Davies is the master of squeezing eipc classics into mini series without feeling you've lost anything from the novel. He would have done a better job here than Fellows and McCormack.

Utterly Charming Tale Written by The SuperlativeTeam of Trollope & Fellowes

[gayleloveland · 9/10 · 24 September 2017]

----Kudos to Amazon for bringing to the screen one of Trollope's lesser-known tales...Rich in period detail and visually stunning, "Dr. Thorne" is a must-see for fans of period dramas, Jane Austen, and the Victorian era, in general....

---The acting in "Thorne" is uniformly excellent--bringing together an ensemble cast that brings Trollope's tale to life...The story is both universal and current: love, loss, jealousy-- and secrets---underpinned by the all-important quest for riches...

---I particularly enjoyed Julian Fellowes' introductions to each episode--giving us his take on both Trollope and his characters; this was an excellent addition to an excellent screenplay (penned by himself)....

---I can only add the hope that Amazon will produce many more of such tales---utilizing the fabulous skills of the inimitable Fellowes.....Most Excellent!

Sweet but shallow

[Dykumu_Ugnis · 6/10 · 11 August 2023]

The opening scene with what looked like a bad CGI background almost made me give this show up. Yet I was in a mood for a British period show so I did not. What followed was a sweet, nice show, even somewhat engaging, yet as the same time completely devoid of substance.

For most part, the actors did deliver what they had to deliver but there wasn't much for them to deliver in a show full of cardboard cutouts.

The show basically has no spirit, no message, just some nice locations, pleasant cinematography, tidy people and a story we have seen too many times. I now want to read the novel and see for myself whether the novel is also so shallow.

Anthony Trollope triumphs once again

[robert-temple-1 · 10/10 · 21 March 2016]

What would British classic TV drama have done if there had been no Anthony Trollope (1815-1882)? The whole television viewing public of Britain was swept up in all 26 episodes of the epic series THE PALLISERS (1974), which I watched again not long ago and it is certainly one of the greatest achievements of British television drama history, magnificent in every way. In 1974 everybody was talking about it and everybody was watching it every week, for half a year. Since then we have seen the excellent Trollope series adaptations of THE WAY WE LIVE NOW (2001), HE KNEW HE WAS RIGHT (2004), and now DOCTOR THORNE. The only Trollope series since the 1970s which failed to make the grade was THE BARCHESTER CHRONICLES (1982), which was so boring as to be essentially unwatchable. (It had previously been made into two series in 1951 and 1959, though they do not appear to have survived, so one cannot compare them. An additional 90 minute single episode attempt of this was filmed in 1961, which also seems to be lost. Other Trollope series from the early days also seem to have been lost, which is a tragedy.) Trollope brings the Victorian era to life in a way which is so vivid, and also so highly censorious, that we appear to be living in that difficult time when we watch these dramas. DOCTOR THORNE is a savage attack on Victorian aristocratic hypocrisy, venality, snobbery, and inhumanity. We are left wondering: we know it was bad, but was it really that bad? And we fear that perhaps it was. This series is dominated by the commanding performance of Tom Hollander as the idealistic Doctor Thorne, a dedicated provincial doctor in the English countryside who has quietly adopted and raised a niece named Mary Thorne, who had been born out of wedlock in mysterious circumstances. Hollander has always been an excellent actor, but now that he is a bit older, he has achieved gravitas and is even better as he 'matures' than when he was a young whippersnapper. He can easily carry a series in a lead role, which is no mean accomplishment. He is rather short and that was a casting handicap when he was young, but he has now entered John Mills territory, where for a mature actor height no longer matters. The series is full of spectacular performances by the usual top calibre British cast. Rebecca Front, so well known from the series LEWIS (2006-2014, see my review), and also the recent series WAR & PEACE (2016), manages to make herself so odious as Lady Gresham that we want to hiss, and her unctuous arrogance is so perfectly judged that it never goes over the top, no matter how extremely far her bigotry and snobbery may extend. It takes a lot of skill to stop just short of being unbelievable in such a part. An unknown new actress named Stefanie Martini here makes a magnificent debut as Mary Thorne, and surely there is a big future in front of this actress, who previously had appeared only in a single episode of the series ENDEAVOUR in 2012 and nothing else. (IMDb contains no further information about her of any kind, so that one wonders whether she is a Trollope character come to life, who will now subside back into the novel and live the rest of her existence on the printed page.) Janine Duvitski gives a heart-warming and marvellous performance as Lady Scatcherd, the much-ignored little wife of the outrageously over the top roaring character, Sir Roger Scatcherd, played to the hilt by Ian McShane. Phoebe Nicholls is so cringe-making and creepy as the arch snob Countess de Courcy, that one wants not so much to hiss as to spit at her, all testament solely to the mastery of her craft, I do hope. A truly outstanding and absolutely hair-raising performance as Louis Scatherd is delivered by Edward Franklin, a sensational young actor making his debut on screen. IMDb contains no further information about him. He is totally convincing as a wildly drunken, bonkers young heir, and he is so scary one hopes it really is all pretend. (God forfend that one should meet him in a dark alley after he had had a few drinks. Did I say a few? In the series he never stops from morn till night.) There is plenty of poisonous sarcasm and social satire in this series, mixed with high emotion, and all forming a 'jolly good yarn'. Will good triumph over evil? Well, one thing is for sure, this mini-series has triumphed. Niall MacCormick was the director of all three episodes of this series, and has a great deal to be proud of. The well-known Julian Fellowes of DOWNTON ABBEY fame wrote the scripts, thus adding yet more feathers to his heavily-laden cap. Everyone can be proud of this series, and everyone should see it.

Romeo and Juliet in Victorian England

[Red-125 · 9/10 · 7 July 2018]

Doctor Thorne (TV Series 2016) is an adaption of the third of Anthony Trollope's Barchester Chronicles. In England, the series was shown in three episodes. In the U. S., on DVD, it was shown as four episodes. Julian Fellowes, who wrote the screenplay, provided commentary on each episode, to expand each episode to an hour in length. The series was directed by Niall MacCormick.

Tom Hollander stars as Doctor Thorne, a country doctor who lives in Barchester with his niece, Mary. Mary is played to perfection by the enchanting Stefanie Martini. Harry Richardson portrays Frank Gresham, who is the Romeo to Mary's Juliet. All three are highly skilled actors, and it was a pleasure to watch them at work.

However, for me, acting honors go to Rebecca Front as Frank's mother, Lady Arabella Gresham. Squire Gresham, Frank's father, has squandered the family fortune. For Lady Arabella, the only avenue open for the Greshams is for Frank to "marry money." Mary Thorne isn't poor, but she certainly isn't rich. She simply won't do for Frank, and Lady Arabella fights like a mother tiger to "protect" her son. (Of course, she's really protecting herself and the family, but that's a subtle distinction that doesn't slow her down.)

Although this isn't a BBC production, it looks like one. It was produced by ITV, a British commercial TV channel. Obviously, ITV knows that viewers expect high production values in a film adapted from a Trollope novel.

This series was made for the small screen, so obviously it works well on DVD. The IMDb rating for the series is 7.2. Pretty good, but not good enough. I rated it 9. My suggestion is to find it and see it. You won't be disappointed.

Enjoying the series!

[marshcorinda · 9/10 · 6 December 2016]

We are enjoying the series very much. Unlike Jane Austen characters, these have a more human tone. Their hypocrisy is as modern as what we see in Hollywood or Washington DC. While Mary Thorne may seem to unfairly judge her station in society, for her time, she is on the mark. Illegitimate children in Victorian society were outcasts regardless of their character, intelligence, or beauty. Mary Thorne would have had no chance of marrying "above her station." Being a writer, I can see that this is quite likely to happen, although it could never have happened in reality. Perhaps she is the Wallace Simpson of her time. Let's hope so. This series is lightened by clever humor from time to time, keeping it entertaining while it carries forward a message and keeps us wanting more. I hope this show continues for some time.

Good Acting, Wonderful Sets, But the Adaptation Makes For A Ponderous & Glacial Script

[mikeh-54044 · 4/10 · 1 October 2019]

There is much to like here! Ian McShane - as always - is funny, engaging, and accomplished. The locations are perfect and reek of the period. Elements in the story are, by turns, funny and romantic; and engaging. That said, the adaptation produces a script that moves at a pace that is slower than paint drying. It is all to easy to get frustrated at the slow pace and tune out.

Trollope, Fellowes and McShane all doing what they do best

[The_late_Buddy_Ryan · 9/10 · 3 June 2016]

Must've been a treat for Julian Fellowes to get his hands on a real Victorian novel, instead of churning out new eps of that pandering pastiche he's been working on for the last few seasons. "Thorne," OTOH, has a solid Trollopian plot (sundered lovers and missing heirs and family secrets) as well as a great cast--Ian McShane not exactly playing against type as a rough-diamond railroad magnate; nice to see Alison Brie of "Mad Men" as the husband-hunting heiress and Inspector Lewis's old boss as one of the snobbish gentlefolk. Stefanie Martini, who only has one other IMDb credit, is perfect as the strong-willed heroine (so much more relatable than those soupy Dickens girls!); not unexpectedly, the picturesque exteriors and the slightly dorky Mid-Victorian costumes and décor are right on the money.

See this! Wonderful production...

[kessler10 · 9/10 · 2 June 2016]

The actors are wonderful, the writing is wonderful, the English countryside is very-green, Tom Hollander -- what a range of talent he has -- and, yes, Julian Fellowes, are wonderful, and new star Stefanie Martini is both very beautiful and very wonderful... You will enjoy this, everyone will, the direction and the overall production have a delicate, light, touch, even through some very dark scenes. I was taught long ago that Trollope was superficial, a 19th c. light-entertainment, but here Fellowes shows us the breadth and depth of understanding in the thought, sensitive critique, and great humor -- so now I'll take Trollope more seriously, also the Victorians with all their silly insecurities and dashing nobility. If you enjoy and value Jane Austen, you will enjoy and value Trollope, now, by discovering him here. So see this: online it is presented as a "Season 1" series of just 4 "episodes" -- 4 "acts", all viewed easily together in a single sitting.

Wonderful!

[lillightjc-85500 · 9/10 · 8 July 2020]

Really enjoyed this period drama series! The acting by the perfectly chosen cast was excellent and the beautiful scenic photography, even the slower pace made it more in tune with life in those days. Wish there had been more than one series.

Very well done

[andyhilton-970-322774 · 8/10 · 28 October 2018]

I couldn't stop watching. Classic British TV and I love it.

Trollope would not be very happy

[Laight · 4/10 · 1 September 2021]

Somehow Julian Fellows has managed to take one of Trollope's better books and turn it into a romance novel. All the psychology and wit that Trollope brought to his books is gone; what's left is a basic soap opera without any charm or energy. Still, the costumes are marvelous, the cinematography solid, and the acting good (although the actress playing Mary is not quite up to the task of competing with her more accomplished cast). But what really rankles is Mr. Fellows himself, introducing and then exiting from each episode with a startling degree of pomposity and pretentiousness that would make him a stock character as the fool in any Victorian novel.

Another fantastic Julian Fellowes series.

[gunslingah-798-108686 · 10/10 · 2 January 2022]

A marvelous, marvelous period drama. Intense character portrayals that induced great connection. I loved them and their actors!

I've revisited this short series many times since it's first showing, how depressing it did not return with more episodes.

Wonderfully entertaining

[happytlk52 · 10/10 · 20 November 2022]

I so enjoyed this series. There are a few twists that make the series a bit intriguiDirected well. I loved the period costumes, the locale and the characters. The story line bode true of the "have and have nots" at that period of time . It's enjoyable to the eyes and shows how the working class was looked down at and were not good enough to marry the members of the gentry. Mary Thorne, our poor little girl, the niece of Dr. Thorne, has grown up with Frank, the son of local gentry. Frank is madly in love with Mary as she is with him, but Frank's mother refuses to allow any idea of marriage between the two. Sit down and enjoy.

Maddeningly average

[maggymaytay · 5/10 · 18 June 2021]

Trollope has assembled a motley crew of characters of different socio-economic strata in this 1850s love story. I haven't read the original novel, but I have a feeling the nuances of Victorian life must have been conveyed more eloquently than in this clumsy miniseries. The plot is steady and everything is tied up by the end - but I didn't feel any real excitement about getting there. It's a tame drama with no artistry, but I'll watch anything period drama. This is maddeningly average fare and it didn't make me feel a single emotion once! Ugh! If you're a period drama junkie like me, you might as well watch it for the picturesque settings and costumes, though it does feel more comical and CGI-ish than the better costume dramas. It should have been condensed into a film rather than a miniseries.

Well it looked good

[LukeCustomer2 · 3/10 · 27 March 2019]

This was a masterful production in terms of look - agree they seemed to use CGI in someplace but for me the largest problem was it was a 4 episode mini series that should have been a two hour movie. Beyond that, the end, and frankly the plot, were utterly predictable. All around there was lot of very bad acting, I am looking at you Ian McShane. It looked to be a romantic epic but I felt very little between the two main characters. They did appear to be foolish and cruel. Kept fast forwarding and finally gave up.

Disappointed...

[drsdv · 4/10 · 25 September 2017]

I love period dramas/movies. So I was incredibly happy when I saw Doctor Thorne. I was pretty set on watching it but read the reviews anyway and almost all except one of them were saying it was good.

The things that come to my mind right away are:

• Some scenes almost look like cgi, like they were filmed in front of a green screen. I know nothing about cinematography so I don't know what the problem was but it just felt off.

• Almost every actress had very visible lipstick and mascara on (some even false lashes), they just looked very made-up and that takes away from the historical feel of the show.

• Over-acting, the actress playing Marry Thorne was the most faulty of it but honestly the only one that felt natural for me was Tom Hallender. Whenever Marry Thorne came on it just took me out of the show even more if that is even possible because everything feels so inauthentic.

• Dialogue is just bad.

• No 18th century atmosphere, just actors with 18th century clothing.

Overall this feels like a parody. I could only endure for the first episode.

Shoddy substandard fodder for the costume drama junkies

[jimboucherat · 1/10 · 16 August 2016]

Doctor Thorne represents a new nadir in British televisual period drama, notwithstanding Fellowes' woeful track record. Resolutely "broad" pablum crudely targeting the lucrative historical nostalgia market in the U.S., this risibly perfunctory effort is wholly devoid of any artistic merit whatsoever. There is without doubt a rich seam of Trollope material tailor made for TV adaptation and earlier BBC efforts such as He Knew he was Right (2004) and The Way we Live Now (2001) were well scripted, articulate examples of such.

Fellowes adopts his usual cynical lowest common denominator approach with this particular effort which consequently renders the source material prosaically banal beyond belief. A woeful excuse for a script that would be considered too unsubtle even for pantomime, tired, rote acting from many otherwise capable professionals and grotesquely gauche and shallow character definition, represent just the high points of this monstrosity. Vacuous posturing masquerading as authentic drama and failing miserably.

Unfortunately J. Fellowes

[fcerezo-98950 · 3/10 · 14 January 2019]

Yes, it would be a much higher rating if this Fellow is not at the beginning and the end of each chapter. I cannot stand him. Hope I don't have to skip every first 60s to avoid his introduction. It is a bad format. It is passé and it is a poor copycat of Osborne and others in TMC classics.

One-dimensioned characters

[pinksk1es · 4/10 · 7 September 2022]

I feel like the story premise was good enough - I mean I did watch it through. But I felt like I wasn't sucked into it. A lot of that has to do with the fact that none of the characters were really likable. Other than Doctor Thorne himself, I wasn't really intrigued by any of the other characters. I felt like they were all lacking in depth. It didn't feel like these characters were real individuals with a sense of autonomy. They were pretty bland and were pretty much each driven by only one thing: Frank was driven by his love for Mary. Lady Arabella and her sister were driven by their desire to prevent Frank from marrying Mary. Mary was driven by her inner battle of deciding whether she was worth Frank's love. Frank's father was driven by his stress over the fate of his family. The sisters were in the background but seemed to simply be driven by the need to marry. And so on. Without each of these things, there isn't really much else left to make up any of these characters.

Aside from this, there's nothing I hate more than a writer/producer telling readers/viewers why they think we should find their creation important. I've admired some of Julian Fellowes' shows, like Downton Abbey and The English Game, but this show made me have a slight distaste for the man. I don't need 3 minutes before the episode and 3 minutes after the episode of him telling me why this show is relevant and why I should care about it. I should be able to tell that for myself if the show is done right.

Overall, this show isn't the most dreadful thing that I've watched but that doesn't mean it was good either. Good thing the good Doctor Thorne was there to carry whatever bit of it that he was able to.