Season 56 - The Count of Monte Cristo (2026)
I took three and a half years of French in high school. Looking back I'm amused that when the class started reading books we went directly from Le Petit Prince to Le Comte de Monte-Cristo. That's quite a linguistic leap. Beloved children's book to mammoth literary classic? Sure, why not! After all my reading comprehension of French has always been stronger than my speaking comprehension. And I probably remember no opening of a book better than The Count of Monte Cristo because of getting to experience the classic for the first time in its original language. I am not the only one of my close high school friends to feel this way because one of them developed quite a fixation with the 2002 adaptation of the book starring Jim Caviezel and Guy Pearce. And it is that adaptation in particular that meant that this one was needed. Because let me tell you, if you're a book purist, that one lives in cloud cuckoo land. Not that this one is perfect. But it's damn close. It doesn't hurt that it has eight episodes in which to tell the tale. And to think, after the first episode, I actually doubted that I would like it let along love it. My initial hesitation is that the first episode has a different tonal quality to the rest of the series. This is an epic story of revenge and the first episode is just putting all the pieces in place, which is why you always give a show two episodes to prove its worth. Always. What's more, because the first episode is fifteen years before the main action of the story there's some dubious application of makeup to make the cast look younger. Hale and hearty they are not. Over the hill actors trying to appear youthful? That's more the mark. Thankfully by the time we get to the second episode and Edmond's imprisonment we get a brilliant two-hander with Sam Claflin and Jeremy Irons. Their interaction and Edmond's education are sheer brilliance. This resets the show and it's on with the vengeance. Machiavelli would be so proud. Because Edmond doesn't take the advice of Abbé Faria while they are imprisoned that 'before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.' While I think Edmond would agree that he filled a grave or two with the innocent, making him regret his actions, personally, I think it was completely worth what was lost. The cabal of evil against him were selfish and a malignancy on the world. And, I got to say, no one has ever done that combination better than Blake Ritson. Time and again these are the trademarks of his best characters, and Danglars is right up there with Oscar Van Rhijn and Count Girolamo Riario. In the final episode when he has a full blown panic attack about his financial situation, oh, the swift swing from desperation to hope, the way he looks at Edmond with tears in his eyes and the sheer perfection of his comedic pauses while drinking a glass of water. Oh, I wanted to give him a standing ovation. If I have any complaints about this adaptation it's that it took two years to finally air stateside and that the music could have been more dramatic. My family and I were watching this paired with The Forsytes and my brother keep saying over and over, if only Anne Dudley was doing THIS show and not the GQ version of The Forsyte Saga, think how perfect this would have been? Instead we have very kitschy opening credits and a retro font that looks like it belongs on a romance novel. Because, sadly, nothing in this world can be perfect. But this is close.
Wolf Hall is an intriguing look at the life of Thomas Cromwell in the court of Henry VIII wherein it tells the story by telling the stories around the story. We don't see the big expected moments, we see the quiet contemplative moments where time stops and takes a beat before resuming. Mark Rylance is able to portray all that is going through Thomas Cromwell's mind with just a look, a simple sigh, a readjustment of his robes before entering a room. This is a masterclass in acting while at the same time you don't think of him as an actor in a role, he becomes Thomas Cromwell. Just as Damian Lewis becomes, in my mind, the definitive Henry VIII. There's humor, there's pathos, there's regret, and there's menace. All that is needed for a king because they can turn on a dime. One minute you're in favor, the next, because you couldn't do the impossible, you're dying in a cold room alone crying out for your loved ones. The first season covered the rise and fall of Anne Boleyn culminating in her death while the second season, arriving a decade later, charts Thomas Cromwell's life mirroring Anne's all the way to the gallows. They both went above their station and displeased the king and their downfall was inevitable. Because to gain power you gain enemies and if those enemies, even for a second, gain the ear of the king, well, you're in trouble. And the second season covering the final book in Hilary Mantel's trilogy, The Mirror and the Light, is Cromwell realizing that to get where he is in life he has done some pretty despicable deeds for the greater good of the kingdom. I mean, I could have told him that right away, no one involved with the monarchy in any way has a clear conscious. Yet I think he really thought he was the good guy, he thought that what he did was right and it's only when the daughter of his mentor spurns him and calls him out does he start to question his life. For someone who was so good at his job to lack such self-awareness is kind of an interesting sight to behold and Mark Rylance is able to give it the right gravitas. But my problem with this series is that the first season was sheer perfection. There was not a wrong note. In only six episodes it showed how this man moved through the world and was shaping history by taking care of the little details. Then a decade passes and they decide to finally adapt the final volume and things have changed over time. And instead of striving to maintain faith with the first season they decided to shake things up. There's still basically the same fantastic leads, the same sumptuous costumes, the same music keeping pace with time advancing forward, but there are serious missteps. My main quibble was with the recasting, some of it blatant stunt casting. Obviously some actors had to be recast because they had died. That is the only legitimate excuse for recasting. They should have dragged Tom Holland back to set and demanded he play Cromwell's son. Spiderman can wait! There were just so many cast replacements that I was baffled. And none of them for the better. They didn't even have the same vibe. I mean, what the hell is going on with Chapuys!?! The two different actors don't even have a nominal similarity. And don't get me started on the lack of Jessica Raine! And yet, the way this was filmed they act like we should somehow be able to intuit without being told that these are the same characters. I fear that is not the case. You can tell a story by telling around it, you can't tell a story if you don't tell us who the people are. I recently read a review of the first two books and the reviewer was outraged that they had tried to adapt such stunning works for the small screen saying it would take away the magic. I say, they did have the magic. They just lost it after a decade.
Wives and Daughters is the most nearly perfect miniseries that exists that I can not watch. Based on Elizabeth Gaskell's unfinished novel of the same name it is a perfect compromise between fans of Austen and the Brontës. Because the world sucks and feels the need to always pit women against each other, for the longest time you had to identify as either an Austen fan or a Brontës fan, you just couldn't be both. Which is bullshit and where Gaskell enters the frame. She's like Austen with politics or the Brontës with more balls. She revels in a happy ending and social satire, much like Austen, but unlike Austen she deals with weightier subjects and, like her friend Charlotte Brontë, is willing to go a bit broody and bleak when the story requires it. In simpler terms, she's totally willing to kill characters that you love and have no regrets about it. Which is why I have such a problem watching this miniseries almost to the point I just can not watch it. Which pains me because I love it so very much. The thing is, I am perfectly comfortable watching Tom Hollander die over and over again. I even once had to watch Tom Hiddleston do the dirty deed. What I can't handle is Michael Gambon's reaction to Tom Hollander's death. Hollander is after all playing Gambon's eldest son. It is, to me, the most accurate portrayal of grief I have ever seen and it just rips open my very soul. Just even thinking about it makes my heart hurt. And this annoys me all the more because I didn't much care for Hollander's character, but he was so beautifully acted and pathetic and poignant. But where there is love, there is pain. And Wives and Daughters is probably the closest Gaskell ever got to writing a straight-up love story. Sure, she does go on about the inter-dynamics of mixing a family, but in the end, it's the love of two characters, Roger and Molly, that makes this perhaps the best miniseries I have ever seen. Even more than Andrew Davies's other beloved adaptation, Pride and Prejudice, this broke and mended my heart a hundred times over and left me nearly satisfied. For some reason Davies decided to focus on the fact that Roger's first love with Molly's stepsister, Cynthia, was more about attraction, whereas the love between Roger and Molly was more a meeting of the minds and companionship and mutual respect. I feel that they are soul mates, and in need of a good snog, thank you very much. True love wins the day, so let the curtain close on a kiss. And right there is why this is only nearly perfect. Because Roger and Molly never kiss. They have their HEA, the times, they are a changing, and yet, there is no true satisfaction. I don't know if this is because Andrew Davies had to create the ending himself. Usually left to his own devices he brings something to a miniseries that otherwise would be lacking, I'm thinking in particular of the songs in Tipping the Velvet, which also starred Keeley Hawes. Here he's so close. The proposal, the rain, the admission of love, and then the lack of a kiss. It just doesn't work. Which is why it's best I don't watch this miniseries. It angers and destroys me in equal measure.
Wolf Hall is an intriguing look at the life of Thomas Cromwell in the court of Henry VIII wherein it tells the story by telling the stories around the story. We don't see the big expected moments, we see the quiet contemplative moments where time stops and takes a beat before resuming. Mark Rylance is able to portray all that is going through Thomas Cromwell's mind with just a look, a simple sigh, a readjustment of his robes before entering a room. This is a masterclass in acting while at the same time you don't think of him as an actor in a role, he becomes Thomas Cromwell. Just as Damian Lewis becomes, in my mind, the definitive Henry VIII. There's humor, there's pathos, there's regret, and there's menace. All that is needed for a king because they can turn on a dime. One minute you're in favor, the next, because you couldn't do the impossible, you're dying in a cold room alone crying out for your loved ones. The first season covered the rise and fall of Anne Boleyn culminating in her death while the second season, arriving a decade later, charts Thomas Cromwell's life mirroring Anne's all the way to the gallows. They both went above their station and displeased the king and their downfall was inevitable. Because to gain power you gain enemies and if those enemies, even for a second, gain the ear of the king, well, you're in trouble. And the second season covering the final book in Hilary Mantel's trilogy, The Mirror and the Light, is Cromwell realizing that to get where he is in life he has done some pretty despicable deeds for the greater good of the kingdom. I mean, I could have told him that right away, no one involved with the monarchy in any way has a clear conscious. Yet I think he really thought he was the good guy, he thought that what he did was right and it's only when the daughter of his mentor spurns him and calls him out does he start to question his life. For someone who was so good at his job to lack such self-awareness is kind of an interesting sight to behold and Mark Rylance is able to give it the right gravitas. But my problem with this series is that the first season was sheer perfection. There was not a wrong note. In only six episodes it showed how this man moved through the world and was shaping history by taking care of the little details. Then a decade passes and they decide to finally adapt the final volume and things have changed over time. And instead of striving to maintain faith with the first season they decided to shake things up. There's still basically the same fantastic leads, the same sumptuous costumes, the same music keeping pace with time advancing forward, but there are serious missteps. My main quibble was with the recasting, some of it blatant stunt casting. Obviously some actors had to be recast because they had died. That is the only legitimate excuse for recasting. They should have dragged Tom Holland back to set and demanded he play Cromwell's son. Spiderman can wait! There were just so many cast replacements that I was baffled. And none of them for the better. They didn't even have the same vibe. I mean, what the hell is going on with Chapuys!?! The two different actors don't even have a nominal similarity. And don't get me started on the lack of Jessica Raine! And yet, the way this was filmed they act like we should somehow be able to intuit without being told that these are the same characters. I fear that is not the case. You can tell a story by telling around it, you can't tell a story if you don't tell us who the people are. I recently read a review of the first two books and the reviewer was outraged that they had tried to adapt such stunning works for the small screen saying it would take away the magic. I say, they did have the magic. They just lost it after a decade.
Adaptations of books were abundant this year. So much so that even if I watched a show this year if I knew it was getting another season I saved it for the future. Which means, yes, I loved Murderbot, I'm just not talking about it. Yet. Because Ruth Ellis only got four episodes to tell her life story so she was one and done. Though damn. I really relate so hard to a character that's head is full of old television theme songs and doesn't want to make eye contact. That being Murderbot, not Ruth Ellis. Though that could have been an interesting twist in that depressing story. And because I'm me I watched a lot of British adaptations this year which meant that there were several actors who've made multiple appearances here. Keeley Hawes crushed it on The Midwhich Cuckoos AND Miss Austen where she costarred in both with Synnove Karlsen, once playing her mother and once playing the same character but obviously older. As for Alfred Enoch? So delightful in Miss Austen and then so amusingly unhinged in The Couple Next Door. But don't think these weird reoccurrences were limited to actors, oh no! Neston Park in Wiltshire was owned by Lady Tressilian in Towards Zero AND Lord Tony Baddingham in Rivals. Now that is a showdown I'd like to watch. Or how about we just sign Anjelica Huston up for a role on Rivals. I think she'd be perfect in how she chews the scenery. I mean that has to be why they just cast Rupert Everett! So here's to all the books adapted this year and all the rest to come. What adaptations have you been enjoying this year? Or dare I ask, which adaptations did you despise? I'm physically recoiling at the thought of ANOTHER Tommy and Tuppence adaptation.
Tony and Susan by Austin Wright
Children of Blood and Bone by Tomi Adeyemi
The Essex Serpent by Sarah Perry
Baring A Christmas Carol, Great Expectations is probably Charles Dickens most adapted story. Pip growing up and becoming disillusioned with the world has played out time and time again. And I have never really liked a single one of them. Pip, whether played by actors I love like Ioan Gruffudd or those I respect like Michael York, has always struck me as a prissy prig. He's holier than thou and thinks he has some divine right to the life he's been given. In my opinion the world would have been a lot better off without Pip in it. So how did Steven Knight trick me into watching another adaptation other than being Steven Knight? Matt Berry. That's right folks, I watched this entire adaptation just to see Matt Berry's backside. I didn't know I'd get to see his backside, it was just an amusing bonus. Though even if I hadn't tuned in for Matt Berry I would have been sad to have missed this adaptation because it is the best "adaptation" of Great Expectations ever. The quotes are there because while much was made in the press about Matt Berry's backside being supported by the text, the truth of the matter is Steven Knight kind of threw the text out the window. Of the three "stages" of Pip's life the first one is the only one to actually remain true in this telling, after that it's a free for all. And I for one am here for it! Miss Havisham obviously holding a quartet captive in her house since her wedding day so she can have mood music wherever she wants? While I'm only positing that that is how they're there, I am so here for this that I can't tell you how much I loved it. The fact that Miss Havisham gets to live AND give Pip a parting shot worthy of any eighties action star? Oh yes, more of this, this is the Miss Havisham of Jasper Fforde! Lord Larys leaving the Red Keep to disgustingly sniff snuff? I didn't know Matthew Needham was so comically gifted! But above all what makes this entire adaptation work is that Steven Knight was obviously sick of waiting around on Tom Hardy to make season two of Taboo, AKA the best television series that has ever been created, and decided to make his version of Great Expectations into Taboo 2.0. This is literally Taboo minus Tim Hardy with a veneer of Dickens and Matt Berry. In fact, can someone check to see if Jaggers is wearing Tom Hardy's coat from Taboo? Because I have my suspicions. And specking of Jaggers, he really is the star of this adaptation, and that's saying something because David Suchet has also played this role. Jaggers brings to the fore all the issues that Steven Knight finds the 19th century plagued with that he obsessively explores; slavery, inequality, maritime law, and revenge. This might ostensibly be Pip's story, but Jaggers is the star. But the biggest question at the end of the day is how does Steven Knight make maritime law interesting? Because I assure you he does.
Enola Holmes and the Boy in Buttons by Nancy Springer
Agatha Christie adaptations in recent years have been very hit or miss. And let's be honest, they're almost all misses. The BBC, Amazon, Sarah Phelps, and Kenneth Branagh should all be banned from ever doing another adaptation of Christie's work again. And whomever thought up the Partners in Crime reboot with David Walliams and Jessica Raine should be charged with crimes against humanity. Therefore I was understandably wary that there was a new adaptation of Why Didn't They Ask Evans? on the horizon. But once I heard about Hugh Laurie's involvement I felt a slight fluttering in my chest, was this hope? Was this the first hope I'd had since The Witness for the Prosecution? And yes, never watch The Witness for the Prosecution unless you really want to see Toby Jones in a sex scene no one ever asked for. And the reason I had hope for that adaptation was because the previous year's adaptation of And Then There Were None was brilliant. It was also the last good new Christie adaptation I've seen. And yes, that sadly extends to Why Didn't They Ask Evans? But here's the thing, it's not horrible by any stretch of the imagination. In fact it literally is the best of the newer adaptations, excluding And Then There Were None. The problem is it's not amazing, it's not perfect, it's just serviceable. It goes along at a decent pace and after three episodes you know why they didn't ask Evans. And that is probably where I had problems. I usually forget who commits crimes in books and shows unless they are really memorable or heavily foreshadowed or obvious from casting, so not knowing the answer is kind of important to give an element of suspense. Here the problem was I knew why they didn't ask Evans. The reason I knew why is from the weird Marple amalgamation where they ran out of stories after the departure of Geraldine McEwan and shoehorned Marple as played by Julia McKenzie into any story of Christie's that didn't have one of her continuing detectives present. So many stories stripped for parts and put back together in the most absurd ways. Yet for all the mysteries they changed and maimed, I remembered why they didn't ask Evans. So I just watched this show waiting for the supposed brilliant comedy and wit of Frankie, and it fell flat, though she did have some awfully nice clothes. I recently watched the old series of Partners in Crime starring Francesca Annis and James Warwick. Now that was fun, that was funny, that had what this wanted to have. And there was not a single miscast character in that series, seriously, don't get me started on Badger here. For some reason Christie and modern sensibilities haven't found a happy medium, and if anyone was going to succeed it should have been Hugh Laurie. Perhaps Emma Thompson might be willing to try next?
A Question of Numbers by Andrea Penrose
Romancing Mister Bridgerton by Julia Quinn
Persuasion by Jane Austen
Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen
Shadow and Bone by Leigh Bardugo
