Critic Reviews

The miniseries has far more depth and character nuance than you’ll find in, say, a “Marple” or a “Poirot.” Much of that owes to Whitmore’s attention to the telling details of character development and, of course, to the performances, especially Clunes.

Arthur is a gripping, even frightful detective tale. [4 Sep 2015, p.58]

Doyle, commandingly brought to blustery life by Martin Clunes.... A very enjoyable story it is. [31 Aug - 13 Sep 2015, p.10]

Arthur & George benefits from a quicker pace than the average period mystery, and a charming performance by Mr. Clunes.

A memorable drama with a fascinating mystery at its core, Arthur & George also provides an illuminating, realistic portrait of an era that is often overromanticized on TV.

Clunes and Edwards have a nice rapport, and the rest of the cast is quite solid.... The mystery itself is compelling enough.

Their chemistry [Martin Clunes and Charles Edwards], and the quality of the production design (the settings include stately homes, factories and grubby farms), are the show’s best offerings. The mystery is overly complicated, with a twist that’s clumsily telegraphed in the first episode, and the theme of racial prejudice against the “half-caste” Edalji, while central to the story, is hit upon more heavily than is good for the drama. But there’s just enough Sherlockian fun to make the case for Arthur & George.

The Conan Doyle of this series has considerable charm as played by Mr. Clunes, though that takes some time to emerge from the effects of episode one.

Arthur & George (adapted by Ed Whitmore from Julian Barnes’ book, and directed by Stuart Orme) is understated to the point of sleepy, and doesn’t sprinkle enough red herrings to provoke much guessing or suspense as to what actually transpired.

[Arthur & Georg] is a dutiful adaptation of the novel, compelling in parts, though never satisfying as a whole.