No idea what to expect, but became totally hooked for these reasons: 1. Intelligent dialogue and storyline. A very well researched period piece dealing with both early 20th century British culture (a little American too); influence of music in culture (in this case mostly jazz); aristocracy relations with the poor (things never change); black (and other groups) relations with white power (money, politics, etc.). 2. Superb acting. 3. Superb period singing and accompanying music. 4. Most importantly for a quality film is attention to detail. 5. Suspenseful drama (Whodunit?). 6. Left room for a continuation which, unfortunately, doesn't appear to be in the works. 7. Interesting final episode of tidying up loose ends, even interviewing the dead as if they never died.

I got STARZ just so I could watch this mini-series but can only attest to the first three episodes. First, the production values--the costumes, set designs, lighting, etc. are stunning and Emmy-worthy. However,the storyline as a whole could use a bit of work. Personally, I have to care about someone in the story for the storyline to work and unfortunately the only person I cared about in the entire cast is killed off by the end of episode 3. I felt they tried to pull a "Lady Sybil" on us ala Downton Abbey, without the impact. I knew there would be a murder mystery of some sort, but didn't expect the victim to be a band member. And I wanted to see more of the Jessie character, who was really promising. The music is not as good as the "real" jazz back in the day, at least the jazz my dad used to listen to, and play when he was in a band. All of the other characters are relatively superficial, and perhaps too modern, if you will, to truly be believable as people from the 1930s. Would a white European woman really kiss a black man in public back then? Doubtful. Are the all-too-common nude scenes really necessary to move the story along? Nope, and not all that sexy either. I'm assuming the mystery will be solved by the end of the series, but I'm not sure I'll care.

Firstly, at the time of writing (16 September 2013) the information for this on the main page is incorrect. It says this film/series is not yet released. However, I've just watched all 5 episodes on DVD (2 DVDs to be precise), plus the extra almost 1 hour "interview" between Stanley and Louis. The DVD release date was March 2013.Like another reviewer I simply don't understand some of the poor ratings for this film. It was an immaculate production with an excellent cast for, I think, a cracking, well written story. It has style, suspense, humour, sensuality, good looks, great music and, as with so much of Stephen Poliakoff's work, a lot of intelligent dialogue and some fairly long scenes. But that's why I'm a fan of Poliakoff's work - it is literate, well researched and observed, and you have to pay attention. It rewards that attention many time over.I must say there were some performances that were a revelation to me. Jacqueline Bisset for a start, and the late Mel Smith. But everyone was really outstanding in the parts they played. Joanna Vanderham is astonishingly mature well beyond her years (19 or 20 years old during the production) and is destined I feel to be a great actress. One cannot comment on this production without mentioning the singers - 2 established actresses who had never sung in public, in theatre, TV or on film before. They did their own singing and were amazingly good.

While this makes every effort to appear genuine to the period, it is a superficial experience. The realization comes in the third episode when Lady Cremone (Bisset) says of a party that it will be "fun". Anyone who has read Mitford or Waugh, and Gibbons in "Cold Comfort Farm", knows that 'fun' was a banished adjective among people of that class in that period. It's something that the writer ought to know. And while the set design and costumes and overall production is glossy it's like a fashion shoot. That fact comes out in the lack of story and drama - nothing much happens and very slowly for a long time. It has a contrived and much smaller stamp to it. Certainly, it does not justify its time or structure. It might have been done much better in half the time.The music which ought to be central is not and seems of a decade later; in arrangement, style and solo voicing, unconnected to the early 1930s, false when matched against recordings of that time.As to the characters. They are standard TV fare, but only half-formed. They say things as ciphers in some mimicry of what real characters might have said in that period.