World Without End

User Score
5.3

Mixed or average reviews- based on 14 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 6 out of 14
  2. Negative: 4 out of 14

Review this tv show

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

  1. Nov 14, 2012
    6
    Not a bad show, but not really a good show either. It has it's entertainment value, and parts of it are quite well done, but what really killed it for me was the lack of depth from almost all of the characters. The bad guys have not even a scrap of morality, and seem to have basically no internal struggle with the tyrannical actions they take. They are un-relatable in every way, and moreNot a bad show, but not really a good show either. It has it's entertainment value, and parts of it are quite well done, but what really killed it for me was the lack of depth from almost all of the characters. The bad guys have not even a scrap of morality, and seem to have basically no internal struggle with the tyrannical actions they take. They are un-relatable in every way, and more annoying than anything else. Overall though, it's worth checking out if you like good versus evil, loosely historical based epics, but keep your expectations relatively low. Expand
  2. Mar 14, 2013
    5
    watched pillars, thought it was pretty weak. read pillars thought it was weak also. ken follet, in my opinion writes poor characters,as matt rouche(critic) explains there is no moral ambiguity. to me his characters are hugely unrealistic through both pillars and world. follets strength is in realising the true hardships of a time, and some meticulous use of research that make his bookswatched pillars, thought it was pretty weak. read pillars thought it was weak also. ken follet, in my opinion writes poor characters,as matt rouche(critic) explains there is no moral ambiguity. to me his characters are hugely unrealistic through both pillars and world. follets strength is in realising the true hardships of a time, and some meticulous use of research that make his books somewhat informative. unfortunately characters are really important on the screen, and they fall short of the mark. so what you get is some good sets, made real by some attention to middle ages history then fill this world with fairy tale good and evil characters. i didnt know how to take it. to me this series triesto do two different genres, and ends up doing neither particularly well. i realise ken follett is very popular, and im not saying he has no talent, but for me his fame is unwarrented. average books, average tv shows. Expand
Metascore
tbd

No score yet - based on 3 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 3
  2. Negative: 0 out of 3
  1. Reviewed by: David Rooney
    Oct 19, 2012
    50
    An absorbing but rarely thrilling illustrated edition of Ken Follett's bestselling doorstop about 14th century England.
  2. Reviewed by: Robert Lloyd
    Oct 17, 2012
    60
    World Without End is, to use a Python word, silly much of the time. But in a piece this big and busy, individual elements can stand out as enjoyable even when the whole is less than the sum of those parts.
  3. Reviewed by: Matt Roush
    Oct 17, 2012
    40
    In this miniseries without end, there's not a single character with a shade of gray in his or her moral complexion. They're either all saintly or thoroughly despicable, and while I've looked ahead and know it doesn't arrive until the sixth hour, the plague can't come soon enough to suit me.