User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 12 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 6 out of 12
  2. Negative: 3 out of 12

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
  1. Nov 14, 2012
    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 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. Jan 11, 2013
    Good show if you like medieval stuff, this show is about as good as we medieval fans are going to get in this day and age. I am looking forward to a season 2, 3, and 4 or so on. I personally have enjoyed the show a great deal, but I am a older man with a love for medieval times.
  3. Feb 3, 2013
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. After watching the first 15 mins of this show, I wanted to switch over to another channel. Do tv producers really think that the watching audience are dumb and shallow to think that nuns and women from medieval Britain had, perfectly shaped eyebrows, lipstick and other cosmetics.. The show is rather unrealistic, the storylines border on the pathetic. I wont be watching again. Dont bother with another series, its awful. Expand
  4. Mar 14, 2013
    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 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

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
    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
    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
    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.