User Reviews

I can't believe all the negative comments!!! Maybe you have to be English to appreciate this lovely, light-hearted, sunny TV series! It's a real breath of fresh air as well as a great look at life in England during that era! Bradley Walsh is superb as Pop Larkin and the rest of the cast, so well chosen. I can't wait for the next series!!!

I don't really understand the motivation behind this (extremely loose) adaptation of HE Bates' novels.

A lot of reviewers have commented on the anachronistic racial diversity. It is anachronistic but that doesn't particularly bother me, the problem is more that the script sounds "written by white people" and is very heavy-handed with how it manages that aspect.

What does bother me is jamming 2020s morals and mores into a 1950s setting. The original series and books are very much laid back, laissez-faire, rural romping and hedonism. Amoral, perhaps.

This new series is full of contemporary angst and grating moralising. Ma sounding like a modern-day parenting manual. Lectures on classism. Mariette endlessly wanting to widen her horizons, which cheapens the whole "rural idyll" that the Larkins' village represents.

Then weird plot changes. Why is Oscar no longer their baby? The Larkin children getting it into their heads that Pa is committing adultery. The silly Charley/Tom rivalry.

It's not unenjoyable, but a lot of it just feels pointless, and it lacks the innocent pleasure of the books and the earlier series.

I would urge anyone watching this to give the earlier series a go if you haven't seen it, as well as read the books. There's so much more to love there.

Watch the Darling Buds many times. Luvd' it. But this is new & different and it's enjoyable viewing. Good cast. Makes a pleasant change on a Sunday evening.

I know it seems racist to say this and I don't want to be that way but as others have said this would not have been a multi-cultural society at that time. For some of us and what we know about the Darling buds of May etc adding characters of non-Caucasian ethnicity is just more tokenism and sometimes we could live without it. Not that it doesn't have its place it's just lets make it appropriate. Anything else is patronising.

I never read the book that this show was based on, nor saw the original series which so many commenters make reference to. That said, on seeing this for the first time I love it! While I understand the comments about tokenism (for the first season anyway), just consider it an update for more modern audiences that does no harm to the plot.

I could say a lot more about the acting, which is excellent, and the scripts, which are acceptable- understand that it's not supposed to be gripping drama. It's a story about a fun-loving family and their goofy neighbors, a plot that has been done a million times already, but in this case it's done in a way that is very entertaining. More seasons, please.

I'm genuinely surprised by the array of negative reviews here. The 2021 adaptation of 'The Larkins' truly brought a refreshing breeze to our television screens. From the outset, the attention to detail is impeccable; the set designs and costumes transport us into a different era with remarkable authenticity.

What sets 'The Larkins' apart is its distinctive narrative style - it exudes charm and nostalgia, brilliantly capturing H. E. Bates' beloved characters and rural idyll. The character development is nuanced, with each member of the Larkin family bringing their own distinct charm to the screen, from Ma and Pop Larkin's loving but chaotic parenting style to the delightful quirks of the younger Larkins.

The casting is nothing short of brilliant. Bradley Walsh's portrayal of Pop Larkin is endearing and charismatic, delivering a masterclass in comedic timing, while Joanna Scanlan's performance as Ma Larkin is a heart-warming depiction of a mother's love and resilience.

It's true that the show possesses a certain whimsical nature, but it's far from being frivolous. 'The Larkins' is steeped in underlying themes of family, love, and the simple pleasures of life, gently challenging us to embrace the joy in the everyday. Its subtleties and undertones provide a beautiful contrast to the often complex, fast-paced shows of modern television.

In a nutshell, 'The Larkins' is a charming ode to nostalgia, a delightful respite from the rigors of modern life. So, ignore the naysayers, sit back, and let this bucolic gem transport you to a time where life was simpler and arguably sweeter.

Given that The Darling Buds of May (with the outstanding David Jason) was hugely popular and successful I was surprised at this remake, and a little worried it might not be as good. However, Darling Buds is 30 years old now and The Larkins is suitably different from it - it is not a direct remake.

I really liked this version. I found myself laughing and giggling all the way through - it is good, I needn't have worried.

There are lots of idiots complianing that this series is "woke" or "tokensim" - yes, we get it: you don't like black people and think they shouldn't be in a series like this. I can only pity them. The Larkins is not meant as a historical record - it is meant as a fun TV show, so mission accomplished.

Good cast, good stories, good clean fun.

Very very poor remake of "Darling Buds of May" and/or poor interpretation of original works. So poor in fact that I did honestly think they were parodying the original.

I only hope the writers and producers can keep up wit this great character ensemble. This is a hilarious group of actors that just compliment each other in a delightful dialogue play back and forth. An A+++ family enjoyable program. The direction and location draw you into the world of the Larkin's love of family, friends and community. It's a joy to watch a program that's only agenda is to show a wonderful township that will work for one another in all circumstances.

I know that the storyline, with the multiple characters could be fleshed out individually and expand the timeline to an indefinite conclusion. Right- O, cheers, and good on you enjoying this throwback in time.

I'm intrigued by why people are so interested in the racial diversity of this show, is it period accurate? Of course not, but honestly nothing else is period accurate either, so why is that the element being pointed at again and again?

The show is creating an idealised world to highlight the larger than life characters who operate with a good heart. A world that is and was impossible, good deeds are rewarded and somber reality is excluded.

We were not a multi-ethnic nation during the setting, but we are today, we can't keep denying actors roles because "it's not accurate to history" especially in shows like this that have activly choosen not to be historical. To exclude minorities wouldn't make this "more real" it's already pure fiction, it just sends the message that minorities can't be a part of "our" fantasy, which is detestible.

I'm biased in that I really liked the original and rewatched it two or three years ago and fell in love with it all over again. Viewers who watched that classic version aren't going to warm to the remake as it doesn't add anything to it aside from some modern sensibilities in terms of tone and casting diversity.

For those that didn't see the 90's The Darling Buds of May this is a half-decent family comedy in the same vein as the Durells which the writer Simon Nye also adapted and the Indian Doctor with Sanjeev Bhaskar, but probably not as successful as either of those shows.

I like Bradley Walsh and thought he was great in Dr. Who, but he doesn't have the comic talents of David Jason who made the original so enjoyable. This is more of an ensemble piece and sadly falls a bit flat, the humour is lacking and so is the cheeky spark between Ma and Pa Larkin. 5/10.

I just don't understand some of the negative reviews. This is funny and heartwarming.it's a breath of fresh air. Bradley Walsh is a natural as pop. It's feel good tv and we all need that at the moment.

Not something I'd ever choose to watch myself but I watched this with my parents without much thought.

This show has about the same quality acting and writing as your standard British soap show, but a lot more on the wholesome humorous side.

Everyone crying about the fact it isn't an entirely white cast need to find a different hill to die on as it doesn't detract at all from the show itself.

Growing up in Kent in the sixties and seventies this is totally wrong, I didn't see a black person until I went on a trip to London in the mid sixties, yet in the first episode there are at least six characters of ethnic minorities living in this tiny village in the 50's, this just would not have been true at all. If you make shows about life in the rural countryside in the 50's leave it as it would have been in the 50's. It's not even that diverse in Kent 60 odd years later.

When this arrived on our little screen in Sydney, it came as a joyful revelation. Both my wife and I are fond of the English 'Chase' So seeing Bradley Walsh in the main role was a real treat as we find him very entertaining and so witty. I also was a young dairy farmer in a small village in France so enjoyed the environment.

We did enjoyed The Larkins a lot, not that it is terrific but it's funny and for us already belonging to the 'third age' it brought back many happy memories.

"Ma and Pa" are good fun, at time a little over the top or rather corny just like the whole show but all in all them and their supporting team are good value.

As we taped the episodes we share them with some of our friends and one of them (from England) told us it was just like the 'Darling Buds of May" ... The what? I asked him ... Google put me up to speed on this subject and I ended buying a set of DVD of it for a birthday present. I later borrowed the set to watch it and compare.

For my Oz dollars I do prefer Bradley W than David J in 'Pop's role.

With the DBoM it's no more "Black and White" No more Bradley but we get Inspector Jack Frost whom we are very devoted to this character. Then who could not love Catherine Zeta Jones!

The Larkins introduced a coloured character as the dazzled Tax man. I must admit that I was surprised as my memories of the 50/60s in rural France could not recall such eventuality. But we warmed up to this character quickly. Else 'Ma' and Mariette are just as good in the Larkins I read quite a few negative reviews of 'The Larkins' here. And I am somehow saddened to see people who don't seem to be able to enjoy two versions of a lovely and funny story with both having worthy entertaining content.

Well for me as I used to be French I do remember a valuable motto. "Vive la difference"!

What's not to like...takes you back many years to better times. Anybody doesn't like this series probably sucks prunes on regular basis...Every character is developed... story line might be predictable, but endearing. The writing is fresh considering the predictable nature of the 50's. Not just great family entertainment, but a rollback in time for us ole' timers (I'm 73). I'm living in Florida but might consider traveling to see the local country where this taking place.

If you don't like it, you might be deficient in nature. I love it and can't wait for season reprisels. 10 seasons I'd say...Cheers!

I am finding this series lovely easy watching ideal for a Sunday evening. All the cast are doing a brilliant job. I'm fed up of people comparing it with the original series which aired decades ago time to move on. I personally am finding The Larkins as a very enjoyable program in its own right.

Consept quite entertaining unfortunately Mariette looks her age should have cast a much younger girl .

Ma Larkin brilliant .

Political correct casting a good Sunday night show.

Completely dire. Charmless and full of wokeness! Please stop all this tokenism nonsense. The original series The Darling Buds of May was beautifully portrayed very much like the books it came from. Please show that again instead of this nonsense.

What an interesting load of responses to a bit of light entertainment! I fear that the general viewing public are unable to move on from the TV of their childhood, and accept that this is yet another screen adaptation of a light and humorous novel. To suggest that HE Bates would be turning in his grave misses the whole point of fiction - he wrote it, we read it, we put our own experiences and background into our reading, and somewhere there might be a match with what the author had in mind and what we imagine, but it makes no differences if there isn't. But nonetheless it is still a piece of fiction.

Those who claim to know Bate's intentions clearly don't - I grew up a few streets away from Bates, I have walked the streets, towns, villages and countryside that he did, as my mother pointed out the parks, churches, rivers, and fields that feature in his works. My aunt was a friend of his mother; I have a signed copy of his autobiography. But that does not me put to any advantage in reading his novels, it just adds to my pleasure to see familiar places in his works.

For all of those complaining about historical inaccuracies, let's dispel that first. The novel was published in 1958, and the first screen adaptation was by MGM in 1959, 'The Mating Game'. The whole story is transposed to the USA, and Mariette was played by Debbie Reynolds. Do you think Bates cried that his lovely Kent village became a town in America? Of course not, he took the royalties and would have been so pleased to have reached a wider audience. It is a piece of fiction, not a history book - the persons adapting it now can do so how they want to, and meet the new audience. Art, and Bates was certainly an artist even if not very profound in this light novella, can be interpreted by new readers, and new directors.

If you are unable to get an ITV series from 1991 out of your head, nor the theme tune, then why even bother watching this. Buy the DVD and be happy, but appreciate that audiences have moved on, grown up, and new ones born. We might be fed up with entirely white casts portraying what was then rapidly becoming a multi-ethnic society And finally, if you are giving this programme one star because you saw a person of colour in a supposedly Kent village of the fifties, then you seem to have a very restricted approach to pleasure - this is light entertainment for a Sunday evening on a popular channel. Why not watch it as such? As I said, I grew up in the same town as Bates, in the decade in which this work is set, and we were not at all surprised to see people of colour, indeed all nationalities. Does it make a difference to you if a character first played by an American actor, then a white British actor, is now played by a black actor? Forget the history, history doesn't dictate fiction - fiction is for your own imagination, not your indignation.

Don't understand why waste money to remake it. Not funny at all. It has completely ruined a programme once loved by the nation. Hope they can put a stop on this.

This is becoming a real favourite. It's great. Script superb. It's a fresh take and Bradley Walsh hilarious and all actors brilliantly cast.

I very much hope there is a second series.

The remake nobody wanted. So many unnecessary changes. If it was the other way round there be an uproar, just saying.

Well I've watched parts of two episodes of this awful remark of the Darling Buds of May and I hope no more episodes are planned. The actors are ill-suited to the characters and the series lacks all the charm and atmosphere of the books and the original. The Christmas episode was embarrassing - so clearly shot on what looked like the hottest day of the year with trees in full leaf and the sun high in the sky. Standing in the shade doesn't make it look like winter you know!! I gather certain characters were changed in order to be inclusive and politically correct. Why?? Why not be true to the book and the times as represented by the author? A poor show all round IMO.