Watership Down (TV Mini-Series 2018– ) Poster

(2018– )

User Reviews

Review this title
162 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Can't let my kids see this!
brigitteisveryspecial29 December 2018
Never knew I could get so invested in the lives of bunnies! This was fantastic. Rated it 10 (with having no experience with the book) because I really can't think of what more you'd want in a series. It was beautifully done,; my only complaint being that sometimes it was difficult to tell the characters apart
37 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
skoskam28 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
One of my favorite novels. I went and saw the film when I was nine. Of course this animation does not (completely) follow the novel, but this should not bother anyone. It sometimes added something beautiful like in the end when Fiver says goodbye to Hazel. I liked the Scottish accent of Kehaar. Please watch this if you loved the novel and the film in 1979. You will not be disappointed.
38 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not That Bad!!!
Three_n_Arf23 December 2018
I notice that the 1-star ratings are pouring in, and I can't help finding it rather odd. Yes, the animation is a little off. Yes, the plot can be hard to follow at times because some of the rabbits look a little too alike. Yes, it's a bit too long at nearly three and a half hours. And no, it doesn't compare well with the 1978 film... but 1/10? Really? People need to look beyond the problems and see the story. They need to think about what the story is putting across, and how a new generation who might not have seen the 1978 version are being allowed to see this message... They might even be curious enough to check out the film after seeing this. Look beyond the nostalgia or your hatred for CGI, and ask yourself... is there something more than nothing here. Don't be put off if the rating continues to slide, because whilst there is plenty to criticise here, it is far from a complete loss.

ETA: The third and fourth parts were weaker than the first two, and I have to admit that I lost interest during part three, it was just too drawn out for how little was going on. Part four was slightly better, but three and a half hours was simply too much in the end.
61 out of 78 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
More like Adams' book
Juneyhod22 December 2018
Richard Adams didn't write a book for children about fluffy wuffy bunnies. He wrote the story for adults about life from a real wild rabbit's perspective. I agree that the animation makes them look more like hares but up to now, this version is more true to the book. I find it full of emotion and I'm expecting to laugh and cry. I've read the book many times over and I only have to turn to the back page and read the final paragraph to be consumed by tears. A wonderful story.
87 out of 117 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Better Than I Was Expecting
codydennison24 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Well, I finally saw this new version of Watership Down this morning. Sat through nearly four hours watching it. I gotta say that it's a pretty good adaptation of the original Richard Adams book. I like Bluebell's comedy, the dire situation at Efrefa and how the rabbits escape (with help from Bigwig and Clover), and some parts surprised me (like with Holly's death). Plus, I've been listening to the song that plays during the credits (Fire On Fire), and it's good.

The only complaints I have are the animation and some parts of the story. For the animation, it's not the worst CGI I've seen, but I feel like it could've used some more work. Plus, the characters look a bit more like hares than rabbits.

The second part is the characterization of Hazel and Bigwig. Hazel seems to be the "I don't want to be a leader" kind of guy who doesn't have as much power of a leader as he did in the book and movie. And I couldn't find myself smiling when Bigwig was on the screen. He was too angry and contrarian to make me think that he'd have a good point. But they're not the only characters to have that kind of personality change, so I won't go into it further.

One final part I have a bit of a problem with is Bigwig saying that he was a storyteller to get into Efrefa. With a battle-scarred rabbit like that, it's no doubt Woundwart wasn't really that fooled.

Other than that, it was fine. Not as good as the 1978 movie, but still fine.
27 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Still a great story
fredfeenstra23 December 2018
Okay it lacks in the latest cgi techniques, by it is good storytelling nevertheless. It took sometime to get to know the characters as the rabbits distinguishing marks are not very much emphasized, but as a close observer of rabbits at my campsite, that will always be a problem with a graphic portrayal of these furry creatures. Voice acting was good, action was believable and they adhered to to the story as I remembered it. Would not watch it with my grandkids though, but that is because Richard Adams story was never intended as a kids story anyway.
29 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An interesting, but not ready remake.
leerichardson22 December 2018
OK. I've only seen part 1. I'm apparently supposed to be have been 'traumatised' by the 70's version (I was). This was an attempt to bring an old tale into the modern age. Personally I think it was off. The animation/cgi is worse, a LOT worse - it's 2018 folks! The storyline is weaker and flakey. Ok ... it's 'tamer' than the original one to get it onto mainstream UK TV, but the script is weak and patchy. They've brought in some high flying actors to voice our 'bunnies'. I'm not sure it's cutting it though. Changing our favourite German seagull to Scot's is weird, and less amusing. There's a lot of oddities - e.g. there's mention of a 'homber' consistently - which was never a fox. No proper expansion of the orginial gore how humans affect our countryside. I'll see how part 2 does. Still a good old tale, it needs a lot more improvement to bring it into this generation who probably think it strange, rather than the hard core originals who know the story.
46 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Watership still sailing... not down
graceandpeace-paul24 December 2018
Netflix and BBC working together to bring a childhood classic of mine to life...animated life. I remember just 40 years ago, 1978 exactly, when I was first exposed to the novel by Richard Adams by way of the animate movie of the same name. Fiver, Hazel, Clover, Bigwig, Kehaar the seagull, Dandelion and General Woundwart to name a few of my favorite characters are rendered perfectly by the animators... with such skill and caring... you can't help empathizing and loving them. This four part miniseries does the novel proud in representing the themes in Adam's novel well... rhe voice direction is excellent... BRAVO well job done...
25 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
blueskyrosehill1 January 2019
Beautifully made. The imagery, acting, storytelling, music: excellent.
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Absolutely love this
philiporourke25 December 2018
Faithful to the book and original film. Not really sure what all the fuss is about regards poor animation. The voice actors are spot on. Especially Olivia Colman, Peter Capaldi and Lee Ingleby. The story is a classic and deserves to be retold anew. This is good enough and, in time, will be a classic in its own right. No Bright Eyes, but never mind, eh?
19 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Great Adaptation
catsentry23 December 2018
While nothing can quite live up to the original book and movie, this adaptation gets about as close to it as it can with what they have. Given that it's a Netflix show, the animation tended to be mediocre to alright at best. However, they use it to their advantage in many places, such as the scenes depicting Fiver's visions, which are very surreal and well done. The voice cast is absolutely stellar, no complaints there. The story stuck closely to the original novel, omitting some parts that may have slowed down the story. The violence is toned down a bit, which would normally be a downside, however there is still enough violence to stay true to the novel without being completely traumatizing to new watchers. There is no shying away from blood and fighting like there was in the TV remake from the 90s, but there wasn't excessive and unrealistic gore like in the original movie. Overall I would have to say that if there is a way to do a good job at a remake, this is it. It's violent, emotional, and sticks closely to the main story while accommodating for its limited screen time and budget, and for that, I have to give it ten stars.
24 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not the best graphics, but a great story none the less.
alternativeflowers22 December 2018
I remember seeing the original film as a kid at the cinema, and not really understanding what was going on, as a child it just went over my head. So with this version, OK, the graphics aren't great, but it is easier to follow. But really, it is the story that matters. A story that was written over 40 years ago I think, and is even more relevant today, as it shows how mankind is destroying the natural world and everything in it with their want and greed and selfishness. I just hope if children do watch, as well as adults, that they realise just what man is doing to the planet and try to change things before it is too late. I enjoyed it, but with sadness in my heart at how true this tale is. I will be watching the second part on BBC tomorrow.
25 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Disappointing animation
nockd23 December 2018
Having watched the original in the cinema at the age of 12 this film made quite an impact as didn't pull any punches and was a genuinely scary film.

This remake follows the same basic story albeit a more watered down version. But I can't see how this cost £20m to make as the cgi/animation is very poor especially of the rabbits themselves to the point where it is impossible to tell most of them apart.

Overall if the new generation want to watch this I would recommend they also see the 1978 original.
31 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A disappointment
madaxmadhu23 December 2018
Watership Down is one my favourite books, and I'd been so looking forward to watching this series. Unfortunately, I'm sorry to say that I am very disappointed. It's not the video game like quality of the animation that bothers me about this production, but rather how much they've strayed from the book. I understand that some creative liberties tend to be taken when bringing a book to the screen, but in my opinion, they've changed WAY TOO MUCH (SO much more than the 1978 animation), and in the process, they've utterly lost the essence of the characters, and therefore that of the original story. If you're interested in a nice enough story concerning a group of rabbits and their adventures, then this one may be for you. But, if you're looking for a relatively true telling of the original Watership Down story, you *will* be disappointed.
29 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
One of the better things I've seen on Netflix lately
rstySp00n25 December 2018
Okay, I haven't read the book or seen the first movie, so for me it was all new. And for a bunch of talking rabbits it was not bad I guess. A bit of an adventure about rabbits, watched all episodes after another, yeah had nothing better to do.

Like I said in the title, it's one of the better things I've seen on Netflix lately, reason is that all Netflix originals are the same: they start really strong but halfway down the movie or series it's like the money is gone or the writers are in a hurry and it gets worse and worse and fades slowly to a bad ending.

This bunny-adventure kept interesting till the ending, and yes the CGI wasn't great and it wasn't as dramatic as I was expecting and maybe a watered down version for more a broader audience but it wasn't bad or boring.

So if you can see through the fact they are talking rabbits it's just a fun little adventure with of course a deeper message about being nice and all that stuff.
13 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Good but not like the original
catz196622 December 2018
Well enjoying the remake it lacks the john hurt richard briers combination , but thats not saying its not good , i grew up with the original but all in all a good modern version for the kids of today, Brights eyes burning like fire
21 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Don't Listen to the Negative Critics
wileyschmitt25 December 2018
As a fan who has read the book 3 times, loved the 1978 movie, and very much influenced by the overall message of this story to the point of volunteering a lot of my time at animal shelters and fostering/adopting unadoptable rabbits, I can honestly say that I am very happy with this new adaptation of the story and am glad it will likely influence many of the next generation. Understanding that we need to try to do a much better job sharing the world with the countless other lifeforms that inhabit it with us goes much further than changing one's eating habits and annoying people with those personal perspectives. The message gets through very clearly in this new take on a brilliant story that Mr. Adams came up with to tell his kids on long car trips, and is amazing how it's evolved to what it is has after so many years and been a story that all rabbit lovers truly cherish.

They did not change much to the story at all, small details perhaps are different but nothing to make even the longest tenured fan the slightest bit upset. Unfortunately 'certain' human beings will still probably find 'something' to complain about since that's what they do best when it comes to movie and book reviews, and I'm also proving that by complaining about them in particular, but let me assure you there is very little to bicker or whine about.

We have so much potential, and though we do show a lot of that potential quite often and keep that hope of a better world alive, we more often than not go in the complete opposite direction collectively at an exponential rate and leave our mark on the earth like a wildfire.
15 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Wonderful story and brilliant animation.
gclare-889-2665752 February 2019
Loved it! Very powerful story about good vs bad. DontheCon will be defeated too!
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Decent animation series, though nothing outstanding
icymi-3790617 January 2019
I haven't read the book, so I'm not sure if they got it right, but as someone watching the mini-series without any previous background, I thought it was well done. I'd recommend watching with subtitles because as others have said, the rabbits look similar and if you see the names written with the dialogue, the story and characters are easier to follow. The animation is pretty and it creates a nice world with its production design.

It's dark and probably heavy for young children, but I think the message is important so it's worth watching for that.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Crude animation, forgettable score, indistinguishable rabbits hobble this reboot
randalrauser25 December 2018
The title summarizes the problem with this retelling of Richard Adams' beloved classic. The hand-drawn animation of the original 1978 film was vivid and colorful, the music ("Bright Eyes," "Keehar's Theme") was haunting, and the rabbits were easy to distinguish with clear visual trademarks.

"Watership Down" (2018) fails on all these counts. The landscapes are serviceable, but the movement of the rabbits is inexplicably crude like a hobbling animatronic toy. The music, while not intrusive, is hardly inspiring. And the rabbits are all so similar in appearance that it is hard to distinguish them as individuals. And if it is hard to distinguish them, it is that much harder to identify with them, or to care about their story.

To compound matters, the pacing of this 4 hour miniseries sags at several points, leaving one to pine for the taut pacing of the original feature length film.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies ... and chief among them is an insipid Netflix reboot of your glorious tale.
24 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
It was good betyer than I thought it would.
mrssjbarnosky22 December 2018
Some are saying it lacks the chilling and haunting feel of the first. It was toned down purposely to have less of that.

As we know the first one scared alot of children as was far advanced for it's time and quite graphic with the scares and violence.

Also because of how advanced it was I don't think alot of younger children totally understood it.

It has a good line of actors and the voices fit well. It has differences but that is what I like about it. This version gives children today a chance to watch it without firstly being scared or disturbed by it and it's simpler so they wont get lost with the plot.

I enjoyed it and I am an avid fan of the first as I am that 70's generation. It was a job well done. I will buy it on DVD to add to the collection.
25 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
neil-47624 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Let's be specific about the CGI.

The virtual sets are mostly very naturalistic and effective. But these days, we expect the grass and foliage to move in the breeze. The lack of animation in the backgrounds meant the CGI was largely wasted and created a feel of deadness to how it looked.

The character design was adequate, no better, and the texturing could have done with several more iterations. The characters looked unfinished. The fur was detailed but had no movement. Again, there was a feeling of deadness to the look of it.

Integration of chzracters with backgrounds was, again, adequate at best.

The tool of CGI was weilded like a blunt instrument, not a delicate tool. This should not have been trumpeted as a triumph: for a flagship project, it bordered on a technical disaster in terms of execution.
20 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Stick to the original
mike-107-44227122 December 2018
It does not look good at all, it looks like a playstation game. The original 2d hand drawn animation has a grimey look to it that adds to the dark scary world of the rabbits. Voice acting and story is good but adds nothing to the original, another pointless remake. Come up with a original idea already.
41 out of 80 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Poor remake
lawrencemiller-2990323 December 2018
I'll keep it short and sweet. Good point. 1. Very child friendly so this version you can show to your family. Bad points. 1. Poor poor animation 2. Voice acting was poor. With only Peter Capaldi putting any effort in his performance. 3. Massive cop out from the original the deaths and the gore is pretty much removed. 4. All the rabbits or Hares you can hardly tell who was who as there was little distinction in the main group. I was personal bored in part one and should not have watched part two. The original version is better in both storytelling, animation and voice acting.
25 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Rabbits or hares?
a-p-hainsworth22 December 2018
Having watched the first few minutes, I'm wondering which animal species the animators used as their model. I've always thought the author based the story on rabbits, however, the characters created in this interpretation have longer legs and longer ears than rabbits more commonly found in the UK. The colouring of their coat is also darker and more hare-like than rabbits tend to have. Otherwise I'm enjoying what I've seen so far.
25 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed