Two-star verdict for Netflix's The House of Guinness

Netflix's The House of Guinness, a new eight-episode period drama from Steven Knight (Peaky Blinders), unfolds across Dublin and New York in the 19th century and follows the Guinness family after the death of patriarch Sir Benjamin Guinness. The series centers on the family's fortunes as they navigate a blend of business power, personal intrigue and a shifting political landscape, with a cast led by Anthony Boyle, Louis Partridge, Emily Fairn and Fionn O'Shea, and supported by James Norton as Rafferty. The production is lavish and visually polished, aiming for a sweeping, cinematic feel that Knight is known for, while positioning itself as a high-society soap with historical overtones.

Each episode opens with a disclaimer declaring, “This is a fiction based on true stories.” That framing invites viewers to question what is real and what is constructed, a tension that becomes a throughline for the series’ reception. Deborah Ross, writing for the Daily Mail, assigns the show a two-star rating and argues that the program struggles to justify its premise, offering a soap-opera cadence rather than a sharp, high-stakes drama. The disclaimer, she notes, underscores the challenge of translating a storied family and a complex period into a series that feels both overbearing and undercooked at once.

The narrative begins in the year 1868 with the death of Sir Benjamin Guinness, the brewery patriarch who built global wealth for the family. The plot follows his four children—Arthur, the eldest; Edward, the most capable; Anne, whose potential is acknowledged but underutilized; and Benjamin, portrayed as a well-meaning but largely off-screen figure who drifts into the background. The will promises a battle for control, but as the drama unfolds, the anticipated friction rarely arrives. Edward is content to run the business, Arthur would rather pursue politics, and Anne is not given room to play a robust, fully realized role. The result, per the critic, is a slow burn that often feels more like a soap opera wearing period clothes than a meticulously plotted family saga.

The show expands beyond the family into the wider world—most notably the Fenians’ push for Irish independence—which bloats the narrative and distracts from the core dynamic of a single family and their business. Subplots proliferate: romantic entanglements, potential same-sex revelations for Arthur, and the arrival of Rafferty, the enigmatic fixer played by James Norton, all vie for attention. While these threads offer texture, Ross argues that they do not cohere into a gripping or meaningful whole. “It’s hardly Succession, particularly when we also see how philanthropic the family are,” she writes, signaling that the tone veers toward nostalgia and moral reassurance rather than cutting-edge drama.

The critic does acknowledge the show’s ambitions and production values, noting that Knight’s swagger and dark, atmospheric style are on full display. Yet the ambition often collides with a sense of self-parody, and the writing struggles to breathe life into its characters. One line—“He’s an empty barrel on the tide of history”—is cited as emblematic of the dialogue’s lack of bite, illustrating how the script trades wit for cliché. The ensemble cast is capable, but even strong performances cannot elevate characters that feel underwritten or one-note. The result, Ross suggests, is a series that looks sumptuous but doesn’t earn its emotional investment.

Genre signals also weigh on the show’s reception. The soundtrack leans on modern pop and rock tunes for mood, neon intertitles punctuate scenes, and profanity is deployed with the frequency of a contemporary drama rather than the restraint of a period piece. These choices, while enhancing atmosphere for some viewers, contribute to a tonal dissonance for a narrative rooted in late-19th-century history. A sequence of slow-motion violence, a device that some have associated with stylistic experimentation, lands in a show that is already balancing numerous subplots rather than building a focused, urgent arc.

The central flaw, according to the review, is structural: the series overreaches by weaving too many subplots and historical threads without grounding the audience in a clear, stakes-driven core. When the episode count finally arrives at resolution, the payoffs feel diffuse, and the promised suspense fizzles rather than lands. The essay notes that a tighter focus—perhaps centering on the family’s daily operations, the mechanics of the Guinness brand, and the real-world pressures that shaped the company’s growth—might have produced a more compelling, cohesive drama. As it stands, the show feels like a series that set out to be both a prestige period piece and a contemporary soap, without fully satisfying either ambition.

The final impression, Ross writes, is a disappointment given the project’s pedigree and potential. The ending of the season is described as a cliffhanger, leaving viewers with questions that the program’s pacing and storytelling do not seem equipped to answer. The critique suggests that, without a sharper focus on history and business as the spine of the narrative, the glossy trappings and star power cannot compensate for a lack of narrative ballast. The House of Guinness, she concludes, is a production that looks expensive and performed well, but ultimately feels undercooked—an ambitious endeavor that does not quite land its intended blend of Succession-style power play and Downton Abbey-like ensemble melodrama.

The Netflix project lands at a moment when audiences are accustomed to prestige-era dramas that balance family politics with corporate or social maneuvering. The House of Guinness promises a hybrid that could illuminate a little-known facet of a storied family while entertaining with modern pacing. Instead, the critic finds a show that sings in its production values but stumbles in its storytelling, leaving behind a series that is visually impressive yet lacking the narrative muscle to justify its sprawling scope. Whether subsequent episodes salvage the momentum remains to be seen, but for now the verdict is clear: two stars, a watchable but unsatisfying balance of ambition and indulgence, and a cliffhanger that feels earned mainly for teasing another season rather than delivering a satisfying conclusion.