I finally checked them out and... Is it very low-budget or what? Doctor was cheesy and cheap-looking because it was part of it and fans loved it. This... I don't think they need to use the same cheap (or is it pseudo-cheap, I don't know their budget) looking style. In fact, it ruined Neil Gaiman's rather dark sense of humour.
By cheap, I mean obvious special effect failure. Remember the straw used by the plasmaphage or whatever? Or getting the radiation out by shoving it into a show and dumped into a trash bin? Or use a flashlight and call it a ghost? Neverwhere isn't that bad, but it's still kind of bad and with the cheesy acting you might mistake it for Doctor Who spin off. (No, I'm not trying to insult Doctor Who. I enjoy it, I just wished it could spend a tiny bit more in the special effects and in-story logics. Then again, it might stop being Doctor Who...) It doesn't need to copy another show's style. Just be itself.
Still, with that said, it's not that bad. The Marquis is still fun. He's also more trickter-cat-ish than I have imagined. Hunter is very different but I think I like this version of Hunter. And how she looks a bit weak somewhat makes sense as she's quite old by the time of the story and started to grow weak (which was possibily why she lost against the Beast of London, combined with the fact that she was away for a while so her skills have rusted a bit). And I'm grateful that this Hunter is not stripperiffic. I liked the super-confident, ambiguously lesbian hot and stripperiffic Hunter in the novel, but this one isn't bad either. Croup and Vaudemar do fit the image of fox/Renard and wolf/Ysgrin in my head. I wish the fox could act more crazy in the show, but seeing how they should pose as gentlemen I guess it made sense too.