Tutankhamun

Why do film makers always feel the need to re-write history as they wish it to have been. rather than leaving it as it was? This series is replete with historical inaccuracies, geographic inaccuracies, and all manner of other errors. Absolute rubbish. Even the very simplest of historical facts, such as Carter's first opening of and entry into the tomb, are completely erroneous. The impression I have is of writers, directors, and producers who assume or hope that most viewers are too stupid to know the difference ... a total disregard for their audience.

It is strange to expect historical accuracy from an artistic serie. And it is, in same measure, bizarre to blame a romance slice in that serie. Because the purpose is well known, because the target must be large. I love this serie because it gives me one of the most fascinating stories of my childhood. For the performance of Max Irons, growing up role by role. For costumes and atmosphere and all "the spices"- from tension to love, from ambition to political context. In same measure, it is a real joy to see Sam Neill doing what you expect to do . A beautiful historical serie. And inspired expression of huge ambition to recreate a world in its essence defining it.

There are a lot of bad reviews for this programme and I feel I have to say something. I actually joined IMDb to post this review. It is a TV dramatisation, not a reenactment. Not every detail will be accurate, because they want to make it accessible to the main stream public who are not experts in the story and who want to be entertained as much as educated. I'm not an expert, just an ordinary member of the public, and perhaps if I was an Egyptologist I would be disappointed by this version of the Howard Carter story, but as an ordinary member of the public, I absolutely love it! It is atmospheric, beautiful, intriguing, and gripping. I love the actors, I love the scenery I love the costumes and of course the storyline. Who wouldn't love a story set in a vibrant and colourful part of the world, at an exciting time period, about a treasure hunt? And it makes me want to find out more and educate myself about the real story, which surely should be the aim of any good drama about a real historical event.

Despite the inaccuracies, this miniseries is still watchable fascinating and well made. The story of the greatest discovery is so good that it makes up for the faults. The discovery itself is quite thrilling and one can really feel the joy.

One of the best points is the detail shown. There are lots of details about the financial, political difficulties regarding the dig. It does give some historical context to the time of the discovery. The question over what Egypt gets to keep and what the discoverer gets as a reward is interesting. It's not right that foreigners take away the historical treasures of any country yet the discoverer needs some compensation for their expenses.

Dealing with the faults: It wasn't filmed in Egypt and the sand and valley are darker and don't look like Egypt. It would have been tough to film in Egypt with all the instability since 2011 anyway. The romances with a Met Museum woman and Lady Evelyn Herbert are a little distracting but I guess if they didn't blow these up it would have been kind of like a documentary. There are some bad American accents of a few characters. Also Max Irons is too young looking at the time of the discovery - bit like Jonathan Rhys Meyers in the Tudors. But so what - he is watchable and actually is quite good here if you ignore the age thing - I can't think of another young actor who could have done a better job.

A little more of the factual elements of the curse could have been shown besides Lord Carnarvon's death. Some strange things did happen. Better than showing the romances.

If you enjoyed this - highly recommend a 1980 TV movie "The Curse of King Tut's Tomb", an excellent and exciting movie about the discovery and the curse. Forget about the more recent one with Casper Van Dien.

Quite a pleasure to watch despite it's faults.

Well...

Definitely romanticized. Fairly accurate historically. Carter is a bit changed to be as much like Brandon Frasier's/ Nicolas Cage's archaeologist characters as they can get away with, to make this more interesting. Other characters are altered to be pretty eccentric to peak interest, to enrich the story.

As long as they stick to the actual history, I don't mind them taking such poetic license.

It is historically accurate so far as I said. The actual story is there. They didn't show that early on Carter really was in charge of practically everything. They kind of showed him as simply an archaeologist who lost his permit. He was actually in charge of the whole area when he lost his title, over a dispute with arrogant French tourists. They also didn't emphasize that because of his willingness to fight for his workers, they were very loyal to him. I hope that comes out.

I do feel they could have easily started with his boyhood and added a few episodes to this.

They also didn't show that for years he survived on his art, selling it to tourists. And his art was good! Find an original Howard Carter, you've got something.

Other than that...it's pretty darn good.

Added:

Wow did this go off the rails eventually. It's one thing to create a couple of characters in a historic story, for romance and intrigue, like Titanic did. It's another thing to take a real 21 year old woman, and put her in a romance with a real 48 year old guy! Libel, I would almost suspect? Are there living relatives who might be kind of offended? They've got this fantasy romance effecting decisions and outcomes of historic importance. Jack and Rose's fantasy romance didn't effect the steering of the Titanic, or other real events. They're making things happen because of this fake hook up.