Gunpowder

Pretty good actors doing a decent enough job-but it is a very uninspired telling of a quite interesting and exciting true story. If you never see it, you aren't really missing out on anything.

This is a good series, excellent acting. The moderate rating reflects my concern about the balance. There certainly was religious persecution during the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I which is to be deplored.Probably near 100 Catholics were martyred in England alone between Elizabeth's accession in 1558 and the Gunpowder plot. 100 in 50 years is a lot; but compare that to the near 300 Protestants martyred in only five years under Mary Tudor. Or to the thousands slaughtered by the Spanish Inquisition from the 15th century in Spain and the Low Countries - to say nothing of the tens of thousands of unfortunate victims in Spain's colonies of Peru and Mexico). The Catholic Encyclopedia creditably points out that Elizabeth began her reign with true toleration in mind - witnessed by the fact that there were no religious executions at all between 1558 and 1570. Things changed with the actions of the reprehensible Pope Pius V who after acceding in 1570 excommunicated Elizabeth and urged her subjects to rebel and to assassinate her. Hardly surprising that she was urged to take a tougher line. Pius's plans ultimately backfired; but he had created a problem for English Catholics - support Pope or Monarch was their only choice. Blame for what happened after falls mostly on the shoulders of that psychopathic prelate. As regards the gunpowder plotters themselves, I feel the series was misleading in portraying them as worthy patriots and genuinely religious men. Think on it; they put nearly 3 tons of gunpowder in place. Had they succeeded the magnitude of the blast would have taken out not only the Parliament building and all inside but half of London besides. Total casualties might have been 10,000 or more. Tease this up proportionately and we are talking about devastation on Hiroshima levels. They must have known how extensive the damage and death would have been - several were ex-soldiers and used to gunpowder. These men would probably have welcomed a subsequent Spanish invasion to forcibly drag their countryman back to a now alien faith. They were traitors and potential mass-murderers. No sympathy from me, I'm afraid.

This is a good period drama which, as others have written, reminds you a lot of "Wolfe Hall." However, the viewer should be advised that it's a hard "R" film for its graphic gore early in the first episode. From what I've read of history, this is a fairly accurate depiction of the way things were actually done in 17th century England. Just be advised.

I was wondering why would anyone cast Kit Harrington, who is such a terrible actor. The answer is because he is one of the creators. He has the same Jon Snow face throughout the whole thing. In fact he is basically the same character. Terrible acting, casting, plot looks like a bad Brazilian soap opera with some historical facts. Sometimes the characters, dialogues and plot development are so badly written that it seems to be a satire instead of a historical drama. Skip this one. Life is too short to waste on bad shows. Looking back I regret giving 5 stars instead of one.

Notice there is a word missing from the title? That's right Plot. The Gunpowder Plot was a conspiracy, and a conspiracy by definition is not all about one person. Thirteen men plotted to blow up the King and government, kidnap the princess royal, foment an armed rebellion and seize the reigns of state with the aid of a foreign power. It was daring, almost certainly stupid and heroically irresponsible.

Robert Catesby is important yes, because he had the vision and the charisma to persuade twelve very different individuals to sign up for this madcap scheme. But that is part of the problem here: the vision is elusive and, in Kit Harrington's stolid performance there is precious little charisma. As for the remaining conspirators, they are blanks, even Guy Fawkes is nothing more than a by-the-numbers Tom Hardy tribute act. We know nothing about them or what drew them into the plot. In focussing so exclusively on the part played by his aristocratic ancestor, Harrington does not just do a disservice to the other conspirators (half of whom do not get speaking parts), he also drains all the tension from the conspiracy storyline. There should be clashing personalities and differing agendas, paranoia and suspicions, false starts and difficulties encountered; above all as the conspiracy reaches it's climax there should be jangling nerves. It's hard to care about the inner turmoil of characters you have not been properly introduced to, and in fairness the script does not even make the attempt.

Instead we get spurious action sequences, such as Catesby's rescue of John Gerard, who actually escaped from the Tower a decade earlier and without Catesby's assistance, and hackneyed Hollywood moments, such as the climatic sequence when Butch Catesby and the Wintourdance Kid charge out in slow motion onto the guns of the Bolivian police force.

Above all the focus is on Catesby and his motivations, all seen through a prism of modern sensibilities and contemporary relevance. And that again is a problem, as the history gets mucked around quite a lot in order to make these points. If you are going to depict atrocities in prurient detail and justify them as providing the context for your character's actions, then you can expect to be called out if you over-egg the pudding.

The look of the show is good, if a little underlit, but the script is hack work and the performances, for the most part (Liv Tyler as Anne Vaux is a luminous exception) either soapily two-dimensional or pantomime broad. The ubiquitous Gatiss renders a particularly ripe King Rat as that fascinating statesman Robert Cecil. (Historical accuracy would incidentally have been better served by a shorter Cecil and a taller Catesby.)

Since Harrington is milking his moment in the sun to get vanity projects commissioned on the lives of his ancestors, I shall look forward with eager anticipation to a three-part drama on the inventor of the flush toilet, an achievement worthy of celebration. Would that someone at the BBC had pulled the chain on this production.