It is a performances centric movie

n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

I am actually a relative of Dr Howard Carter as he is my great, great, great uncle. I loved this show and really enjoyed the added excitement of the affair.A lot of critics say that the affair is annoying and did not happen but really know one knows if it did or did not happen so disregard this as a critic of the show. Also, the fact that the sand or stone is not the right colour is just silly as this would have been extremely hard to replicate and is such as minor detail.Overall, the show was amazing and captivating to the audience. It really showed the hardships Carter went through and why it was such an brilliant find.

The harshest reviews here have been by people criticizing the series historical inaccuracies, but all I know about the discovery of King Tut's tomb I know from a little light reading after watching the series, so I really don't care if there were no Rolls Royce's in Egypt at the time.But purely as a historical drama, the series isn't especially well constructed. I don't mind the romance between Carter and Lady Evelyn because it most likely never happened but rather because it overshadows the actual story of the tomb. The problem is that the script never makes me care about that relationship, yet focuses on it so much that I feel the science is completely underserved.I was also a little bothered by the portrayal of the Egyptian government as officious, soulless bureaucrats. I'm not saying they weren't, but I think the history of Egypt, Britain, and artifacts is a rather complicated one and this strikes me as a simplistic approach.Overall, this feels like a script written by someone who wasn't convinced that Carter's discovery of the Tomb was particularly compelling, and thus ginned it up with romance and conflict and attempted to shape it into a conventional and fairly forgettable little drama.On the other hand, the story is scenic, the actors are likable, there are good moments, and overall the series kept me entertained until it fizzled at the end.

I have to agree with the other critics. This is a poor offering. I don't know if finance played a part but the casting just does not fit, and why both Carnarvon and Davis were shown wearing beards mystifies me. They both wore a moustache. I have the photographs to prove it. The location is wrong, trees and bushes in the Valley? Not when I've been there and as others have said the rocks are the wrong colour. They are in fact a creamy white, appearing golden in the sun, not nasty brown. As to where the domestic scenes have been set, true Davis did have a dig house in the West Valley, but as Carnarvon and Davis did not get on I suspect that any visits were brief and they would not have been house mates.The "romantic interest" looks like an afterthought and although the affair between Carter and Evelyn has been described as "speculative" a more accurate description should be "fantasy".No, a missed opportunity to give this fascinating affair the exposure it deserves. There are so many other things wrong with this production I would surely run out of space to describe them. The historical facts are there, it's just ruined by all the false, made up stuff, though I did appreciate the Flinders Petrie sketch, that did point to the eccentricity of the man even if it was a burlesque.Oh, a last observation. It is only a fleeting glimpse but did I detect the modern Egyptian flag being flown in the "Valley? If it was this series is in good company as David Suchet's Poirot also got it wrong in the "Adventure of the Egyptian Tomb" where they also misplaced the Valley of the Kings, this time in Morocco if my memory serves me correctly. Though "Death on the Nile" was filmed in Luxor.

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.