bethkatediver 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.

phd_travel 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.

Charles Herold (cherold) 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.

graestella I wish this was a full review, but I got so angry that I turned it off twenty minutes in. 1) It's filmed in South Africa, not Egypt. Whether this was to save money, or to prevent anything Egyptian creeping in, it's hard to say. Even the rocks looked wrong. The Valley of the Kings is covered in white limestone chippings. Not the khaki coloured material shown here. The older BBC production 'Egypt' (2005) which covered the same material was filmed in Luxor, and in the largely deserted Western Valley and looked the part. From the opening scene this production looks wrong. 2) Then Carter, hopelessly miscast as a strapping young man, is introduced. He finds an empty tomb and angrily punches out an unnamed French Duke. This event can only be a misrepresentation of him throwing the French tourists (plural) out of the Serapeum at Sakkara in 1905. Hundreds of miles away from the Valley of the Kings. He didn't punch anyone at this incident. Also he was an Inspector at the time and not an Excavator, but all this would slow down the plot and lose the casual viewer. However the BBC version kept it all in and didn't insult the viewer. But then again, punching out a fictitious Duke saved on several French and Arab extras and a second unit setup at a fake Serapeum. 3) Then we are introduced to a synthetic character. A female American Archaeologist called Maggie Lewis. This is in itself unlikely the way women were treated by academia in the period. She is used to replace several male contemporaries of Carter's. Implying that she was his only friend. Saves on the casting I suppose and shipping lots of minor actors out to the expensive South African shoot. 4) Lord Carnarvon is shown arriving in 'Egypt'. He drives a silver sports model of a Rolls Royce which looks far too modern for 1905. Carter's diaries record that the first car in the valley, a Model T Ford, arrived in 1923, after Tut's tomb was discovered. Oh well, it saved on hiring all those pesky horse and carriage teams during the shoot. 5) Then we get some Time Travel. Davis is shown finding a cup. After Carnarvon and Carter are granted their licence to dig in the Valley. How? He had retired by this point. In reality Carter and Carnarvon were digging in several other places for 5 years before digging in the Valley. This would make sense. But the bungling writers had already said that they were in the Valley not somewhere else. It seems at this point the writers had already given up and were just writing anything and not checking the script. 6) Then the cup is taken by the wrong assistant archaeologist to Maggie (who didn't exist) to identify. Agh! It was at this point I wondered what a mess they would make of the major story elements. The discovery of Tut's Tomb, and the alleged romance between Carter and Lady Evelyn. This appalling start didn't bode well. Then I decided to stop beating myself up and turn over. The BBC version, despite several errors, was Shakespeare compared to this. They could have just put that on again and burnt all the money they wasted on this travesty. I believe that they knew this was rubbish before they finished it. Why else did it take so long to make? Then it was previewed, without a scheduled date, for several months. Finally appearing after the much superior 'Victoria' finished its eight week run. This only increased the massive feeling of anti-climax.