ChikPapa Very disappointed :(

Hottoceame The Age of Commercialism

Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

Inmechon The movie's only flaw is also a virtue: It's jammed with characters, stories, warmth and laughs.

samkan I'm accepting TDW as something designed for television and for that reason necessarily had to compromise its script, sets and melodrama to please the medium. Even assuming such, the story was captivating, the acting exceptional, and the sets and action convincing, if relatively modest. A few of the commenters herein have far better knowledge of this period of England's history and I cannot pass judgment on historical accuracy, though again, a mass TV audience might be less interested in such. Let me suggest that, if TDW didn't fit the historical facts too well, it certainly presented the intrigue, betrayal, ambiguity, futility and tragedy that certainly resulted from the period's events. But I've a biased view. At fifty-eight I find myself less enamored with kitten-like sexpots and more wooed by earthy beauty like that of Miss Riseborough. I probably would've still clapped at the end if her Angelica had been crowned Queen.

mariahelleberg Look to the title - the devil has been added to be able to draw audiences in. And Angelica is a sort of English "Angelique" - a piece of human meat being dragged through history. modern dialog and modern terms are used. boring and primitive. subplots lead nowhere. but, okay, there is a amount of fighting going on. swordplay and blood. almost as bad as Tudors. avoid! this is not an epic tale of a young woman's life during the English Civil War, but a badly told romp.I think that the problem is, that the creators want to write a drama for women (: female protagonist) and men (: fighting, torture, male bonding). There is absolutely no artistic reason to create this movie. But I like all the parallels to "Angelique". avoid! I mean it!

patrick powell Well, The Devil's Whore gets two cheers for trying – OK, make that two and a half - and if in some ways it failed, I don't think it should get all the blame. It seems that what was conceived of a 12-part series hit the financial buffers of necessity became a four-part series and, unfortunately, in many ways it shows. What finally hit the screens over four one-hour episodes is by no means bad and is most certainly very entertaining, but it is something of a mongrel, a hotch-potch of this, that and t'other. The background - well, more than the background - the whole context to what purports to be a true account of a fictional character is a period in British history which is not only fascinating but which led to the foundation of democracy throughout the world. But it was anything but straightforward: it wasn't simply a question of 'the people' rising up against 'the king' as many believe, but an intricate and complex realignment of authority and power. It began in the reign of Charles I and more or less concluded when his son, Charles II, was restored to the throne and England and Scotland once again had a monarchy. But it was a very different monarchy which now existed and over the next 150 led to the creation of parliament which Brtitain likes to boast was the template of all other parliaments. (It wasn't really, but that is here not the issue). But for a very nasty period of 20 years, Britain was convulsed by strife and civil war in which many died and which saw a great deal of death and brutality. In the Levellers, the country experienced what would later be known as communism but it also saw how privilege and property is so engrained in the fabric of this and all other countries that it takes more than ideals and violence to dislodge them. That is the background, and a 12-part series from the same team which produce this cutdown lite version might well have made a good fist of explaining the complexities of that time. In the event they don't, and what we do get at the historical and political level is akin to a primary school textbook account. The Devil's Whore is also something of a bodice-ripper, and here it perhaps scores a little more. And I suspect that element, the romance and dashing hero stuff would have found a way of fitting in quite nicely with an intelligent exposition of the English Civil War and its aftermath. The problem is that those who see The Devil's Whore might well remember that as their 'history', but it does take enormous liberties with the truth in the interests of creating rattling entertainment. Thus Thomas Rainsborough, Edward Sexby, John Lilburne and, of course, Oliver Cromwell were all historical characters, but in this version they are fictionalised to such an extent that often only their names remain what is true about them. There is also the quibble, a pretty universal fault, of coincidence: blow me do the various characters appear in just the right spot at just the right time. Right on cue. And they manage to travel some distances with no bother at all. Then there's the curious matter of the Devil, who appears, usually sitting on a tree, at the strangest moments. I assume he is the Devil for whom the heroine Angelica Fanshawe is the 'whore', but that must remained supposition as no explanation for his continued appearance is even attempted. And what about Prince Rupert, bosom pal of Angelica's first husband who even turns up in the wedding chamber on her wedding night, but then suddenly disappears from view never to be heard, seen or spoken of again. Odd. That, too, was probably a victim of the cuts from a 12-parter to a third that length. No doubt such anomalies might have been ironed out had the money been there and the series been a 12-parter after all. As it is we have to put up with outrageous suspension of disbelief. Overall, of course, and sitting side by side with other TV drama, The Devil's Whore isn't half bad and most certainly very entertaining. The pity is that for want of a penny or two more it might well have been outstanding. But that it isn't.

paul2001sw-1 Peter Flannery wrote one of the finest dramatic accounts of recent history, the epic television series 'Our Friends in the North', but sadly, his attempt to write about the English Civil War is a far inferior affair. To me, the essence of good historical drama is that it distances us from our own times, and allows us to see how others could have held positions that seem to us indefensible; but 'The Devil's Whore' invents a fictitious female heroine, beautiful and anachronistically feisty (and involved in a story line that could have been borrowed from 'Thelma and Lousie'!) who seems to exist for the sole purpose of allowing us to judge the past through a modern pair of eyes. The writer also clearly wanted a share of the market for posh-frock romances, and the possibility of a happy end, while also putting this unlikely figure on the "right" side of the conflict - hence, wholly implausibly, our heroine is rendered as an aristocratic Leveller. The drama's general sympathy for the Levellers (and associated proto-socialist movements) is also overdone, in that the characters with attractive politics are consistently shows to be morally superior, and more likable, than those without. Against, the contrast with 'Our Friends', whose general sympathies for the Labour cause did not reduce the story to a black and white tale, is clear. The only really interesting character in this story is the Charles I, knowledge of whose execution perhaps invokes a certain involuntary sympathy on the part of the viewer, and who is suavely played by Peter Capaldi. But overall, 'The Devils Whore' is part Hollywood narrative , part Jane Austen and a sprinkling of socialism: an odd combination, and a disappointment compared with Flannery's best.