Ensofter Overrated and overhyped

Cortechba Overrated

Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Mathilde the Guild Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

malmborgimplano-92-599820 Fine acting, good production values and a butt-stupid script characterize this series, which follows the same hoary old formula as any number of women's fictions from the past hundred years or so, notably "Gone With The Wind" and "Forever Amber." The beautiful, free-spirited, lusty heroine plunges recklessly from adventure to adventure and man to man, running smack into famous historical characters at every turn. Please note that the title at the beginning of each episode claiming that this is a true story is a lie. There was never any such person as Angelica Fanshawe, though there actually was a guy named Edward Sexby. It's too bad no one had the idea of eliminating the character of Angelica altogether and just making the series "Sexby" instead.Capaldi doesn't have a whole lot of screen time as Charles I and nothing approaching a coherent character to play, but he pulls it all together nevertheless and creates a memorable figure of quiet authority not that unlike his Cardinal Richelieu in "The Musketeers." His performance makes the execution scene absolutely riveting, despite the thoroughly stupid decision to intercut it with the execution of the fictional Angelica, who's hanged but gets better after Sexby gives her CPR. Did I actually give this thing a 6? I went and changed it to a 5. 5 for Capaldi and others like Andrea Riseborough, John Simm and Dominic West who gave their considerable talents to making this silly spleeb.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU The true story of Angelica Fanshawe, they say it is, but that is secondary to the real interest of this mini-series. Born close to the royal court of Charles I, married within that closed sanctuary, closed especially to what other people may think, and particularly repressive with all those that represented some kind of danger for the crown, she was confronted with a time when truth was the master word of everyone, love the premium of every one and yet the everyday reality was sectarianism and violence directed at all those who differed from you, no matter where you stood.Her story could be reduced to a series of husbands or to a series of man friends or to a series of failures with a successful birth at the end. That's what makes this film striking if not shocking at times with the extreme confrontation of the audience to excessive violence and all other types of executions, corporeal punishments, absolute deprivation of everything, victimization and injustice. And there is not one camp in this full array of differences that is better than the others.But I think this film goes a long way beyond these details and gritty small impressive elements. First of all it is rather clear on the "constitutional debate". The king is of divine nature and has no reason to share his power which is divine and absolute. Parliament, not clearly identified as the representative of the upcoming merchant bourgeoisie whose power was founded on the possession of the merchant fleet, of practically all ships in England, and the control over all sailors, is unable to get out of its small petty meaningless, except for them of course, effete and useless debate on some obtuse religious questions like predestination and the Eucharist, holy sacraments and contact with god, and eventually the right of the people (what people when parliament was elected by a few tens of thousands of propertied people?) to dismiss the king if his connection with the people (what people again.) got discontinued. They were no longer in touch, if they had ever been, with the needs and desires of simple people.The film insists in fact a lot on the Levelers, those people who defended the idea that the land was the property of those who tilled it and that everyone was supposed to share equally with everyone else. They were hunted by the king's men because they were seen as the most dangerous anti-royal enemies since they wanted the end of monarchy and the shift to an equalitarian republic. On the other side they were equally hunted by Cromwell's supporters because Cromwell was not for a republic, was a direct representative of the mercantile bourgeoisie and was against equal sharing, and yet at the same time he was not for a republic and believed deep in himself this country could only be one-handedly governed by a single man, which he resigned to do himself when no compromise could be found with the king.The film is absolutely silent, alas, on the various wars in their details: the two civil wars, and then the Irish war and then the Scottish war and then the war with Spain. The first two were against the king and ended with his bodily shortening. The next one was a bloody massacre based on the idea that Catholics had fallen down to lower than animals since they were able to let their own children starve, if not help them a little bit. The Scottish episode is not represented and the Spanish caper is not even mentioned because it confirmed a radical change that had started under Elizabeth I when she had to mobilize the country against Spain. In both cases the Parliament was the key to that demand because the owners of the ships and the employers of the sailors were all directly in parliament or represented in and by parliament. So Elizabeth gave some powers to parliament over taxation for example, in order to get what she wanted: ships and sailors. Cromwell went even further. He had to summon and convene a parliament he had violently disbanded.Why forget these events that are just coming to the beginning of the end in Ireland, that was solved in Scotland with devolution, and that is the basis of the tremendous move England was able to initiate in the Christian world towards a democratic parliamentary elective system that will take fifty years after the Glorious Revolution (1660) to establish fundamental human rights like Habeas Corpus, the freedom of the press and of publication. That's a shortcoming of great size in the film but that does not prevent us from feeling the happy ending of the Commonwealth in the Glorious Revolution that was to bring a new batch of difficulties and this time the peaceful revocation of the king by parliament in a law that will establish the first constitutional monarchy in the world, a real first step towards the American Revolution and then the French Revolution.After this period no one could say like Charles I: "Give me one instance of a king being dismissed by a parliament!" Charles I was the first in 1649. James II will be the second in 1688. That's really the end of feudalism and its theory of absolute kings by divine appointment.But nevertheless the show is beautifully filmed and grandiosely performed.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

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.

jhsteel I can't believe that I know so little about the English Civil War and this series has stimulated me to learn more. The characters were portrayed so well that I feel I want to know so much more about those who were real people. John Simm's performance as Edward Sexby haunts me because he spent so much time longing for a relationship with Angelica, then finally reached his goal, only to move away from her again towards another greater goal. It was inspiring, and I was captivated by the visual impact and the political power of the plot. Like the West Wing, the Devil's Whore managed to make me interested in political issues that may seem dull elsewhere. Oliver Cromwell came across as a real man and most of the real historical figures were 3-dimensional. Angelica was fascinating and powerful, and it doesn't matter that she was not real historically - she held the story together. The details of the struggle between the monarch and the parliamentarians is very gripping and is at the roots of our present system of democracy - probably the model for all democracies. As a Quaker, I need to know as much as possible about this period in English history, because out of the many religious and political groups which grew up in the turbulence of the 17th century, the Society of Friends is one that has survived adapted to modern life - something that the Ranters and Levellers were unable to do.Overall, my main impression was one of fascination with the story of Angelica's life and Sexby's devotion to her - it was a great inspiring tale. Such a shame that it had to be cut down from 12 episodes to 4 - how much more would we have gained if we could have seen all that was planned?