Tut (2015) User Reviews

Despite its faults, a great story nicely done...but heavily fictionalized

[vincentlynch-moonoi · 7/10 · 21 July 2015]

I hope that people watching this realize it's pretty thin on history.

Having said that, however, it's pretty entertaining. Production values for this type of cable station (Spike) are pretty decent. The sets may be a tad gaudy, and the special effects are t.v. level, not film level, but still, it's a rather handsome production.

While Ben Kingsley gets topped billing, it's more due to his past endeavors. And, personally, I did not think he was very impressive here, although he did look the part.

The miniseries really belongs to the young actor who plays Tut -- Avan Jogia. Being older, I was not familiar with him, but I thought he did very nicely here. He looks appropriately ethnic here, and his acting is quite good. I expect we will be seeing lots more of him.

Nonso Anozie is quite good as the traitorous general. I was not very impressed with Sibylla Deen, who plays Tut's sister. On the other hand, I was quite impressed by Kylie Bunbury, who plays the primary love of Tut, although her character is not pure Egyptian. Alistair Toovey is also quite good here.

Overall, despite attempting to write or rewrite history, this is an impressive drama...albeit heavily fictionalized.

It's ironic that King Tut was hardly the most important of ancient Egypt's history, yet he has become larger than life...and this miniseries, despite all its shortcomings, will only add to that. Worth watching.

Like traveling back in time to ancient Egypt !

[starbase202 · 7/10 · 22 July 2015]

I was delighted to learn of the TUT mini-series shortly prior to its start so that I did not miss it. Since I never visited Egypt before the recent Mid-East turmoils I like to see of much of its history and culture as possible on TV. This docu-drama satisfied my needs very nicely. The use of Morocco for filming was the perfect choice. And the costume and set designs, as well as make-up are worthy of Emmy awards. However, I feel that some of the acting was periodically heavy handed and should have been toned down on occasion. But I was very pleased with the end result. And hopefully, this same production company team will be able to produce such wonderful programs in the future.

Very Well Made and Watchable

[nicholls_les · 8/10 · 29 December 2015]

Sometimes we forget how good modern production values are. The sets on this mini series were outstanding and showed ancient Eygpt in it's full glory. Avan Jogia who plays Tut did a great job, he looked and acted the part brilliantly and he even stole scenes he played opposite Ben Kingsley.

I thought Nonso Anozie was very good as the general, torn between his own desire for adulation and his allegiance to the young Pharoah.

Sibylla Deen, who plays Tut's wife/sister was gorgeous and I thought she played her part well. Kylie Bunbury, who plays the other love interest of Tut was also beautiful and clearly a brilliant actress.

Some of the sex scenes were unnecessarily graphic but that aside this was a good series well worth a watch.

I am sure this is not historically accurate but very few of this type of film is.

kudos to Spike TV for a good show

[joycekonig · 9/10 · 28 July 2015]

The costumes were absolutely gorgeous. The deceit, treachery and politics all seemed very apropos to today's goings on in the world. The photography was good and the scenes were engrossing. Good casting using Ben Kingsley, and the young Pharaoh was also well-cast.

I understand that this is the first original production for Spike TV. Well congratulations to you, Spike, because it was a very good show. The only issue I had was that the volume of the dialogue was too low in proportion to the volume of the music and/or action scenes.

I look forward to more original productions by this up and coming channel.

Very entertaining!!

[Chuckcb66 · 21 July 2015]

This show was a total and pleasant surprise. I would of loved to see it have a chance to developed more but all and all a very good show. People dogging this show lose sight that is TV show not a documentary full of facts and figures. The show served it's purpose of providing drama and a very good story. From a production stand point I thought it was outstanding. Actors and actresses who I've never heard of had a chance to shine and for the most part did a very respectable job. As with most TV drama there are going to parts that could of hit the editorial floor but for Spike TV to feature a show off this magnitude I thought it was well done and definitely worth watching!

99% fictional account of the Boy King (Tut)

[lynpalmer1 · 7/10 · 21 July 2015]

Since very little is known about the actual life of the most famous Egyptian King in history (due to the discovery of his perfectly intact tomb and mummy)it should be stressed that this story is pure speculation and fiction. The truth, based on recent revelations, would suggest King Tut's physical appearance and abilities left a lot to be desired. Here, besides a slight limp, he is physically beautiful and somewhat of an action hero. The real Tut most likely never saw battle or ventured far from his palace. Anyway, suspend the disbelief and watch it anyway. The scenery, sets and costumes are gorgeous. The plot is the usual mix of royal back stabbing, political intrigue, murder, incest, heir to the throne story lines. A somewhat unbelievable love interest is thrown in, I guess to add more drama. And even though anyone with a basic knowledge of history knows it will not end well for the boy king, his death was still sad and touching. The boy playing Tut did a fine job, as did most of the cast here. However, there was one scene between Tut's wife/sister and her lover that made me laugh out loud. I'm pretty sure the term "it's o.k." was never uttered in Ancient Egypt. Did anyone else catch this? A lot more gore than I expected, especially in part 3 and some not for the kiddies sex scenes. Overall, pretty enjoyable sword and sandal romp. But somehow it makes it even sadder that we will never know the truth about the most famous Pharaoh that ever lived, at least since he was discovered in the 1920's by Howard Carter.

A pleasant surprise

[kols · 9/10 · 21 July 2015]

Saw the trailer on the same day Tut premiered on Spike and watched the first episode out of little more than curiosity: What in the world could they do with a character who, despite being a twentieth century celebrity, is unknown in detail?

From the first, Carter's discovery of Tut's tomb has generated an enormous body of speculation and inspired an entire sub-genre of movies: The Mummy, from Karloff to Fraser and Weisz. But, as for Tut himself, we know virtually nothing: only a few names such as Anhkesenamun, Ay and Horemheb - all verifiable historic players, but little in terms of their histories except for Horemheb. From Anhkesenamun we have a touching letter she wrote to the Hittite ruler Suppiluliuma, imploring him to send her one of his sons because, upon the death of Tut, she distrusted her suitors.

As for Ay, we know of his existence, both in Armarna and Thebes, and of his assumption of the throne following Tut but little more.

So there are a few scant bones to hang a melodrama on following Tut's death but nothing to script his life.

Which turned into a very big plus for the screenwriters, who ignored any possible history and, seemingly, updated the plot lines from The Egyptian and Land of the Pharaohs, very successfully.

The story is simple, Tut is portrayed as a strong willed young king anxious to prove himself in battle but becomes embittered, after being wound in a skirmish with the Mitanni, by his first taste of betrayal. Resulting, as he returns to Thebes during Ka's investment ceremony, his murder of Ka and re-establishment as Pharaoh. And thus begins an increasing complex struggle within Tut as he tries to reconcile his existence as an individual and his responsibilities as Pharaoh.

Anhkesenamun, meanwhile, follows a similar struggle. Enraged by Tut's murder of Ka she, too, wrestles with her feelings as an individual and responsibilities as Queen.

Those are the basics but what elevates "Tut" is the way they're handled. That being the script, which is superb. All of the characters are written as flawed human beings trapped in webs of culture, politics and their personal ambitions and the plot unfolds organically from those elements.

As for that plot - it isn't history or even close (Tut never faced Mitanni raiders or Tushratta, who was most likely dead by the time of Tut's reign). But, then, when has Hollywood cared about such things. A good story is a good story. And the writers have definitely produced a good story, focusing on the characters and using the details of the action as a motivational backdrop.

It all works and all the principles are well acted, especially Ben Kingsley who plays Ay as an ambitious enigma.

The production values are equally outstanding and,this time, true to the grandeur of Egyptian palaces and temples in the 18th Dynasty, as well all of its environments.

Final notes on the fractured history - a plague and the chaos it engendered is a significant element of the plot. No such plague occurred during Tut's reign, it belongs to the Amarna period.

The Mitanni are portrayed as, ethnically, sub-Saharan Africans - in reality their ruling class had roots as Indo-Aryans while their subjects belong to a language group known as Hurrian. Mitanni itself was primarily an Anatolian Empire. But, again, Hollywood.

In summary, the history is totally fractured but, in a very general way, appropriate to the period.

Once you've swallowed that, "Tut" is outstanding: well crafted script; engaging, complex, believable characters; and production values true to the period. A very pleasant surprise.

11-27-15

Just read all the reviews and, guys, get your ethnicities straight: though there was certainly interactions among trading partners with mixed offspring as a result, the Egyptians of the late Pharaonic period were not sub-Saharan, nor were any other populations of North Africa. Neither were any Semitic (Arab), except those influenced by the above caveat.

Not that that really makes any difference: for reference the Nubians produced a culture that rivaled Egypt and, during the first Millennium, as Egyptian political power waned and waxed, installed a few 'Black' Pharaohs.

Wikipedia does have a short article outlining a few instances of Egyptian/North African DNA analysis, bu it's far from definitive: showing all of the earmarks of mixed populations you would expect from thousands of years of trading: kind of like trying to establish a 'dominate' American genome.

Point being: while the further back you go the more the likelihood you'll find ethnically isolated genomes, by the New Kingdom all you're going to find is a melting pot.

Leading to another point: we all came from Sub-Saharan Africa, off-spring of many ancient migrations so if you're looking for bragging points you can always point to that fact.

"Game of Thrones" in Egypt

[unpaid_movie_critic · 7/10 · 22 July 2015]

Just watched the first episode of this TV Show. "Tut" (2015) seems for me a good and interesting TV Show with bunch of famous actors, fine picture and for sure with proper soundtrack. The most important thing that we as spectators should understand, is that creators of this TV Show has a lot of examples like "Game of Thrones" (2011 – ), "Spartacus" (2010-2013), "Vikings" (2013 – ), "Rome" (2005–2007), etc. So all cons must be considered and removed!

Will be short (do not want waste YOUR TIME!):

1. TV Show created with expectation, that people will like it same as "Game of Thrones" (2011 – ) and "Spartacus" (2010-2013). So I assume that there will be around 3-5 seasons.

2. Try to show that Egyptian (especially Tutankhamun) was peaceful, during this period and lived not in tyranny is not appropriate according to the history!

3. I understand that beer in Egypt was in ancient time, but I think it is a bad idea to emphasize about it in a first episode!

4. Plot is very obvious, which will be mostly aimed (during whole seasons) on adventure, sex and lust, fightings with a lot of blood and historical facts.

5. Point and idea of this movie!? ("So what?") - Tolerance and Democracy.

Verdict: This TV Show will be another "Santa Barbara" (1984–1993), with a lot of clichés. I assume from "Game of Thrones" (2011 – ) and "Spartacus" (2010-2013)... .. . .

Deserve to watch only if you like long TV Shows, like "Game of Thrones" (2011 – )!!

Highly Recommended

[gaugeta · 10/10 · 21 July 2015]

To start the 3 part series tries to tell the story of king TUT within that 3 episode time span with the little knowledge known about the boy king.The casting was spot on and the performances were on par with what is expected from the characters especially the pharaoh.Do not look for a history lesson here since you won't be able to find it.You can find good battle scenes,nice scenery but its not for kids though for obvious reasons.

I found the series to be quite entertaining and it covered most of the aspects of the human struggle which can be compared to modern times.Wished it was more than just 3 episodes.

Great movie, but not based on fact...

[toelyazul · 7/10 · 29 May 2017]

Obviously no one knows exactly what happened during Tut's reign but there has been enough discovered Spike could have still done an excellent series using a little more fact. If you like elaborate costumes, scenery and intrigue it's good. If you are hoping for more of a true depiction you will be disappointed. Was so excited to watch on Netflix since this was my favorite time in history and finally had to pretend it was a story I did not know...which it sort of was.

Rewrite the history of the most iconic pharaoh of Ancient Egypt.

[filipemanuelneto · 5/10 · 15 November 2020]

Personally, and although I like to watch it, I have a lot of itchiness with films and TV series based on historical material. They usually end up having so little rigor in the way they show the past and the real historical characters that they become worthy of my hatred or my disdain, as a historian. This series is another one, with an aggravating tone: we don't know as much as we wanted about Tutankhamun's life. In fact, as far as we know, Tutankhamun is one of the most unlit pharaohs of the dynasty to which he belonged. The story of his father, Akhenaten, is much more interesting in that he led a serious religious conflict in the heart of Egypt, a country where Pharaoh was also head of the state religion. However, it is not possible to escape the fascination that this young king has on us. He is, with his funerary mask, the face of Ancient Egypt.

The real Pharaoh Tut was born out of an incestuous union and began to reign around the age of ten. He married a half sister, with whom he had two daughters who did not survive childhood. The series addresses the problem of succession, but refers very briefly to these births and treats them as simple abortions. The series also takes the opportunity to create around the Pharaoh a web of intrigues and conspiracies involving the vizier Ay, who was head of the government, and the general commander of the army, General Horemheb. Both characters existed and came to reign, successively. One of the most wrong points of the series, from the point of life of historical rigor, concerns the Mitanni. The series portrays this kingdom in a way that, despite never placing it on the world map, seems to place it in present-day Sudan, reasonably close to Egypt for the characters to travel in just a few days' journey. The reality is, however, very different: the Mitanni kingdom was one of the Hurrian kingdoms and was located more or less in today's Kurdistan, far enough from the Egyptian capital to never represent a threat! Even more striking is the wrong way in which Tutankhamun himself is portrayed. In addition to his reasonably European features and white complexion, the pharaoh is shown to be a healthy person, even athletic and able to fight. In fact, and based on the analysis of his mummy, we know that Tutankhamun was fragile and would have had difficulty walking because he suffered from a mild form of scoliosis and a deformed foot. So forget the warrior pharaoh!

Now that we have seen how this series was able to run over history, the question remains: was it worth it? In fact, the series entertains, works well as an entertainment piece despite deceiving people and giving the wrong idea to Pharaoh! Reasonably well done and with an excellent cast, the series is decent.

The cast is strongly based on the performances of two specific actors: Avan Jogia and veteran Ben Kingsley. Both were effective in their work and knew how to act effectively, especially Kingsley, who gave Ay a Machiavellian aura. We also have the good performance of Kylie Bunbury, who gave life to the most emotional character and able to reach the public. Also admirable and praiseworthy were the efforts of Nonso Anozie and Iddo Goldberg. Sibylla Deen gave us the most fragile interpretation, but it was still quite convincing, especially in the scenes with the most dramatic load.

Technically, it is a series of average quality. Cinematography is quite good considering the TV quality that the series exudes. Using and abusing CGI and the green screen that everything makes possible, it was possible to recreate Egypt without great costs, although losing that pleasant feeling of realism. The royal palace with those overlapping floors, for example, is too fanciful to be credible and there are more problems of logic and lack of credibility to arise everywhere. This is the case of Egyptian military armor, clearly invented without the support of archeology, and having as its objective only and only the aesthetic criterion of production. The soundtrack is good, but of TV quality.

Loved it!

[yvonneflowers · 10/10 · 19 July 2015]

Loved the costumes, actors, and most of all the Pharaoh they chose! I liked the drama set up! I haven't been exited about a show in a while and this one is entertaining. I found the relationships with his high priest and his general similar to what goes on in politics today. I wish it was a series not a mini series as I'm loving the content. It is definitely not appropriate for kids though. I liked how there was a mixture of hate and anger linked to the pharaoh by everyone around him. You can never hold the spotlight too long because everybody wants it. I feel that is very humanly behavior being portrayed in these series of "Tut". I want to see the king in television more often he brightened my night.

Little Bit Disappointed

[nickluyten · 7/10 · 4 August 2015]

I read several of the reviews to see anyone said what I was gonna say and didn't look like it so far so here goes.

I noticed that allot of people really liked the show, I also thought it was pretty good, but I got the idea the reason for that is, that it's actually Hamlet from Shakespeare with an Egyptian outfit. For those who don't know Hamlet, The Lion King was also the story of Hamlet. Try to see if you find any similarities. You will find many.

I did enjoy watching it but I was hoping for a series about ancient Egypt, but except for looking Egyptian it had nothing to do with ancient Egypt so that's why I'm a bit disappointed. There is very little known about Tutankhamen but a few things they do know like who is parents where Ikhnaton and his sister who's name is unknown. they introduced Monotheism during there rule. When Tut became Pharaoh the old gods where reintroduced, probably the clergy took advantage of the young naive pharaoh but none know's, would have been nice if at least there was something about that in the series.

Another stupid, politically correct historical travesty made in USA

[ospage · 1/10 · 11 February 2017]

Do you have jobless black actors? Are they frustrated that their ethnic group has no history? Well, don't worry! You can just fabricate some historical phantasmagoria about black Mitanni people, Tut's black wife, and a fictitious black general, and slap it together for the average North American audience. The average American just doesn't know, where Mitanni was, but he is well informed that every great historical figure born in Africa was black. Even Hannibal was black, after all. They just aired it on the History Channel! And why Tut wasn't portrayed as a black pharaoh, after all?!

This movie is an insult to the intelligence of every historian. It was made by businessmen, who know nothing about ancient history and hence they don't care about any facts. The most important thing is, if they get enough money for advertisement breaks.

absolutely wonderful acting, well worth time to watch

[lvanhooz-54527 · 10/10 · 31 July 2015]

Very refreshing to watch such a well written series, wonderful actors, believable sets, and story line. Wonderful to see that there is still some quality movie making instead of some of the dribble that is being made these days.

Hated to see it end but hope more historical dramas will be forthcoming. Made me want to read more about King Tut and that period. Would definitely recommend this, well worth time spent watching.

Enjoyed actors, especially the young man who played King Tut. Ben Kingsley portrayal was realistic and both of the young women were beautiful and well played.

Was not really very good, but at same time tremendous fun

[martykate · 6/10 · 23 July 2015]

It was gaudy eye candy. The actors were good and deserving of a much better script. Not very historically accurate, especially the portrayal of the Mitanni, the script, but who cares? Visually it was a real treat, obviously a lot of care was used in putting this together. Unfortunately, I know quite a bit about Egyptian history, so I watched with a cynical eye. This was Egyptian melodrama, and Avan Jogja made a very sexy Tut. Even though I kept going "what?" I watched it from beginning to end and had fun with it. "Troy" was good, too, in its own way, though not the greatest of movies. This is the kind of event you have to let yourself enjoy

Absolutely Splendid

[mauvemoonlight · 10/10 · 21 July 2015]

I would give this 20 stars if it were possible. I felt this was the best drama, with great acting, plot and action I have ever seen.

I totally loved this mini-series. All the actors did good jobs, but I was especially taken by Avan Jogik, who played King Tut. Not only is he a thrilling actor to watch, he is also one of the handsomest men ever on a screen. I think this actor will go far. I had not seen him before, but will certainly be watching for him in the future.

The series was riveting. It kept me on the edge of my seat throughout. The writing was excellent with the many twists and turns and great character development.

Nice!

[zozer-54226 · 19 August 2015]

I'm visiting Egypt for the second time, next week, and this series is a real tonic! Wow! Fast paced, wonderful scenery, great sets, lovely costumes and a powerful script. Very cool indeed.

Why the Mitanni kings are black, though, defies logic ... they were from Syria. I guess the producers wanted black representation in ancient history, even though it never existed. Would black TV audiences really refuse to watch a miniseries about King Tutankhamun just because there were no black actors in it? Of course not! Grow up Hollywood!!!!

The casting is superb, Tutankhamun is a dark, embittered youth, that kicks back at his historical portrayal as a teen aged victim of Egyptian politics, shades of Frank Herbet's DUNE. Ankhesunamen is fabulously gorgeous and Ay (Ben Kingsley), is perfect in his role.

Complete and total nonsense but a fantastic story

[trey-yancy-572-763547 · 7/10 · 15 December 2018]

This is an elaborate fantasy with virtually none of it based on fact and all the rest based on ignorance. The list of errors is beyond massive. (Seriously, pharaohs did not participate in nighttime commando raids and they certainly did not ride into battle bare-headed.)

This is entertainment. Nothing more. This said, it is a great story that is well written, well directed and well edited. There are many instances that reveal severe budgetary constraints, but in a great deal of the film the costumes and sets were so well done that it provided a wonderful feel of how the place may have been.

The fact that Tut apparently died from falling from one chariot and being run over by another is simply set aside, portraying his fatal injury as from being in battle. There are many other departures from reality.

What is known was that the general, the vizier and the high priest all maneuvered against the king, with Ai (the vizier) succeeding him to the throne for a very brief and insignificant reign, and with Tut's widow as queen.

I watched this miniseries for a second time a few years after my first viewing and while my initial review was highly negative (due to the wild inaccuracies) my second viewing led me to raise the ratings. The film may be 98% nonsense, but it's good cinema.

It was a fix for my GoT withdrawal!

[chem-dantzler-973-550031 · 10/10 · 21 July 2015]

I thought it was excellent! The Plot kept my attention and made me look forward to the next episode. I was elated that I didn't have to wait until the following week to watch again. I thought it was well cast, I appreciated the acting, and and production. Not knowing the route the series was going to take and how close to the facts the series would remain made it somewhat suspenseful. I appreciated the fact that they tried to adhere to some of the archaeological findings. I enjoyed the pace of the series and have encouraged all of my friends to watch it. It definitely was a fix for my game of Thrones withdrawal. I think anytime you can sit through a 6 hour mini series it has to be good!! I give it a 10!

The boy's journey to kingship is undeniably painted with lavish production, yet it's also unevenly slow and devoid of novelty.

[quincytheodore · 6/10 · 21 July 2015]

Right from the start, Tut presents itself with grand and gorgeous set. It certainly boasts high presentation, ranging from the colorful costume, immense environment to heavy amount of make-up. The goal is clearly to make an epic tale, however it's also disjointed in many areas as the narrative progresses with slow political build up and occasional melodramatic romance.

This is the chronicle of Tut (Avan Jogia) as he deals with personal issues and outside oppositions to seize his birthright of becoming pharaoh. The most notable name here is Sir Ben Kingsley. After Exodus, Prince of Persia and even the recent Night at the Museum, it's hardly surprising that he's cast as the adviser role. Simply by having him, the show elevates its acting department as he performs with stoic conviction, in a way carrying the younger actors.

If the delivery of this miniseries reminds audience of Moses' tale (pick any modern rendition of it), because it is built to be an heroic spectacle. It presents hefty amount of political maneuvering and betrayal, as well as the more titillating sexual depiction and bloodbath. The presentation is catered around this idea, and for half the part, it does well.

The view is vibrant and its aesthetic is quite eye-catching. Design for both opulence and crude war is highly presentable, yet the actual human drama might be a stale. Story moves in slow pace, which is invested heavily on love triangle subplot and disgruntled general premise. It tries to bring fresh outlook, but unfortunately at times it feels like juvenile squabble instead of legendary vie for power.

Use of mature subject could've been dealt with more poise. It repeats many sexual acts, nudity, and literal face front gore. With restraint these may be indulging, though the series often puts them to seemingly prolong the gratuitous viewing, it may become unintentionally numbing.

Tut has all the riches of epic story, yet these are smoke and mirrors to pander audience with sensational beauty. It may offer a small degree of enjoyment, although the actual core of narrative and human relationship to drive a legendary tale seem to be lacking.

Missed the mark

[gielvdsteenhoven · 5/10 · 4 August 2015]

Ancient Eqypt is a piece of history that has been somewhat overlooked by modern day filmmakers. "Tut" is supposed to fill the gap, but sadly fails on a lot of levels.

First the good stuff. It's visually gorgeous, nicely filmed and the acting is decent.

However. The series completely fails as a believable story about an interesting period in ancient Eqypt. First and foremost, the fact that they chose Farao Tutanchamon for this is ample proof of a choice based on his fame with the public rather than his impact on history. Tutanchamon was in fact a puppet-king that had all major decisions made for him by advisors. Even if that hadn't been the case, his reign of only a few years would've been too short to have any lasting significance. Tut is only famous because his mummified body is one of the best preserverd of all the faraos of ancient Egypt.

All in all, what we learn from this series is that if you ever want a historical epic dedicated to you 2000 years in the future, you had best get started on your impregnable pyramid already.

Not Bad a For Made For TV Movie

[edhubie-807-69066 · 8/10 · 22 July 2015]

Not sure if this is Spike TVs first attempt for a TV movie but if it is it was well done. Giving the network is considered a guy's version of Lifetime it definitely had all the elements you'd expect in a movie made for fuys while appealing to the women too. Action packed battle scenes betrayal love and destiny.

I got to admit the set designs even the CGI to form the background to show the glory of how Egypt may have looked in its prime was not that bad at all. Even the costumes were well done.

Story was well paced for me and I found myself concerned for Tut and was cheering for him to succeed. There obviously isn't a lot of story about Tuts reign but it to my knowledge covered the political and economical issues we do know may have happened in his time. Tension relations with outer tribes and economic distress. Though a lot of Historians believe he was mildly crippled and may have not fought his own battles he was buried with war armor so it's easy to assume maybe he did. Besides movie wouldn't be as interesting if he wasn't in the battles so why not.

Actors were pretty good in it. Ben Kingsley of course was great but a lot of the other actors ,except Nonzo Azonie from Game of Thrones season 2, were unknowns to me and did a good enough job to not make me cringe every time they opened their mouth.

If you're looking for a movie to fill your need for the disappointment of Exodus: Gods and Kings this will be a great one to watch. Sure not all the actors were Egyptian. Hard to find true Egyptians today like it is Mayans but at least the actors look like they would be. Not white actors with bad body paint like Exodus.

Very cheap sorry

[eryui · 6/10 · 2 August 2020]

Considering was realized in 2015 the whole thing, the production, looks a bit too cheap to my eyes, comparing to other historical miniseries. The mixture of dialogs, photography , camera works, and acting feels a bit not authentic and cheap according to the actual standard. A pity for the story and for Ben Kingsley that still a great actor.

6/10

Awful for so Many Reasons

[cmurray-880-703065 · 1/10 · 22 July 2015]

OK, even if you ignore the total lack of historical accuracy, misrepresentation of cultural and ethnic reality (Egyptians with hair and black Mittanis!), and countless production mistakes and gaffs, the script and acting are just terrible! I mean really! Can't you tell a good story and still represent at least the spirit of a period and culture in an artful manner with soulful characters? The old Steve Reeves Hercules flicks were better than this abomination. I think the producers were shooting for a "Hunger Games Goes to Egypt" kind of thing......Seriously.....Nothing can save this mess...Poor Sir Ben Kingsley! From Ghandi to this...perhaps he helped with the fake English accents....