The Devil's Mistress (2008) User Reviews

Excellent series but . . .

[katepearson1949 · 8/10 · 21 September 2012]

Excellently entertaining series with some interesting slants on the history but I appreciate that the writers did not set out to create a drama-documentary. Although they did incorporate some historical accuracy, anyone not knowing the real history of the Civil War could/would be very confused by some of the content. The real Thomas Rainsborough did not marry someone called Angelica Fanshawe and he is buried in the now disappeared graveyard of St John's, Wapping.

Pity that IMD have posted a picture of John Simm/Sexby's stand-in rather than JS/Sexby himself!!!!!

I am also totally stunned that the makers of the series insisted that they could not find suitable filming locations in the UK. I could have suggested any number of suitable locations both privately owned (but the owners have allowed filming) and NT or English Heritage. It seems amazing that with so much Tudor and Jacobean property here, not to mention forests etc that they deemed it necessary to ship cast and crew several thousand miles away to South Africa.

Civil War Drama

[freemantle_uk · 8/10 · 26 September 2009]

The English Civil War has often been over looked as a subject for drama, with most films being very inaccurate. The Civil War was a important watershed moment in English history, showing a king can be overthrown, strengthen Parliament, reformed the English army and in the end limits power the power of kings and a tyrant. The Devil's Whore is also a new step for Channel Four, because they don't normally make costume dramas (BBC normally makes them). Channel Four focus has often been documentaries, buying good American programmes, and make comedy series like Peep Show and the Inbetweeners.

The Devil's Whore has a similar approach to Rome, focusing on a fictional character who becomes involved in historical events and meets famous historical people.

The focus of the programme is on Angelica Fanshawe (Andrea Riseborough), an aristocratic woman from a Catholic background. She has rejected God and sees the Devil because her mother ran off to become a nun. The show starts off with Angelica being a member of the Queen's household just before the English Civil War. But as the Civil War starts and Angelica is forced out King Charles I's camp she allies her herself with political radicals like the Levellers. She also falls in love with soldier and political radical Edward Sexby (John Sims). Angelica also gets very close to honest John Lilburne (Tom Goodman-Hill), a popular political radical, and she acts as his champion to Charles I (Peter Capaldi) and Oliver Cromwell (Dominic West).

If you are excepting an action-packed war drama, you will be disappointed because they are few battle scenes. But there is some good sword fights which are more realistic then others in visual media. The strength of the show is the character drama, about Angelica and her struggles. The other main strength is the political background, from Charles I's struggles to Parliament, to Oliver Cromwell becoming no more then a military dictator. The history is actuate for the most part, for example, in English culture some people like to idealise Oliver Cromwell as a great liberator: in real life he took over through a military coup, oppressed dissenting voices and enforced his puritan views on the nation, as well being a butcher to Irish Catholics in Drogheda and Wexford.

They is a excellent cast, having talented actors like John Sim, Dominic West, Michael Fassbender and Peter Capaldi (who I was particularly impressed with). Anglea Riseborough is a strong newcomer, who is able to hold her own with all these talented people. She turns her character from a lost young woman to a powerful voice of dissent. John Sim, Dominic West, Tom Goodman-Hill and Maxine Peake are also very good in their roles. The production values were excellent, and with a budget of £7 Million, it was put to good use. The set designer and historical scenes were created really well, showing that towns, cities and even important building like Parliament were not very grant. They was an earthy feel to show. Marc Munden was a good director, able to combine all the elements together. He gets the best out of his actors and does some good scenes. He makes the violence realistic and characters like Sexby were heavily scared.

This show was not perfect, they were some problems. Some of the subplots did not lead anywhere, the surreal elements did not work for me, especially because of the realistic sitting, and there were historical inaccuracies, such as the omissions of characters like John Pym and Sir Thomas Fairfax. But the programme does show the complex political background with the different schools of thought during the mid-17th century.

It is worthy viewing.

Enjoyably convoluted

[superjaneyjane · 7/10 · 8 January 2009]

English period productions have a reputation for restraint. While it doesn't go as far as the almost-soap-opera The Tudors, restraint is not the watch-word in The Devil's Whore. Instead we have plenty of sex, violence and even a few demonic visions, with some history thrown in.

Concerning the events of the English Civil War, the story is told through the eyes of a fictional young noblewoman, Angelica Fanshawe, played by Andrea Riseborough. Angelica somehow ends up experiencing almost every aspect of the civil war, born into privilege and a prominent place in Charles I's court, only to lose it all when her husband is executed. With her sympathy switched to the Levellers, Angelica becomes some sort of highwayman (sorry, highwaywoman) for a time, before marrying a senior figure of the Levellers, Thomas Rainsborough, (Michael Fassbender), only for her criminal past to catch up with her. When her husband is assassinated, Angelica herself narrowly escapes execution. And that's only the half of it.

If you think this sounds far too convoluted to believe, well, you're right. Angelica's situation is far too convenient, to marry not one but two important figures of the English Civil war, to be on close terms with both the King and Cromwell, to consort with all manner of nobles, cavaliers, roundheads and puritans. It doesn't help that Angelica is firmly in the mold of other 'swashbuckling' heroines of pop culture such as Elizabeth of Pirates of the Caribbean and Arwen of LOTR, who, when not looking utterly ravishing in their gorgeous frocks are brandishing swords and smiting enemies. She also has a few politically correct orations of truth, justice and freedom to deliver. Riseborough delivers a passionate and sympathetic heroine, but at some point, her efforts are not enough to keep an eyebrow from being raised, particularly when Angelica storms into a church and begins pontificating about heaven and hell. Maxine Peake's portrayal of real-life figure Elizabeth Lilburne, wife of agitator John Lilburne, is a much more historically accurate figure: she is a wife utterly devoted to her husband and to his cause, and breaks a few conventions herself.

When we do get round to the factual events they are impressively acted. Dominic West may look nothing like Oliver Cromwell but he makes him into a fascinatingly ambiguous character. In the first few episodes he seems willing to compromise with his fellow men, from Charles to his fellow revolutionaries, but as he gains more power he becomes a more ruthless, shadowy figure. Michael Fassbender and Tim Goodman-Hill are both excellent in their portrayal of men who passionately promote their causes. But who could forget the ever-versatile John Simm as Edward Sexby. Sexby is driven by obsessions, first for blood, which he is soon cured of, then by the cause of the Levellers which is soon corrupted, and finally in his determination to assassinate a tyrant. But his enduring obsession is with Angelica, and their romantic plot-line is probably the best distraction from fact that the drama has to offer. Simm and Riseborough have an excellent chemistry which the writers draw out through the series.

Ultimately, should you wish to know more about the English Civil War you would be better to start with wikipedia than the Devil's Whore. But for those who like their dramas saucy, sordid and striking, The Devil's Whore has much in store.

Surprised by how much I loved it...

[mampele · 9/10 · 30 November 2008]

I wasn't much of a fan of the English Civil War during History lessons at school. It was always difficult trying to decide which side to support. The glamorous, party loving Cavaliers or the serious, democratically minded, fair but boring round-heads....Watching The Devil's Whore I found my self switching sides again. However, kudos to Peter Flannery for making this period of history really interesting. This difficult period has never really been covered in movies or TV.

The whole cast is absolutely amazing. Peter Capaldi is great as a doomed king, Michael Fassbender is intense and stunning as Rainsborough but my favourites are John Simm and Andrea Riseborough. Both act their socks off and make me want to keep watching. The chemistry, sparring and respect between Sexby and Angelica is fascinating! Almost perfect...

Good though light on a few points

[Dr_Coulardeau · 15 September 2011]

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

A budget cutback took it's toll, but still worth your time

[pfgpowell-1 · 7/10 · 12 March 2011]

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.

Inspiring historical drama.

[jhsteel · 9/10 · 12 December 2008]

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?

Very good watch

[ajantaghose · 7/10 · 10 November 2020]

I have little knowledge of the historical period on which this is based but it gave a pretty good idea of the socio political situation. All the actors were excellent and Michael Fassbender as Thomas Rainsborough was exceptional.

Compelling, Poignant, Profound

[steven-222 · 9/10 · 20 September 2011]

An amazingly compact narrative packs a remarkable amount of emotion and philosophical musing into a sweeping narrative; this is television that delivers all the satisfactions of the old-fashioned novel.

With a title like "The Devil's Whore" we are prepared for a rip-roaring bodice-ripper...and while bodices are indeed ripped...nay, shredded!...there is oh so much more going on here. Love long-denied over decades of tumultuous civil war, labyrinthine tests of loyalty, vengeance played out over decades, and various other devices create a nonstop narrative drive; try coming to the end of one episode without wanting to watch the next one at once. But at the very heart of this story is an inquiry into the deepest questions of existence: who are we amid our fellow humans, what force or forces rule the universe, and what does freedom really mean? A restless intelligence moves through this story, suffusing it with heartbreaking insight.

Kudos to the whole cast, to a counter-intuitive musical track, and to the splendid visual sense that informs the whole production.

The only thing that stops me from giving 10 stars is a certain dissatisfaction with the ending. Granted, the filmmakers face an almost impossible task to create a moment of transcendence to match all that has come before. Maybe on a second viewing I will change my mind about that.

Flimsy Flannery

[paul2001sw-1 · 5/10 · 23 January 2009]

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.

Superior, if not perfect, historical drama

[Zagreb-1 · 8/10 · 11 December 2008]

An extremely-engaging and well-acted drama about the period 1642-1660 covering the English Civil War and the subsequent execution of King Charles I and his replacement with England's only republican government. Whilst the history has been simplified with many important characters left-out, this nonetheless sticks to the history quite well. As with HBO's "Rome" fictional characters are invented and their own stories are told alongside those based on historical fact; some historical incidents are also embellished or altered slightly to make them more dramatic.

Screenwriter Peter Flannery focuses on the politics of the wars for much of the time and helps scotch the myth deliberately built-up in the aftermath of the 1660 restoration that what happened in England was not a revolution but instead a temporary falling-out leading to an "interregnum". It's true that many of the parliamentary forces were never interested in overthrowing the monarchy but events overtook them and they found themselves embroiled in civil strife as radical forces such as the Levellers and the Diggers threatened to overwhelm not just the monarchy but the Parlimentary landed aristocracy. Whilst England was a republic following the King's execution it was no democracy and the conditions that lead to the betrayal of Cromwell's allies and his own rise of near unassailable-power are simplistically but dramatically detailed.

The acting was, in general, of a very high quality with the best performances coming from Peter Capaldi as Charles I and Dominic West as Cromwell. Both managed to portray these deeply-flawed men as more than the monstrous caricatures history can present them as. Tellingly, two of the most emotionally engaging moments in the series for me were King Charles, sentenced to death and stripped of his arrogant autocracy, saying goodbye to his children and Cromwell preparing to be installed as Lord Protector talking to his old comrades in arms who had become his honour guard and reflecting on the fact he had betrayed his own revolution.

For me, there were only a few flaws with this series. Edward Saxby, whilst well-played by John Simm, often felt like too much of a "modern" man with his tendency to attack what we can now see as inconsistencies on the Cromwellian side. Similarly, Angelica appeared too much of a modern woman and the scene where she addressed a church and told them there was no heaven and hell (something that would probably have seen her attacked by a mob in the 1650s) was slightly farcical. I also felt that the ending was too optimistic. Yes, Angelica had defeated her personal demons but all that her loved ones had fought for remained in tatters with the restoration simply turning the clock back and I felt that this should have been reflecting in a more sombre conclusion.

Overall, though, this is a highly-enjoyable piece of historical drama and an excellent introduction to an important and much-misrepresented period of English history.

Very pretty, but confusing, historical fact debatable

[littlemonk · 4/10 · 20 November 2008]

This is a confusing historical period; the cavaliers were not bad or good the roundheads were not good or bad. Neither was there a single cause - religion, unfair tax and national debt, autocracy and trying to debase parliamentary powers, (sounds like Gordon Brown!!) . Puritains, church of England, Catholics, Levellers the causes were numerous. Nor can we say it was aristocracy against common people. In the end Oliver Cromwell had his head cut of his dead body, and the people welcomed back Charles II with open arms.

This series is very pretty, but it is going to fast to set up the story properly. If you want to see a period romp, it may be enjoyable. If you want to learn about history and the lessons we can learn today from it, read a good book.

Excellent Entertainment

[samkan · 8/10 · 15 August 2012]

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.

"Cold Mountain" for Brits.

[Blueghost · 12 December 2009]

Well, I had high hopes for this mini series from across the Atlantic, and some of those expectations were met, but, as I should have expected, others were dashed.

The production values are of high caliber. Costumes, sets and locations, particularly for a British mini series, are all exceptional. There's very little in the way of criticism when it comes to poking at the amount of money and care that went into the recreation of late renaissance Britain. Truly, a first rate production where all imagery is concerned.

So where does this small collection of films fall flat? This is going to sound sexist, but it truly isn't, it's a comment aimed at the continued market trend for television; the series was aimed specifically at a female audience with only the superficiality of placating to masculine interests. Every male in this series of films is portrayed as boorish on some level. From Royalists to Parliamentarians, and shades of gray in-between, few of these men have a spine.

Additionally, they're all sex starved. They either are biding their time for sexual favors, or are so wanton as to be willing to force themselves on he fairer sex. They seem to have little else on their minds. And when they are granted female accompaniment, they then squander their "victory" in some sort of stupidity.

That's not really a comment on what I think of society as I think of what TV producers think their audiences want to see. Again, as I've written in other reviews, the TV producer thinking is that since women buy things for the home, it is therefore that audience that the shows must cater to.

"The Devil's Whore" is no different. The concepts and ideals for which both sides of the English Civil War fought are hardly ever mentioned. It seems to be the assumption that said notions have no place within the female psyche, and therefore are not worth exposition. Female concerns are for family, friends and young ones.

So what does one do? The man who watches this can do little but shake his head, and maybe say "Huh, the 60's film with Richard Harris was a bit more entertaining..." Which, in my view, it was.

But the film with Harris had the benefit of being a high budget major theatrical film. It wasn't some one off made for TV mini series that had to compete with "Dancing with the Stars" or other sub-IQ fodder that masks for entertainment.

You may say, "Mister Blueghost, what were you expecting?" Look, I knew this was going to be a TV miniseries about a woman during the English Civil War, but I expected the Powers-that-Be in the UK to do their usual bucking of American market research, and make a film for both sexes and most ages. Something intelligent. Something with a little more purposeful action than the banal placation presented in this film's battle-sequences.

In short, it was a pleasure to see something not made by and for American house-wives and professional women, but it was equally disappointing to see something made for British house-wives and professional women.

*sigh*

Well, maybe I'll whip out my copy of Cromwell tonight, and grin as I see Richard Harris give a high energy performance in his Irish-thesping style of portraying a historic figure who didn't like the Irish a great deal.

Well, I think I've learned my lesson about splurging on a UK TV series of which I know nothing.

Watch at your risk.

THE DEVIL'S MISTRESS: An English Civil War Drama

[Jinxxa_Wolf · 9/10 · 16 November 2023]

THE DEVIL'S MISTRESS (The Devil's Wh*re) (2008) was a pretty interesting series, that immediately drew me in with promises to learn more of the mysteries of the English Civil War (1636 - 1660) though it didn't necessarily live up to the high expectations it set in that regard, it was however, studded with a cast of stars, who all played their parts marvelously, flaws or not and offered insights into the era's turbulence, as well as political, social, moral, religious and sexual politics of the day, if not beheld from a modern eye.

It follows Angelica Fanshawe (Andrea Riseborough), a young "modern-minded" woman who sees strange visions of the devil, as the country is about to be torn in half with the impending civil war. She is torn between her Aristocratic Catholic identity and between her rising beliefs in the Rebel Leveller cause, rising up against the dated Monarchal/Aristocratic systems.

The cast was exceptional. Andrea Riseborough, John Simm, Michael Fassbender, Dominic West, Peter Capaldi, Tom Goodman-Hill, and Maxine Peake were all very memorable in their roles which made this series worth while. My favorite acted were John Simm (as the Edward Sexby), Peter Capaldi (as King Charles I), Michael Fassbender (as Thomas Rainsborough) and Andrea Riseborough (as Angelica Fanshawe).

Overall, it was an intriguing yet somewhat melodramatic show, with a few shining exceptions. The character of Angelica was of a love-hate for me, giving me very mixed emotions. Sometimes she felt strong and wise, and other times she seemed whiney and naive. Also, the series tried to imply she loved "men of ideas", but more often than not it seemed her "loves" were "lust at first sight" variety and not very deep at all. I was however, a fan of the tragic, scarred, grey colored, and somewhat cruel character of Edward Sexby (John Simm). He made for an interesting anti-hero, a man that you both fear and root for. His character is one you can deeply brood over, impossibly sad, hopeless and yet inspiring. You want him to find redemption and love, but he walks a tragic path indeed. The pair have an unspeakable chemistry and unique bond, making it impossibly difficult to look away when either / both are on screen. Highly effective technique.

The series was really moving and memorable, highlighting historical events and showcasing the darkers sides of human natures, but too often lowered itself into scenes of melodrama and gratuitous titilation, rather than focusing on the characters development and factual historical events, and the few historical events shown seemed lightly brushed over and not given the time desserved. Perhaps this was due to lower budget or time contraints or both? This series would have been so much greater if given more time and episodes. But still overall, a highly enjoyable series of two tragic figures living through a horrible war and torn country, with divided morals and questionable loyalties, that lingers on in the mind.

not a woman's tale

[mariahelleberg · 2/10 · 12 February 2012]

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!

History giving way to stale artistic licence, again.

[Skifledanabit · 2/10 · 28 May 2020]

If they needed help with historical accuracy with costumes, battles, weapons, pretty much anything and everything, there are two large re-enactment groups to pad out the battle scenes, plenty of knowledgable people within those groups to take tips from and certainly more knowledgable with fighting tactics.

Terrible CGI, wooden and unenthusiastic acting by most, poor script, unconvincing story, stereotypical 'action' clichés and tropes up to the eyeballs. Couldn't watch past the first episode.