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.

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.

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.

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.