Without giving away any specifics of the plot per se, I be making some comparisons between the fictionalized account and historical information and the overall scope of the story.For example, Howard Carter was born in 1874 and was therefore 49 at the time of the opening of King Tutankamun's tomb. He already had a significant career behind him at that time. Carter was cast as a younger man for this series.As for the story line, the overall flow of events was similar to what many people know about historical events, but with more color than a simple statement of facts. Artistic license was taken, given that this four-part series was meant as entertainment, not documentary.In fact, this show led me to read up on some of the events, fictional or otherwise, and it seems that the writer did immerse himself in a number of personal journals and diaries and clearly knew much about the story.I wondered if Evelyn, daughter of Lord Carnarvon, was a real person, and she was indeed quite real and did spent time at the dig site. She was born in 1901 and was therefore 22 at the time of the discovery.I would have liked to have seen more of Howard Carter's life after the discovery, and more about the journey's of the artifacts themselves. As I've already mentioned Carter's earlier life, you can gather that "Tutankhamum" focuses on the years immediately before and after the great discovery.In the end, just as Amadeus wasn't a documentary about Mozart, and this is not a documentary about the discovery of King Tutankamun's tomb, both stories were engaging and thought-provoking.

The harshest reviews here have been by people criticizing the series historical inaccuracies, but all I know about the discovery of King Tut's tomb I know from a little light reading after watching the series, so I really don't care if there were no Rolls Royce's in Egypt at the time.But purely as a historical drama, the series isn't especially well constructed. I don't mind the romance between Carter and Lady Evelyn because it most likely never happened but rather because it overshadows the actual story of the tomb. The problem is that the script never makes me care about that relationship, yet focuses on it so much that I feel the science is completely underserved.I was also a little bothered by the portrayal of the Egyptian government as officious, soulless bureaucrats. I'm not saying they weren't, but I think the history of Egypt, Britain, and artifacts is a rather complicated one and this strikes me as a simplistic approach.Overall, this feels like a script written by someone who wasn't convinced that Carter's discovery of the Tomb was particularly compelling, and thus ginned it up with romance and conflict and attempted to shape it into a conventional and fairly forgettable little drama.On the other hand, the story is scenic, the actors are likable, there are good moments, and overall the series kept me entertained until it fizzled at the end.

I have to agree with the other critics. This is a poor offering. I don't know if finance played a part but the casting just does not fit, and why both Carnarvon and Davis were shown wearing beards mystifies me. They both wore a moustache. I have the photographs to prove it. The location is wrong, trees and bushes in the Valley? Not when I've been there and as others have said the rocks are the wrong colour. They are in fact a creamy white, appearing golden in the sun, not nasty brown. As to where the domestic scenes have been set, true Davis did have a dig house in the West Valley, but as Carnarvon and Davis did not get on I suspect that any visits were brief and they would not have been house mates.The "romantic interest" looks like an afterthought and although the affair between Carter and Evelyn has been described as "speculative" a more accurate description should be "fantasy".No, a missed opportunity to give this fascinating affair the exposure it deserves. There are so many other things wrong with this production I would surely run out of space to describe them. The historical facts are there, it's just ruined by all the false, made up stuff, though I did appreciate the Flinders Petrie sketch, that did point to the eccentricity of the man even if it was a burlesque.Oh, a last observation. It is only a fleeting glimpse but did I detect the modern Egyptian flag being flown in the "Valley? If it was this series is in good company as David Suchet's Poirot also got it wrong in the "Adventure of the Egyptian Tomb" where they also misplaced the Valley of the Kings, this time in Morocco if my memory serves me correctly. Though "Death on the Nile" was filmed in Luxor.

I wish this was a full review, but I got so angry that I turned it off twenty minutes in. 1) It's filmed in South Africa, not Egypt. Whether this was to save money, or to prevent anything Egyptian creeping in, it's hard to say. Even the rocks looked wrong. The Valley of the Kings is covered in white limestone chippings. Not the khaki coloured material shown here. The older BBC production 'Egypt' (2005) which covered the same material was filmed in Luxor, and in the largely deserted Western Valley and looked the part. From the opening scene this production looks wrong. 2) Then Carter, hopelessly miscast as a strapping young man, is introduced. He finds an empty tomb and angrily punches out an unnamed French Duke. This event can only be a misrepresentation of him throwing the French tourists (plural) out of the Serapeum at Sakkara in 1905. Hundreds of miles away from the Valley of the Kings. He didn't punch anyone at this incident. Also he was an Inspector at the time and not an Excavator, but all this would slow down the plot and lose the casual viewer. However the BBC version kept it all in and didn't insult the viewer. But then again, punching out a fictitious Duke saved on several French and Arab extras and a second unit setup at a fake Serapeum. 3) Then we are introduced to a synthetic character. A female American Archaeologist called Maggie Lewis. This is in itself unlikely the way women were treated by academia in the period. She is used to replace several male contemporaries of Carter's. Implying that she was his only friend. Saves on the casting I suppose and shipping lots of minor actors out to the expensive South African shoot. 4) Lord Carnarvon is shown arriving in 'Egypt'. He drives a silver sports model of a Rolls Royce which looks far too modern for 1905. Carter's diaries record that the first car in the valley, a Model T Ford, arrived in 1923, after Tut's tomb was discovered. Oh well, it saved on hiring all those pesky horse and carriage teams during the shoot. 5) Then we get some Time Travel. Davis is shown finding a cup. After Carnarvon and Carter are granted their licence to dig in the Valley. How? He had retired by this point. In reality Carter and Carnarvon were digging in several other places for 5 years before digging in the Valley. This would make sense. But the bungling writers had already said that they were in the Valley not somewhere else. It seems at this point the writers had already given up and were just writing anything and not checking the script. 6) Then the cup is taken by the wrong assistant archaeologist to Maggie (who didn't exist) to identify. Agh! It was at this point I wondered what a mess they would make of the major story elements. The discovery of Tut's Tomb, and the alleged romance between Carter and Lady Evelyn. This appalling start didn't bode well. Then I decided to stop beating myself up and turn over. The BBC version, despite several errors, was Shakespeare compared to this. They could have just put that on again and burnt all the money they wasted on this travesty. I believe that they knew this was rubbish before they finished it. Why else did it take so long to make? Then it was previewed, without a scheduled date, for several months. Finally appearing after the much superior 'Victoria' finished its eight week run. This only increased the massive feeling of anti-climax.