Tut

Tut

DVD - 2015
Average Rating:
12
3
Rate this:
The astounding saga of one of history's most extraordinary rulers, Tutankhamun (King Tut), his rise to power and his struggle to lead Egypt to glory, while his closest advisors, friends and lovers scheme for their own nefarious interests.
Publisher: [Los Angeles, CA] :, Paramount,, [2015]
Branch Call Number: DVD Tut
Characteristics: 3 videodiscs (270 min.) :,sound, color ;,4 3/4 in.
video file, DVD video, rda
digital, optical, surround, stereo, Dolby digital, rda

Opinion

From the critics


Community Activity

Comment

Add a Comment

g
gloryb
Mar 26, 2017

Of the 3 disks in this DVD set, I enjoyed the third disk the most for its suspense, court intrigue, bravery, death and burial of King Tut. I recognized elements of fact - Tut's marriage to a half-sister as common among Egyptian royalty to maintain pure bloodlines to the throne, Tut's fractured leg as found in recent X-Rays, Ay as his Vizer, Horemheb as the military commander and later Egyptian pharaoh, re-establishment of Thebes as capital, re-establishment of the Amun priests in their temple and growing power, belief that the king was an embodiment of the gods, belief that Amun needed to be appeased with tributes, taxation of the farmers, malaria as a possible epidemic in Thebes area, threat from a recurrent enemy at the border. Since body armor and collapsible campaign chairs were found in King Tut's grave goods, the movie shows King Tut as an active participant, very able bodied, in the border war with the Mitanni. I liked this portrayal of Tut as it was a plausible explanation for his leg fracture which got inflamed and most likely caused his death. However, the movie King Tut doesn't walk with a cane even though hundreds were included in Tut's tomb, possibly because of having a club foot. I loved the filmy costumes which looked pleated as shown on the reliefs of temples. The jewelry was gorgeous, particularly those worn around the neck - no doubt reproductions of those in the Tut Gallery in the Egyptian Museum. The setting tries to recapture the magnificence of the Theban temple and royal palace by including known things like the temple pylons and their reliefs of pharaohs striking their enemies, papyrus columns, colorful reliefs of pharaohs offering tributes to seated gods, ram headed sphinx entrance to the temple, Tut's lion headed gilt bedstead, and spacious courts. I also was amazed how the movie could show such realistic fighting scenes with fast driven chariots, arrows piercing soldiers, gushing blood from slit throats, and long knives piercing mouths. The movie script creates a dramatic story answering the questions of what the motivations of each of the main protagonists would have been to see King Tut dead. About 5 hours of viewing pleasure, particularly if watching for the unfolding of the storyline.

f
firefly5
Jan 13, 2017

Fantastic movie!!! The acting, the costumes, the jewelry, the scenery, sculptures, I just can't say enough. Absolutely amazing! The story was done to the best of their knowledge and ability. How can anyone know authentically what happened at that time. All information on King Tutankhamen was only discovered in 1922, and then pieced together by historians.

k
Keogh
Dec 28, 2016

Profoundly disappointing.

r
richmole
Dec 26, 2016

Cinematic license (also known, in book terms, as literary license) is one thing, but competent screen-writing is another. This series may have the first...but it has none of the second.

Ben Kingsley? A walk-on, minor role, upstaged by a bunch of young unknowns.

Pass this one by.

d
downsman
Aug 29, 2016

When I watch an "historical" film (as opposed to a documentary) set in the distant past, I do not expect complete accuracy, especially when the "actual" history is as indeterminate as Tutankhamen's. This indeterminacy leaves room for narrative liberties. E.g. the mini-series depicts the titular character in battle. The "real" Tutankhamen/ Tutankhamun apparently had--as in "Tut"--a severe limp which makes his having been a warrior unlikely BUT battle armour WAS buried with him, making his having taken part in warfare at least a possibility. The mini-series
was melodramatic, yes, but generally impressive looking and well worth a watch.

c
Christina1907
Jul 19, 2016

I have to agree with several others who have commented - this was a disappointment. I kept hoping it would improve, but not even Ben Kingsley could save it. It was pedantic, and I thought the whole project was pointless. It was produced by the same production company as Pillars of the Earth, which is one of the best shows I have ever seen - go watch it and compare the two!

a
A_Falkov
Jul 12, 2016

More like "Fut"; which is the sound of methane escaping from a camel's butt... I checked this out due to the presence of Ben Kingsley; whose performance in "Sexy Beast", as a counterpoint to "Ghandi" led me to think he was capable of doing no wrong. Are the creators of this predictable and prententious piece of crapola aware that Egypt was fertile and green in this era; and only turned to desert due to deforestation for cooking charcoal and poor farming/grazing practices? Or how about the fact that Tut was more Asian/Black-African, rather than Arabic? Casting choices aside, I couldn't sit through the entire mini, as one can only wait while the story painfully drags itself from one obvious plot-point to another. Perhaps I've missed something fabulous. Do tell, brave ones...

d2013 May 09, 2016

Not the best of TV series. A disappointment on so many levels!

EuSei Apr 23, 2016

I love Ancient Egypt since I was a little kid. So, obviously I was extremely excited to watch this series. I was quite aware of the fact that this was a movie, not a documentary, and I am not archaeologist myself, yet, it was a terrible disappointment... A movie doesn't necessarily need to be historically inaccurate to be entertaining. And for anyone who follows archaeological findings, there is a new plethora of information about Tutankhamen; so, no excuse for "cinematic license." Real History can be much more entertaining. This is most definitely not an entertaining movie. It starts with unnecessarily gruesome, revolting scenes of extreme violence--one involving children--which have no historical backing. I was surprised to see Ben Kingsley in a poor production such as this. Let's not talk about the ridiculous idea of the pharaoh exposing himself to a meager crowd and the pathetic attempt to recreate an Egyptian palace. (Yes, I know, Egyptian constructions were gaudily painted, but I doubt as stagey and artificial as in this movie.) And there is no historical account of Horemheb being a Nubian. And neither were the Mitanni; their rule extended to an area where today are Kurdistan, northern Iraq, and Syria. It is sad to see how recent discoveries being absolutely ignored and sometimes even twisted.

l
LynJoan
Apr 10, 2016

If you like gratuitous violence, costumes designed with titillation in mind and not historical accuracy and poor writing, then you will like this (made for t.v.) movies/ series. It was mediocre and I was disappointed by Ben Kingsley who was easily eclipsed by the strongest actor portraying Tut, who was actually quite good. He was a gem but I cannot say the same for the rest of the cast.

View All Comments

Age

Add Age Suitability

ecrl Feb 04, 2016

ecrl thinks this title is suitable for 18 years and over

susienor Jan 24, 2016

susienor thinks this title is suitable for 18 years and over

EuSei Dec 04, 2015

EuSei thinks this title is suitable for 18 years and over

Summary

Add a Summary

There are no summaries for this title yet.

Notices

Add Notices

There are no notices for this title yet.

Quotes

Add a Quote

There are no quotes for this title yet.

Explore Further

Browse by Call Number

Recommendations

Subject Headings

  Loading...

Find it at My Library

  Loading...
[]
[]
To Top