The first episode was very promising, the historical inaccuracies excusable for dramatic licence. Not so the two utterly false and apparently deliberate errors in the other 2 episodes. First the claim that a priest Fr John Gerard participated in the plot, which the BBC only just recently apologised for and re-edited another show "Elizabeth I's secret agents", only to now do it again. And secondly the depiction that the Spanish Ambassador found out about the plot from another priest and then reported it to the fiendishly anti-Catholic Lord Cecil. Both done presumably to make the story more "interesting". Totally unnecessary. Just tell the real story! It's gripping! the naivete of the conspirators letting the letter warning of the explosion to be sent to Monteagle because they thought it was vague enough that Cecil's agent's wouldn't guess. And separately the incredible true story of Fr John Gerard, who rather than the naive young priest relying on others to rescue him, escaped from the Tower (by climbing a rope strung across the moat, not crawling out a drain as sdepicted here) and spent years disguised as a fashionably dressed gambler whilst ministerig to his flock and having numerous hair's breadth escapes.
71 Reviews
Doesn't quite explode
TheLittleSongbird6 January 2018
Love historical period dramas, and BBC have shown numerous times that they can be very good at them, a particularly note-worthy recent example being 'Wolf Hall'. The story of Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Plot is a very interesting part of history, something that was appreciated more by me once learning of the significance of the annual Bonfire Night.
'Gunpowder' is not BBC at their best though. It is interesting enough and there are a lot of good elements here (far more so than has been credit for by some reviewers), but it could have been much more explosive than it actually turned out to be. The criticisms are understandable, though the purported anti-Catholicism and propaganda ones for my tastes have been blown out of proportion.
Starting with the good things, the best thing about 'Gunpowder' is the production values. They are nothing short of splendid, especially the sumptuous costumes and atmospheric scenery/set design that actually give the feel of the viewer being transported to the early 17th century and being there as unseen observers. The music doesn't intrude but has presence and atmosphere.
Parts of the script do intrigue and provoke thought and the storytelling does have compelling and suspenseful moments. The violence and executions are harrowing and are not for the faint hearted, but that would have been the case at the time because executions were brutal then, even more so than depicted.
Mostly the acting is fine, especially from charismatic Tom Cullen, dignified Liv Tyler (who is not as out of place as one would think) and Shaun Dooley enjoying himself.
Kit Harrington and Mark Gatiss are a little more uneven but do have impressive moments. Harrington is a little flat at first but once the character grows so does his acting to something more brooding. Gatiss is too cartoonish in places, but at other times he is quite creepy.
However, the script does feel underdeveloped and tonally unbalanced, both too bland and too broad. It also too talky, Episode 2 especially is too heavy in talk and rambles, and it does affect the pacing which can be dull.
Characterisation is also not as rich as it could have been, too many of the characters are too one-dimensional and one doesn't really get to know them. The storytelling has some harrowing, exciting and suspenseful moments, but they could have come more consistently, the tone could have been more balanced and even and the pace and script could have been far tighter. Some parts seemed a bit too neat and clean.
Historical inaccuracy has also been a criticism directed at 'Gunpowder'. Actually try to avoid that criticism if it can be helped, but it is hard to ignore it here when it is a significant historical event.
Overall, interesting and has impressive elements but doesn't explode enough. Just my very humble and respectful take. 6/10 Bethany Cox
'Gunpowder' is not BBC at their best though. It is interesting enough and there are a lot of good elements here (far more so than has been credit for by some reviewers), but it could have been much more explosive than it actually turned out to be. The criticisms are understandable, though the purported anti-Catholicism and propaganda ones for my tastes have been blown out of proportion.
Starting with the good things, the best thing about 'Gunpowder' is the production values. They are nothing short of splendid, especially the sumptuous costumes and atmospheric scenery/set design that actually give the feel of the viewer being transported to the early 17th century and being there as unseen observers. The music doesn't intrude but has presence and atmosphere.
Parts of the script do intrigue and provoke thought and the storytelling does have compelling and suspenseful moments. The violence and executions are harrowing and are not for the faint hearted, but that would have been the case at the time because executions were brutal then, even more so than depicted.
Mostly the acting is fine, especially from charismatic Tom Cullen, dignified Liv Tyler (who is not as out of place as one would think) and Shaun Dooley enjoying himself.
Kit Harrington and Mark Gatiss are a little more uneven but do have impressive moments. Harrington is a little flat at first but once the character grows so does his acting to something more brooding. Gatiss is too cartoonish in places, but at other times he is quite creepy.
However, the script does feel underdeveloped and tonally unbalanced, both too bland and too broad. It also too talky, Episode 2 especially is too heavy in talk and rambles, and it does affect the pacing which can be dull.
Characterisation is also not as rich as it could have been, too many of the characters are too one-dimensional and one doesn't really get to know them. The storytelling has some harrowing, exciting and suspenseful moments, but they could have come more consistently, the tone could have been more balanced and even and the pace and script could have been far tighter. Some parts seemed a bit too neat and clean.
Historical inaccuracy has also been a criticism directed at 'Gunpowder'. Actually try to avoid that criticism if it can be helped, but it is hard to ignore it here when it is a significant historical event.
Overall, interesting and has impressive elements but doesn't explode enough. Just my very humble and respectful take. 6/10 Bethany Cox
The 1605 Gunpower Plot and Its Connection to Modern Terrorism
lavatch25 March 2019
Warning: Spoilers
In the bonus track of the DVD of "Gunpowder," the film artists described how they wanted to focus an event from English history and demonstrate its relevance today. The 1605 Gunpowder Plot involved a group of Catholic recusants who sought blow up Parliament with a massive cache of gunpowder. If successful, the blast would have destroyed the House of Lords, Westminster Abbey, and Whitehall Palace with untold casualties. In its age, this was a potentially greater act of terror than the tragic events of September 11, 2001.
The three-part series begins with an enormously sympathetic treatment of the terrorists. In the extras segment of the DVD, it was clear that the film producers wanted a film that would portray the conspirators from their own perspective, to humanize them, and to demonstrate the personal motivation that leads to modern acts of terrorism.
As the film progressed, the initial sympathy for the plotters disappears when we see them as a motley crew consumed by vengeance as much as their diehard religious values. In the bonus track, the Jacobean era was described as "a dark period" in which the filmmakers wanted to evoke "visceral" scenes to depict the age. They located an abandoned mill in Yorkshire that was converted into many of locales for the depiction of the court, prison, and torture chambers. The production sought to avoid "a gore fest," yet the film undeniably approached that level of violence in the graphic execution and torture scenes. Was it true to the period? Yes. Was it appropriate to string out the scenes so long? Doubtful.
Historically, the Gunpowder Plot is linked to Guy Fawkes, who was stationed below the House of Lords ready to ignite the fuse, prior to his capture and the foiling of the plot. The filmmakers wanted to set the record straight by focusing on the main ringleader, who was Robert "Robin" Catesby, not Guy Fawkes. Incredibly, the actor playing the role of Catesby is one of his descendants.
The pacing of the series was slow in places, and the chiaroscuro lighting was often so dark that it was difficult to make out characters' faces. Still, there was some good research on the part of the production team and some good performances, especially Peter Mullan as Father Garnet and Liv Tyler as Anne Vaux. Those two characters were recusant English Catholics who had knowledge of the plot unfolding, yet refused to condone it. They both were guided by their conscience, yet not quite enough to turn in the terrorist recusants to the authorities. This was a well-conceived miniseries that provides instructive food for thought on global terror today.
The three-part series begins with an enormously sympathetic treatment of the terrorists. In the extras segment of the DVD, it was clear that the film producers wanted a film that would portray the conspirators from their own perspective, to humanize them, and to demonstrate the personal motivation that leads to modern acts of terrorism.
As the film progressed, the initial sympathy for the plotters disappears when we see them as a motley crew consumed by vengeance as much as their diehard religious values. In the bonus track, the Jacobean era was described as "a dark period" in which the filmmakers wanted to evoke "visceral" scenes to depict the age. They located an abandoned mill in Yorkshire that was converted into many of locales for the depiction of the court, prison, and torture chambers. The production sought to avoid "a gore fest," yet the film undeniably approached that level of violence in the graphic execution and torture scenes. Was it true to the period? Yes. Was it appropriate to string out the scenes so long? Doubtful.
Historically, the Gunpowder Plot is linked to Guy Fawkes, who was stationed below the House of Lords ready to ignite the fuse, prior to his capture and the foiling of the plot. The filmmakers wanted to set the record straight by focusing on the main ringleader, who was Robert "Robin" Catesby, not Guy Fawkes. Incredibly, the actor playing the role of Catesby is one of his descendants.
The pacing of the series was slow in places, and the chiaroscuro lighting was often so dark that it was difficult to make out characters' faces. Still, there was some good research on the part of the production team and some good performances, especially Peter Mullan as Father Garnet and Liv Tyler as Anne Vaux. Those two characters were recusant English Catholics who had knowledge of the plot unfolding, yet refused to condone it. They both were guided by their conscience, yet not quite enough to turn in the terrorist recusants to the authorities. This was a well-conceived miniseries that provides instructive food for thought on global terror today.
Not very historically correct
rachel_b926 October 2017
About as historically correct as my left toe. There is very little truth, or what truth there can be found in documentation and historical sources within this series. I fear that like so many things like this most will take it for face value and believe what they saw on TV, far more easier than studying history.
That being said, it is a good watch, I thoroughly enjoyed how for once the streets were shown to have faecal matter in the streets. Much too often are they shown as clean cobbles. Without taking in any sense of history, and taking it as a Stuart drama is fine. The acting is good, but I see a lot of bias in the writing.
That being said, it is a good watch, I thoroughly enjoyed how for once the streets were shown to have faecal matter in the streets. Much too often are they shown as clean cobbles. Without taking in any sense of history, and taking it as a Stuart drama is fine. The acting is good, but I see a lot of bias in the writing.
Gunpowder,treason and plot.
morrison-dylan-fan6 December 2017
Warning: Spoilers
While waiting a few months ago for the fluffy Rom-Com Home Again to start,I saw a trailer for what looked like a stylish, historical series. A few weeks later,I was thrilled to find out that the entire three-part mini-series had been put on BBC iPlayer,which led to me to loading up on gunpowder.
The outline of the mini-series:
Losing all hope of King James I of England and VI of Scotland, Catholics are left to look on in horror,as they are killed by Protestants ,and pushed into hiding. Witnessing the murders of those dearest to him, Robert Catesby vows to get revenge. Meeting fellow Catholics who want revenge,Catesby and Guy Fawkes gather gunpowder for a special opening of parliament.
View on the mini-series:
Bringing three Game of Thrones cast members along to this bonfire night, director J Blakeson (who did the very good 2009 Thriller film The Disappearance of Alice Creed) & cinematographer Philipp Blaubach give the show some of GoT grit,with musk and layers of fog covering the screen as Catesby plans the attack. Moving away from the "class" the Costume Drama is usually known for, Blakeson unexpectedly drills into the Historical Horror genre,with Blakeson expanding on his past Thriller work with blistering,bloody stylisation nailing the horrors inflicted on the Catholics.
Setting out the plan over the three eps, the scripts by co- writer/(with Ronan Bennett and Daniel West) lead actor Kit Harington (who is actually related to Catesby) never let the gunpowder get fired up,due to a focus on the melodrama state of Catesby,which causes any other interesting-looking character to largely be pushed to the side, and the political situation behind the attack to be left in muddy waters,that only spark during a tense escape/chase that stands as the set-piece of the series. Fighting against a hissing Mark Gatiss as Lord Robert Cecil, Harington gives a penny for the guy with a great performance as Catesby,with each murder Catesby witnesses,Harington uses the anger to light the fuse in his heart.
The outline of the mini-series:
Losing all hope of King James I of England and VI of Scotland, Catholics are left to look on in horror,as they are killed by Protestants ,and pushed into hiding. Witnessing the murders of those dearest to him, Robert Catesby vows to get revenge. Meeting fellow Catholics who want revenge,Catesby and Guy Fawkes gather gunpowder for a special opening of parliament.
View on the mini-series:
Bringing three Game of Thrones cast members along to this bonfire night, director J Blakeson (who did the very good 2009 Thriller film The Disappearance of Alice Creed) & cinematographer Philipp Blaubach give the show some of GoT grit,with musk and layers of fog covering the screen as Catesby plans the attack. Moving away from the "class" the Costume Drama is usually known for, Blakeson unexpectedly drills into the Historical Horror genre,with Blakeson expanding on his past Thriller work with blistering,bloody stylisation nailing the horrors inflicted on the Catholics.
Setting out the plan over the three eps, the scripts by co- writer/(with Ronan Bennett and Daniel West) lead actor Kit Harington (who is actually related to Catesby) never let the gunpowder get fired up,due to a focus on the melodrama state of Catesby,which causes any other interesting-looking character to largely be pushed to the side, and the political situation behind the attack to be left in muddy waters,that only spark during a tense escape/chase that stands as the set-piece of the series. Fighting against a hissing Mark Gatiss as Lord Robert Cecil, Harington gives a penny for the guy with a great performance as Catesby,with each murder Catesby witnesses,Harington uses the anger to light the fuse in his heart.
Interesting and informative
speedcanary30 December 2017
For historical purposes, I found this to be instructional to a degree. I have more questions now about the King, his court, and all the characters featured. The most exciting part of the series for me was Tom Cullen's appearances. It would have helped to be given more details about each character on all sides of the conflict. That would have required more parts than a mere three, but I would have stuck with it if we were given more fleshed out and developed characters, as it did feel rushed.
Was good to finally know story of Guy Fawkes
junemelody-667-49870815 January 2022
Kit Harrington puts in a good performance here and actually does a bit more than just look soulful all the time and mutter his lines in a monotone. I often wonder if directors have to take a whip and smack it near him to do anything at all that requires acting or moving around besides just looking cute and mouthing his lines, lol! Then again tho you never know...maybe he does try to actually put on a different, more intense performance but his superiors on each production continue to insist he just stand around and look sad from beneath his sexy curls, etc...who knows, right? Cos I can't imagine Kit would be doing this on purpose, lol! But all teasing aside,
I love Kit Harrington very much as I was a tremendous GoT fan (bf S8) and actually that's one of the reasons
I watched this series at all, even before I even knew that it was about Guy Fawkes. That and seeing it was a period drama!
But damn what performances Shaun Dooley and Peter Mullen put on and really everybody in this production are really unbelievable.
The only thing is I don't know why it's called Gunpowder? It's certainly not the "story of gunpowder" tho I suppose it's near the time when it was beginning to be used alot.
This series gets really gritty with the horrible torturing and executions. And since we all need to see the truth of what humans used to do to each other I forgive this.
But still as a side note, it really makes me angry about how apparently in our modern times, alot of people just want to go back to those days--and make no mistake, that's where we're going--specifically by persecuting and encouraging hatred of half the people in our country just for not subscribing to one person's narrative, exactly the same as banning certain religious beliefs in favor of "the one true faith" which is what's going on in this country right now.
Anyway, I really enjoyed this miniseries, especially bc my husband of 35 years, a pure-blooded English immigrant to the U. S., used to tell me all about how they annually celebrated Guy Fawkes Day in the UK around the same time of year we Americans celebrate Halloween. My husband, Martin Records, father of my four children, died suddenly in March of 2021 and we all miss him dearly.
But damn what performances Shaun Dooley and Peter Mullen put on and really everybody in this production are really unbelievable.
The only thing is I don't know why it's called Gunpowder? It's certainly not the "story of gunpowder" tho I suppose it's near the time when it was beginning to be used alot.
This series gets really gritty with the horrible torturing and executions. And since we all need to see the truth of what humans used to do to each other I forgive this.
But still as a side note, it really makes me angry about how apparently in our modern times, alot of people just want to go back to those days--and make no mistake, that's where we're going--specifically by persecuting and encouraging hatred of half the people in our country just for not subscribing to one person's narrative, exactly the same as banning certain religious beliefs in favor of "the one true faith" which is what's going on in this country right now.
Anyway, I really enjoyed this miniseries, especially bc my husband of 35 years, a pure-blooded English immigrant to the U. S., used to tell me all about how they annually celebrated Guy Fawkes Day in the UK around the same time of year we Americans celebrate Halloween. My husband, Martin Records, father of my four children, died suddenly in March of 2021 and we all miss him dearly.
Remake Of A Famous Plot
chiumt29 June 2019
Another attempt of serialisation of the Guy Fawkes plot. A lot of details. Maybe too much. But a creditable effort. The acting is credible. The medieval setting is plausible. I didn't notice the sedate action. I was quite captivated by the plotting.
Good but Hard "R"
joewhalen719 December 2017
This is a good period drama which, as others have written, reminds you a lot of "Wolfe Hall." However, the viewer should be advised that it's a hard "R" film for its graphic gore early in the first episode. From what I've read of history, this is a fairly accurate depiction of the way things were actually done in 17th century England. Just be advised.
Jesuit failure
CashbackLiz26 October 2017
Gundpowder a story of Jesuit failure terrorist plot to kill Protestant king James 1st ( yes that king James of the bible fame -KJV bible) and turn England catholic again..was probably written by a Jesuit as well.. why do i say that ? Why Robert s great speech about the King is fallible and is a mere man etc.. that Cry is normally made by protestants /Christians about the Antichrist aka pope bishop of Rome. See what you tried to do there switch it around, but no there is no switch. The Catholic church is not the true church she is not even listed as a church in the bible that she claims to preach from. True See Rev 17 & 18.
Before you call fowl and demand apologies and re edits the Antichrist is the popes Latin title : VACARIUS Filii Dei ( substitute of the Son of GOd ) Truth is the pope is a mere man even less than the king in terms of God given Rights He is definitely NOT a substitute for The King of Kings and Lords of Lords nor will ever be..but i diverge...
Wonder why the series kept quiet about the papacy's share of the plot? or of the Reformers who were around then? Still i guess its not as bad as the notion of Walsingham being a protestant secret agent of Elizabeth 1 in Elizabeths I secret agents also by the BBC..i lied it is as bad. Walsingham was a catholic all the way check out Walsingham catholic shrine..
Anyway good period drama loved the costumes, loved the acting , loved the sets etc
Before you call fowl and demand apologies and re edits the Antichrist is the popes Latin title : VACARIUS Filii Dei ( substitute of the Son of GOd ) Truth is the pope is a mere man even less than the king in terms of God given Rights He is definitely NOT a substitute for The King of Kings and Lords of Lords nor will ever be..but i diverge...
Wonder why the series kept quiet about the papacy's share of the plot? or of the Reformers who were around then? Still i guess its not as bad as the notion of Walsingham being a protestant secret agent of Elizabeth 1 in Elizabeths I secret agents also by the BBC..i lied it is as bad. Walsingham was a catholic all the way check out Walsingham catholic shrine..
Anyway good period drama loved the costumes, loved the acting , loved the sets etc
Lost the plot
Lejink29 November 2017
This three-part BBC dramatisation of the events surrounding the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 was something of a mixed bag. There was the expected attention to period detail in the sets and costumes and the acting too was good in almost every major part. However, historical accuracy was blown to smithereens in places and other aspects of the story were undoubtedly "sexed up" to make for presumably more exciting viewing in this day and age.
It was also a tough watch at times with graphic depictions of torture and execution, the latter in particular where in the first episode we see a middle-aged Catholic woman stripped naked and agonisingly crushed to death followed by a young priest hung, drawn and quartered, his entrails ripped from his still-living body, before his beheading and his severed head is stuck on a pike put on public display. All of this before a baying, bloodthirsty crowd of supposedly ordinary people.
The story centres on young Catholic nobleman Robert Catesby who becomes the centre of a Popish plot to strike back against the ever more repressive anti-Catholic legislation put before King James by his first lieutenant, the hunch-backed Robert Cecil and his hired muscle in the person of Sir William Wade. With his cohorts, Catesby, after failing to get support abroad for his plans, hatches the famous gunpowder plot to blow up the king and his ministers on the opening of Parliament which sees him meet up with one Guy Fawkes, a cold-bloodedly determined confederate.
Kit Harington, whose very name seems apt for the time portrayed, plays Catesby as the determined handsome hero, prepared to martyr himself to the cause. Peter Mullen is the priest whose commitment to the cause is racked by self-doubt but who in the end, inspired by Catesby's example, finds his own inner courage to match his convictions. Mark Gatiss plays the ruthless, scheming Cecil as almost a pantomime villain with Shaun Dooley more impressive as the brutal Wade, happy to follow orders no matter how violent they are. King James's homosexual tendencies are rather unsubtly highlighted as he plays up to his young lover at court, before his narrow escape frightens him back to his queen.
To me though the story was over-egged in that for example, nowhere have I read of Catesby freeing another young Catholic priest from the Tower Of London, shown here in almost medieval "Mission Impossible" style and as for the last stand of Catesby and his followers, his "Butch Cassidy" - type slow motion death seemed likewise over the top.
I just think that historically important stories like this should pay more attention to the truth and not make so many concessions to an audience it thinks needs cliff-hanging thrills and contrived action sequences in the name of entertainment. The Gunpowder Plot was a pivotal moment in British history and I think deserved a more factual retelling than it got here, no matter how well acted and re-enacted it otherwise was.
It was also a tough watch at times with graphic depictions of torture and execution, the latter in particular where in the first episode we see a middle-aged Catholic woman stripped naked and agonisingly crushed to death followed by a young priest hung, drawn and quartered, his entrails ripped from his still-living body, before his beheading and his severed head is stuck on a pike put on public display. All of this before a baying, bloodthirsty crowd of supposedly ordinary people.
The story centres on young Catholic nobleman Robert Catesby who becomes the centre of a Popish plot to strike back against the ever more repressive anti-Catholic legislation put before King James by his first lieutenant, the hunch-backed Robert Cecil and his hired muscle in the person of Sir William Wade. With his cohorts, Catesby, after failing to get support abroad for his plans, hatches the famous gunpowder plot to blow up the king and his ministers on the opening of Parliament which sees him meet up with one Guy Fawkes, a cold-bloodedly determined confederate.
Kit Harington, whose very name seems apt for the time portrayed, plays Catesby as the determined handsome hero, prepared to martyr himself to the cause. Peter Mullen is the priest whose commitment to the cause is racked by self-doubt but who in the end, inspired by Catesby's example, finds his own inner courage to match his convictions. Mark Gatiss plays the ruthless, scheming Cecil as almost a pantomime villain with Shaun Dooley more impressive as the brutal Wade, happy to follow orders no matter how violent they are. King James's homosexual tendencies are rather unsubtly highlighted as he plays up to his young lover at court, before his narrow escape frightens him back to his queen.
To me though the story was over-egged in that for example, nowhere have I read of Catesby freeing another young Catholic priest from the Tower Of London, shown here in almost medieval "Mission Impossible" style and as for the last stand of Catesby and his followers, his "Butch Cassidy" - type slow motion death seemed likewise over the top.
I just think that historically important stories like this should pay more attention to the truth and not make so many concessions to an audience it thinks needs cliff-hanging thrills and contrived action sequences in the name of entertainment. The Gunpowder Plot was a pivotal moment in British history and I think deserved a more factual retelling than it got here, no matter how well acted and re-enacted it otherwise was.
History is written by the victors
ratzkiwatzki-4585125 October 2017
...so it's a refreshing change to see the losers having their say.
"Gunpowder" was made to tell the story about the real leader behind the gunpowder plot, Robert Catesby. He is played by Kit Harington, a descendant of Catesby.
More interesting than Catesby or Fawkes are the hunchback Lord Robert Cecil (Mark Gatiss) and his father William. They ran England as a police state during the reigns of Elizabeth I and King James I. They used a network of censors, spies, propagandists and spin doctors who were so successful in spin that some people still peddle it in the 21st century. The British constitution still bans the Head of State being a Roman Catholic.
The Cecil's set the template for authoritarian police states, communist and fascist. We can see their methods to this day in Asia, Europe and the Middle East. "Gunpowder" is really their story.
"Gunpowder" was made to tell the story about the real leader behind the gunpowder plot, Robert Catesby. He is played by Kit Harington, a descendant of Catesby.
More interesting than Catesby or Fawkes are the hunchback Lord Robert Cecil (Mark Gatiss) and his father William. They ran England as a police state during the reigns of Elizabeth I and King James I. They used a network of censors, spies, propagandists and spin doctors who were so successful in spin that some people still peddle it in the 21st century. The British constitution still bans the Head of State being a Roman Catholic.
The Cecil's set the template for authoritarian police states, communist and fascist. We can see their methods to this day in Asia, Europe and the Middle East. "Gunpowder" is really their story.
Dull
simon-kingsnorth8 April 2024
Wouldn't waste your time with this one. Ok, that's going to make you want to watch it, but don't. There are better versions of this story.
It's a bit of a mess with an awkward script, disjointed story and mediocre acting. It lacks any real drama and tries to compensate with shock and gore. No real build up, no crescendo. I struggled to care about any of the characters and neither side made me want to cheer for them.
The words feel very forced and cliched and the scenery at times looked a little cheap - like a clear set. Guy Fawkes seemed a little pointless and also a bit of a ridiculous character.
So much potential in this story. Totally wasted.
Have a nice long nap instead.
It's a bit of a mess with an awkward script, disjointed story and mediocre acting. It lacks any real drama and tries to compensate with shock and gore. No real build up, no crescendo. I struggled to care about any of the characters and neither side made me want to cheer for them.
The words feel very forced and cliched and the scenery at times looked a little cheap - like a clear set. Guy Fawkes seemed a little pointless and also a bit of a ridiculous character.
So much potential in this story. Totally wasted.
Have a nice long nap instead.
Robert Catesby and some other blokes
timsmith375 November 2017
Notice there is a word missing from the title? That's right Plot. The Gunpowder Plot was a conspiracy, and a conspiracy by definition is not all about one person. Thirteen men plotted to blow up the King and government, kidnap the princess royal, foment an armed rebellion and seize the reigns of state with the aid of a foreign power. It was daring, almost certainly stupid and heroically irresponsible.
Robert Catesby is important yes, because he had the vision and the charisma to persuade twelve very different individuals to sign up for this madcap scheme. But that is part of the problem here: the vision is elusive and, in Kit Harrington's stolid performance there is precious little charisma. As for the remaining conspirators, they are blanks, even Guy Fawkes is nothing more than a by-the-numbers Tom Hardy tribute act. We know nothing about them or what drew them into the plot. In focussing so exclusively on the part played by his aristocratic ancestor, Harrington does not just do a disservice to the other conspirators (half of whom do not get speaking parts), he also drains all the tension from the conspiracy storyline. There should be clashing personalities and differing agendas, paranoia and suspicions, false starts and difficulties encountered; above all as the conspiracy reaches it's climax there should be jangling nerves. It's hard to care about the inner turmoil of characters you have not been properly introduced to, and in fairness the script does not even make the attempt.
Instead we get spurious action sequences, such as Catesby's rescue of John Gerard, who actually escaped from the Tower a decade earlier and without Catesby's assistance, and hackneyed Hollywood moments, such as the climatic sequence when Butch Catesby and the Wintourdance Kid charge out in slow motion onto the guns of the Bolivian police force.
Above all the focus is on Catesby and his motivations, all seen through a prism of modern sensibilities and contemporary relevance. And that again is a problem, as the history gets mucked around quite a lot in order to make these points. If you are going to depict atrocities in prurient detail and justify them as providing the context for your character's actions, then you can expect to be called out if you over-egg the pudding.
The look of the show is good, if a little underlit, but the script is hack work and the performances, for the most part (Liv Tyler as Anne Vaux is a luminous exception) either soapily two-dimensional or pantomime broad. The ubiquitous Gatiss renders a particularly ripe King Rat as that fascinating statesman Robert Cecil. (Historical accuracy would incidentally have been better served by a shorter Cecil and a taller Catesby.)
Since Harrington is milking his moment in the sun to get vanity projects commissioned on the lives of his ancestors, I shall look forward with eager anticipation to a three-part drama on the inventor of the flush toilet, an achievement worthy of celebration. Would that someone at the BBC had pulled the chain on this production.
Robert Catesby is important yes, because he had the vision and the charisma to persuade twelve very different individuals to sign up for this madcap scheme. But that is part of the problem here: the vision is elusive and, in Kit Harrington's stolid performance there is precious little charisma. As for the remaining conspirators, they are blanks, even Guy Fawkes is nothing more than a by-the-numbers Tom Hardy tribute act. We know nothing about them or what drew them into the plot. In focussing so exclusively on the part played by his aristocratic ancestor, Harrington does not just do a disservice to the other conspirators (half of whom do not get speaking parts), he also drains all the tension from the conspiracy storyline. There should be clashing personalities and differing agendas, paranoia and suspicions, false starts and difficulties encountered; above all as the conspiracy reaches it's climax there should be jangling nerves. It's hard to care about the inner turmoil of characters you have not been properly introduced to, and in fairness the script does not even make the attempt.
Instead we get spurious action sequences, such as Catesby's rescue of John Gerard, who actually escaped from the Tower a decade earlier and without Catesby's assistance, and hackneyed Hollywood moments, such as the climatic sequence when Butch Catesby and the Wintourdance Kid charge out in slow motion onto the guns of the Bolivian police force.
Above all the focus is on Catesby and his motivations, all seen through a prism of modern sensibilities and contemporary relevance. And that again is a problem, as the history gets mucked around quite a lot in order to make these points. If you are going to depict atrocities in prurient detail and justify them as providing the context for your character's actions, then you can expect to be called out if you over-egg the pudding.
The look of the show is good, if a little underlit, but the script is hack work and the performances, for the most part (Liv Tyler as Anne Vaux is a luminous exception) either soapily two-dimensional or pantomime broad. The ubiquitous Gatiss renders a particularly ripe King Rat as that fascinating statesman Robert Cecil. (Historical accuracy would incidentally have been better served by a shorter Cecil and a taller Catesby.)
Since Harrington is milking his moment in the sun to get vanity projects commissioned on the lives of his ancestors, I shall look forward with eager anticipation to a three-part drama on the inventor of the flush toilet, an achievement worthy of celebration. Would that someone at the BBC had pulled the chain on this production.
"Gunpowder" Without the Bang!
tomgpohl29 August 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Incredibly filmed. Kit Harrington delivers. Actually, all of the on screen talent delivers. Production Designer did an excellent job. Lighting and Sound-Great! Editor-Fly!
My problem with this series is the Catholic mercenary group lead by Harrington's character (Catesby) was "planning" on blowing up the Palace of Westminster and clap King James I, but they only succeeded in blowing up themselves. (SPOILER ALERT BTW).
I think if the screenwriter wanted to create a better script, and a better series, could have ventured off track, and maybe provided a more solid Act-3: One where the "Spaniards" blow the English to crap-that is to say: excrement! (Crap DISCLAIMER: This is a 200 year ago comparison reference) Instead, this three-part mini-series ends with a group of flint locked armed religious rebels blowing themselves-up before a Butch Cassidy & Sundance Kid" ending scene.
Watch this HBO Series, just beware of Fast-Forward.
My problem with this series is the Catholic mercenary group lead by Harrington's character (Catesby) was "planning" on blowing up the Palace of Westminster and clap King James I, but they only succeeded in blowing up themselves. (SPOILER ALERT BTW).
I think if the screenwriter wanted to create a better script, and a better series, could have ventured off track, and maybe provided a more solid Act-3: One where the "Spaniards" blow the English to crap-that is to say: excrement! (Crap DISCLAIMER: This is a 200 year ago comparison reference) Instead, this three-part mini-series ends with a group of flint locked armed religious rebels blowing themselves-up before a Butch Cassidy & Sundance Kid" ending scene.
Watch this HBO Series, just beware of Fast-Forward.
I half expected William Wallace
paudman21 April 2024
Warning: Spoilers
Sadly many aspects of this production do not sit well in 2024. King James... well, let's make him borderline homosexual, effeminate, foppish... just like Mel Gibson's Edward II, so we can mock and laugh at him as less than a 'real man'. Really? Let's have a persecuted minority (and for persecuted read: once a majority, who through their brutal suppression and unflinching religious laws, set by an unelected regime many miles and many countries away, who alienated a people into what was effectively a rising against the Catholic Church's inflexibility, and who agitated, disrupted and rebelled against the majority so many times that they had to be punished, but ooohhh that's soooo unfair) who are intent on bombing and murdering the country back into that same church and claiming that same punishment and repression not as the just rewards of their actions but as an unjust and undeserved state of affairs which comes to justify their actions. A real chicken and egg scenario - which came first, the Catholic agitation, or the penalty? We rise, we rebel, we get punished, then because we're punished, we rise again, and rebel again, and get punished more... and then suffer under the evil regime which insults women, invades privacy, and rides roughshod over their feelings so that we now clearly know which side to support and which to boo. Effectively we have the 18th century version of William Wallace, who really just wants a family life and to be left to worship in peace... but those evil English through their brutality make him a fanatic willing to die for his cause. Haven't we been here before? Poor Braveheart... I was waiting for the first instance of prima nocta. This was well-shot, good attention to period detail, but oh so cliched. The English were cruel but inept, unfeeling - did any of them even have wives? - and eventually had to rely on the Spanish to betray the Catholic cause, and it was all because Cecil wanted Catesby's land. I enjoyed it, but maybe some day we'll see a production where the terrorists are not all unwilling victims, but the product of their own actions, and who act out of hate - just as in the real world.
Almost a follow up in repercussions to Wolf Hall
Essex_Rider22 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
If anyone watched Wolf Hall, they should watch this. The religious fallout from Henry VIII breaking with the Church of Rome led to one of the bloodiest periods in our islands history. Catholics were hunted down and butchered mercilessly by Protestant zealots who were no better than witch finders. Even today, many 15th and 16th century homes in England have 'priest holes' where priests would hide if disturbed performing an illegal Catholic Mass. Yet in truth, it shaped our country, and conversely, it also helped to establish the United States. What a shame to see Sian Webber (Lady Dorothy) dispatched so early on. I'll be interested to see how Liv Tyler pans out, I suspect pretty good. I'll probably add to this review as I've only seen one very good episode, but I will say this. The acting, scenes, directing and script are top notch. If people complain about the execution scenes, don't watch them. England was a bloody place to live then, but through the reformation and our own religious revolution, we found ourselves and our identity in the world. I would have to rate this drama series very very highly indeed.
The Plot... lost
jbeartist4 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
There is a famous contemporary illustration of the plotters which depicts Guy (Guido) Fawkes and the others... he doesn't have a shaved head. He doesn't look like a 21st century thug.
My point here is that TV drama has now reached a point where it's very difficult to separate fact from complete and utter fiction. This production looks great, but there's so much of our own time in it. I half expect to see a mobile phone appear. Kit Harington (creator and producer) looks and sounds and feels and smells like Jon Snow. Mark Gatiss looks and sounds and feels and smells like Mark Gatiss... is there no other part that this man can play? Liv Tyler makes an unnecessary appearance. Shaun Dooley looks like a supermarket store manager, and behaves like a pastiche of evil, something akin to Mark Heap's wonderful Robert Greene in Upstart Crow.
The recent Taboo from Tom Hardy (creator and producer... there's a theme developing here) was at least a complete fiction. The tribal tattoos and bizarre make up on the faces of the children could be argued away as fiction too. It was an orgy of quasi-historic, to be watched from the safety of our centrally-heated living rooms. And that's the same with Gunpowder. It's history for the hipster, the goth, the inked. Tough and uncompromising but ultimately plain wrong.
The crowd watching the horrendous executions are neatly spaced and directed. Some with arms aloft, others with hands cupped around mouths. There's no feeling of the pit, 'mosh' or otherwise. Our leading characters are WAY too attractive, too clean, too obvious. Real people don't look like this... and a Catholic hunter who has been told that exterior wall dimensions don't match those of the interior wouldn't give up on this fact the minute that one (very junior) cleric is found in a trunk. It's nonsense. It looks great, it pleases the modern palate, it gives Kit another excuse to brood and pout, but history it isn't.
Who was Catesby? After watching this I am none the wiser. I know he's played by Kit Harington... maybe that's enough? But on the other hand, maybe, just maybe, after the Harvey Weinstein thing has been confined to history, we may move away from film and drama that relies upon looks and sex appeal and, instead, moves towards talent, truth and honesty.
My point here is that TV drama has now reached a point where it's very difficult to separate fact from complete and utter fiction. This production looks great, but there's so much of our own time in it. I half expect to see a mobile phone appear. Kit Harington (creator and producer) looks and sounds and feels and smells like Jon Snow. Mark Gatiss looks and sounds and feels and smells like Mark Gatiss... is there no other part that this man can play? Liv Tyler makes an unnecessary appearance. Shaun Dooley looks like a supermarket store manager, and behaves like a pastiche of evil, something akin to Mark Heap's wonderful Robert Greene in Upstart Crow.
The recent Taboo from Tom Hardy (creator and producer... there's a theme developing here) was at least a complete fiction. The tribal tattoos and bizarre make up on the faces of the children could be argued away as fiction too. It was an orgy of quasi-historic, to be watched from the safety of our centrally-heated living rooms. And that's the same with Gunpowder. It's history for the hipster, the goth, the inked. Tough and uncompromising but ultimately plain wrong.
The crowd watching the horrendous executions are neatly spaced and directed. Some with arms aloft, others with hands cupped around mouths. There's no feeling of the pit, 'mosh' or otherwise. Our leading characters are WAY too attractive, too clean, too obvious. Real people don't look like this... and a Catholic hunter who has been told that exterior wall dimensions don't match those of the interior wouldn't give up on this fact the minute that one (very junior) cleric is found in a trunk. It's nonsense. It looks great, it pleases the modern palate, it gives Kit another excuse to brood and pout, but history it isn't.
Who was Catesby? After watching this I am none the wiser. I know he's played by Kit Harington... maybe that's enough? But on the other hand, maybe, just maybe, after the Harvey Weinstein thing has been confined to history, we may move away from film and drama that relies upon looks and sex appeal and, instead, moves towards talent, truth and honesty.
Brilliant and gritty British drama
devhirani22 October 2017
I was pleasantly surprised at how gripping and harrowing this drama was. Yes the violence was gory and a bit much but I suspect necessary as this was historically accurate. The audience had to care and understand these plotters and showing the level of persecution at that time was essential in order to get the audience drawn in. As BBC i player have uploaded all 3 episodes I've now binge watched them all and I can happily say the momentum and pace gets much better in episodes 2 and 3. Harrington gives his best performance in the latter episodes, I was shocked at how good he actually was in this. His scenes with his son were particularly moving. All in all, British Drama at its best!. 10/10
Looks good, but feels so superficial
Leofwine_draca6 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
The three-part BBC miniseries GUNPOWDER, retelling the events of the infamous Gunpowder Plot, is a reminder of the BBC's inability to produce decent costume drama in the last two decades. This is an extremely light production with a fast running time and almost nothing in the way of characterisation. The protagonists are one-dimensional at best, with Mark Gatiss' Richard III-alike coming off the worst as the cartoon villain, although Shaun Dooley is little better.
Kit Harington is given very little to work with and spends all his time looking worried; Guy Fawkes and his collaborators are indistinguishable from one another. Liv Tyler is here as the token American cast member (hello, BBC America) and out of place. The film does have some violent torture and execution scenes, but they're nothing that hasn't been done before, and the suspense is almost non-existent. The action also seems shoehorned into the story with random sword fighting and the like. This is certainly a fine-looking production, but writer Ronan Bennett's best work is still his 1997 screenplay for FACE.
Kit Harington is given very little to work with and spends all his time looking worried; Guy Fawkes and his collaborators are indistinguishable from one another. Liv Tyler is here as the token American cast member (hello, BBC America) and out of place. The film does have some violent torture and execution scenes, but they're nothing that hasn't been done before, and the suspense is almost non-existent. The action also seems shoehorned into the story with random sword fighting and the like. This is certainly a fine-looking production, but writer Ronan Bennett's best work is still his 1997 screenplay for FACE.
Wolfe Hall + Taboo = Gunpowder
peterrichboy26 October 2017
The BBC do love a costume drama. They've been doing them since the dawn of television and to be fair on the whole they do them very well. Whilst Gunpowder may not reach the heights of some of the corporations finest work, it's still a well made combination of historical facts with some nice early 17th century scenes of brutal torture, death and violence. Kit Harrington excels as the plot mastermind Robert Catesby and Tom Cullen tries his best to be Tom Hardy as the menacing Guy Fawkes. Overall a well made well acted piece which at three episodes does not outstay it's welcome. Unlike those who let off fireworks beyond the date this show is based on!
So Dull
BlindLemonPye21 November 2017
Great locations, costume and overall a glossy high-budget and easy on the eye production. Just stunningly boring though. Even at only 3 episodes, it felt like you could cut out all the dull filler and condense the hammy, historically inaccurate narrative into a single hour of something a bit more watchable. Nothing remotely like Wolf Hall (which was gripping and superb). Definitely one to avoid.
Amazing
joseesrocha14 February 2021
Unbalanced History
stuart-halliday-943-55769830 October 2017
This is a good series, excellent acting. The moderate rating reflects my concern about the balance. There certainly was religious persecution during the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I which is to be deplored.Probably near 100 Catholics were martyred in England alone between Elizabeth's accession in 1558 and the Gunpowder plot. 100 in 50 years is a lot; but compare that to the near 300 Protestants martyred in only five years under Mary Tudor. Or to the thousands slaughtered by the Spanish Inquisition from the 15th century in Spain and the Low Countries - to say nothing of the tens of thousands of unfortunate victims in Spain's colonies of Peru and Mexico). The Catholic Encyclopedia creditably points out that Elizabeth began her reign with true toleration in mind - witnessed by the fact that there were no religious executions at all between 1558 and 1570. Things changed with the actions of the reprehensible Pope Pius V who after acceding in 1570 excommunicated Elizabeth and urged her subjects to rebel and to assassinate her. Hardly surprising that she was urged to take a tougher line. Pius's plans ultimately backfired; but he had created a problem for English Catholics - support Pope or Monarch was their only choice. Blame for what happened after falls mostly on the shoulders of that psychopathic prelate. As regards the gunpowder plotters themselves, I feel the series was misleading in portraying them as worthy patriots and genuinely religious men. Think on it; they put nearly 3 tons of gunpowder in place. Had they succeeded the magnitude of the blast would have taken out not only the Parliament building and all inside but half of London besides. Total casualties might have been 10,000 or more. Tease this up proportionately and we are talking about devastation on Hiroshima levels. They must have known how extensive the damage and death would have been - several were ex-soldiers and used to gunpowder. These men would probably have welcomed a subsequent Spanish invasion to forcibly drag their countryman back to a now alien faith. They were traitors and potential mass-murderers. No sympathy from me, I'm afraid.
Well written and timely
easter-2151127 October 2017
At last a drama about English Catholics that shows them as three dimensional people and not the caricatures that are usually trotted out on British television; not to mention the annual anti Catholic hate-fest that is bonfire night. Reading some of the negative reviews it is fairly evident that good acting, tense drama and a well written script are helpless in the face of the well entrenched and persistent anti Catholicism of some in 21st century Britain. For me at least, I am well satisfied by a drama that depicts accurately men and women of a lost English Catholic culture who were brave enough to fight and die for their rights against tyranny. How fitting it is that Guy Fawkes face now represents opposition to tyranny worldwide.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
