User Reviews

It's a great movie, even for a person who's not much into the history. Makes one think about political and social processes that one witnesses today, and reasons behind global decisions that are often hidden.

Rufus Sewell is excellent as Charles, royal but still very human, which just makes you feel an affection for the person he portrays. Rupert Graves is extremely convincing as Buckingham. The movie has an excellent pace, a very appropriate one for a historical drama, and never boring, which is (honestly) a rare thing to find in the genre. Also, makes you want to dig into the history of the period, which I did.

Overall, very much worth seeing.

I truly enjoyed this show. The production values were excellent and it was historically quite accurate. The acting was superb, with Sewell, Graves and McCrory as standouts. I had a real sense of the history of the period... considering that it was more a dramatic biography than the historical and political record of an era. This was not meant as the definitive documentary on the Restoration, but rather a portrait and narrative on the lives of Charles and his court during a period of great intrigue and change.

One cannot cover the 25+ years of Charles' reign in 3 hours and include everything. Instead, it's there as background, for those interested in paying attention. As for sexual intrigue, that's as accurate as was the political. Charles was, from all accounts, a licentious man with many mistresses, several of whom caused no end of trouble.

King Charles II in comparison to other monarchs (primarily Henry VIII, Queen Victoria and Elizabeth I) is not a monarch that I know as much about. As someone who takes a great interest in history, kings and queens fascinated me from an early age, 'Charles II: The Power and the Passion' was an entertaining and riveting watch.

It is more than easy to see why it is so praised by many. At the same time, not everybody will be totally enamoured by it, especially those expecting rigid historical accuracy (something that 'Charles II: The Power and the Passion plays fast and loose with). Not everything about 'Charles II: The Power and the Passion' entirely worked for me. Narratively, it does feel jumpy in parts and time scales, events and dates are not always clear, a little narration or captions may have solved this a little without being too much of a documentary approach.

A couple of the characterisations felt a bit off, not the acting but the writing. It is agreed that Henrietta, despite being wonderfully played by Diana Rigg who has a blast with the role, is too vindictive and that her vengeful side is greatly exaggerated to sometimes pantomimic effect. It is further agreed also that Louise is made too clueless and the role is more annoying than charming.

Conversely, 'Charles II: The Power and the Passion' looks fantastic, beautifully photographed and richly and exquisitely designed costumes and scenery wise. The music is luscious and with energy and vibrancy without being intrusive or heavy-handed. All four episodes are very intelligently scripted, with little rambling and nothing feels too wordy with few of the characterisations ringing shallow too.

The story is not perfectly done, but is absorbing and makes one interested in knowing more about Charles and his life. The sexual element is played to the hilt, but done with taste, raw sensuality and passion, as is the rest of the storytelling. And there is nothing to fault the acting either. Rufus Sewell is just majestic in the title role and it has to rank up there with his best performances. Likewise with Rupert Graves as Buckingham. Helen McCrory is suitably cunning and Shirley Henderson really does touch the soul.

In summary, a riveting if imperfect series, definitely worth checking out as long as you take it for what it is and not a history lesson. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Charles II was the most unique king in English History. At the dawn of democracy, his father was executed by Puritan reformers in a great Civil War, and as a result young Charles had a misspent youth like that of any common criminal -- years on the run, a price on his head, living in taverns with low companions and learning to beg and borrow from other kings. Learning to disguise his emotions and trust in no-one, yet also learning to enjoy pleasure as the one sure comfort in life.

Rufus Sewell does an amazing job playing this complex, bitter, loving man, forever both sad and playful, the most notorious yet somehow most mysterious English king. The story covers all of his reign, from 1660 to 1685, and shows not only his relationships with his subjects, counselors, and family, but with the many passionate, demanding, and thoroughly bewitching royal mistresses who filled his days with glamor and amusement and his nights with excitement and pleasure. They range from the wickedly uninhibited, scheming and unscrupulous Barbara Villiers, to the cheerful, fun-loving Nell Gwynn, to the sweet and childlike Louise DeKeroualle. Last but not least, there is the king's own lawful wife, Catherine of Braganza, an extraordinarily resilient and caring woman who changes over the years from being a pitiful foreign outsider at the English court to being a beloved and respected companion of the king.

I have been reading about these fascinating historical personalities for years, and I have to say that by and large the movie captures all of them perfectly. There were moments so right they took my breath away -- the stupid, bigoted Duke of York flying into a religious tirade at the worst possible moment, for example. Or the weak-willed, feeble young Duke of Monmouth, Charles' doomed bastard son, being coaxed into the arms of Barbara Villiers one moment, and into treasonous plots the next, the handsome royal bastard no more than a fly caught in a web of pleasure and power. Or even the very brief scene of Charles' gentle and warm-hearted sister, trapped in a loveless marriage to a French nobleman, being consoled by the greatest king of all -- Louis XIV.

Of course, there were some interpretations I didn't like so much. Diana Rigg was wonderful as the king's fiery French mother, Henrietta Marie, but I think the writers exaggerate her vindictive, bitter attitude, and ignore her loyalty to her husband and son. In real life Henrietta Marie was not just a harpy shrieking for vengeance. She adored her son and took a very indulgent view of his pleasures at court. In her last years, the real Henrietta Marie was more likely to be found playing cards or going on shopping sprees or even indulging in love affairs with much younger men, rather than screaming for more executions and blood.

By the same token, the stunningly beautiful Melanie Thierry turns in an adorable performance as Madame Louise, Charles' passionate and very enthusiastic young French mistress. The real Louise was every bit as innocent and eager to bed King Charles as the film suggests. However young she was, however, Louise was no fool. She didn't need any coaching from the queen on how to look after the king. She made him so comfortable that she remained the favorite mistress until the day he died. Far from being a flighty scatterbrain, she was probably the most sensible and intelligent of the royal mistresses.

The film version ignores all this entirely, showing Louise as a clueless blonde with the mentality of a six year old. The real Louise was dark, with lustrous black hair and a pleasingly rounded figure that grew increasingly plump across the years. But it's most unlikely that Queen Catherine ever had to sit her down and lecture her on the right way to mother Charles. More likely it was the other way around, for the queen herself always referred to Louise as a "kind friend" and in fact often used to go to Louise for comfort and advice when she was feeling low and dejected in her later years.

In the last few years many saw Louise as almost something of a queen in her own right, able to dispense great wisdom while making the careers of many statesmen. When Charles was dying, she was the one who held his hand to the end (while Queen Catherine was rubbing his feet) and she also made sure he had a priest to confess to, since in his heart he had always been a loyal Catholic. It's a shame none of Louise's deeper shrewdness and strength comes across in the final segment of the film.

Yet on so many levels this movie is a masterpiece. THE POWER AND THE PASSSION tells the amazing true story of England's King Charles II with flair and style.

Not too sure what the previous reviewer was watching.

Apart from the mildly irritating liberties the writer took with historical accuracy here and there, this is one of the best historical series I've seen for a long time and kept me intrigued for all four episodes. Perhaps the approach was too subtle for some, we had one or two small bits of gore, you could say just enough to convey the brutality of the era.

This however was more about the contradictory elements of Charles's character and how he chose to deal with the constant political threats he lived through which could have swallowed him up at any time. His compassion, tolerance,lust, his fine political judgement, his mixed feelings as he tried to stabilize his country, promote religious tolerance, resist parliament, balance the books and have a good time when he could. The principal players dance around him but do they control him or is he carefully playing them off? It is not about battles, blood or explosive action. It is nevertheless tense and dynamic as friendships, loyalties and political passions spark off each other.

And then, we have Rufus Sewell, seldom has more skilled and effective portrayal of an historical figure been offered. He burns, he frets, he soothes, he controls, he accedes. He acting of great loyalty against all pressures to some and abandonment of allies for political expediency with others, is performed with equally high credibility. He has more character in a few facial movements than many actors could deliver in a hundred lines. A complete and consummate character performance and assimilation of Charles II's persona. The other cast do not fail to provide full but studied portrayals to complete the drama.

The thoughtful mix of setting, inside and out and usual top quality costume etc do not let the production fall below the highest standards. Yet there is no over the top kitch clichéd stuff that many period dramas throw in.

Watch out for any award for Rufus Sewell.

A huge success.

I've watched this twice now, since A&E has been broadcasting the show this weekend under the title "The Last King" -- presumably because American audiences can't be expected to know or care who Charles II is.

Anyway, I don't understand the earler negative review at all. Hard to believe we watched the same show. The one I watched is a fantastic, very human, extraordinarily well-acted, and surprisingly faithful period piece.

While the acting in general is at a very high level (special props to the actress who played Lady Castlemaine), Rufus Sewell is simply remarkable. He communicates intelligence, self-indulgence, simple human decency and moments of power and passion wonderfully well. A terrific performance. I suppose because of his dark, somewhat moody good looks he only gets cast as bad guys by Hollywood (Helen of Troy, A Knight's Tale), but he deserves better.

Two thumbs up!

"The Last King" is a 3 hour, two part miniseries from the BBC which traces the life of King Charles II who ruled from 1649 until his death in 1685. The upside of this film includes its sumptuous appointments and excellent cast. Well directed and crafted, the film is engaging, passionate, and delivers a strong sense of Charles II, his Monarchy, and the period. On the downside, however, the film is very difficult to follow given the absence of any prologue or didactics, the mixing of sir names and titles, and the presumption of some knowledge of the history of the time. The film squanders time on the sexual intrigues and personal relationships of the womanizing King while largely ignoring the more historical and profound matters of state. The Dutch Wars, for example, are barley mentioned while much time is spent on the machinations of one of his mistresses, Barbara Villiers making the film a bit more of a soap opera than a historical chronicle. Nonetheless, this elegant film is a must see for anyone interested in King Charles II and a should see for those into stories of the history of England's monarchy. No one does English period films better than the Brits and this one has production value equal to any similar films from Hollywood. (Note - the DVD I watched has no CC's or Subtitles with much dialogue spoken in whispers or thick English, French, of Portuguese accents). B

Wow mark you could at least have come up with your own comment instead of ripping off comments from the newsnight discussion on the BBC web site. Did you watch it yourself or did you have someone do that for you as well? For myself I thought this was superb; well acted and scripted if a little prone to use audience capturing doses of sex (almost certainly included to justify it's Saturday night television slot rather than as any particular desire of the director).

The tracking shot at the end as they walk around the lake was especially well crafted and was for me the perfect way of ending the story as they chose to tell it.

I have got this film on DVD and have watched it so many times that I know most of the words. The continuously gorgeous Rufus Sewell plays the king himself. He plays the part to perfection. He shows the audience the trauma of decision making for a king can be, trying to please all people and all religions, while trying to please his own family and court/ministers plus dealing with huge problems like money and religion.

Helen Mcrory (Barbra Villiers) plays her character VERY VERY well. She is cunning and conniving towards the queen, it shows that she (and other women) can easily make the king fold through being a woman, which of course is not expected in Kings.

The film does tend to focus on his mistresses and sex life, however this is the entire idea of the story, if you want a film about what life in general was like around this time then research it. The whole idea of this story was to try to understand his emotions, seeing what made him tick, trying to view Charles as a person rather than a king.

It does skip a couple of scenes but obviously what the directors have skipped is not important, you have to just guess that time has moved on and so have people around Charles. Or the imagination is up to you I suppose. Its definitely worth watching this film and a good choice to buy this film.

Even for not-very-familiar-with-British-history beings, this movie is excellent! I liked Rufus Sewell very very much as Charles II. He was really very much "in" the historical person. Even in case you are not familiar with the time of Charles II, you get very interested to read more about it.

I would liked this film to show some more persons and European "connections" from this time, appearing in the movie. Just to get a closer view of the time. But WOW this movie was excellent. I wish there were movies like this one in Germany.

And I very much liked that all actors were able to speak very clear. I understood everything, no subtitles needed!!! Henry VIII was not talking that clear and understandable. The Specials on DVD2 could have been "more"!!!!

You cannot help but be impressed by the production values of this potentially great BBC series. However, the scenes jump quickly, characters come and go quickly and overall the story is hard to follow unless you read up on the history of the reign of Charles II. Either the editing has been so severe that the continuity has been damaged or the producers have assumed that viewers are fully aware of the history. Either way, a narrative would have helped to fill in the considerable gaps.

That said, the sets are impressive and the acting is first-class. With better continuity, this could have been an impressive tele-movie. In the form that it was presented on TV, it just misses the mark unless you already know your history.

First, those of you who watched this as a three-hour movie with 30 commercial breaks must have seen a royally butchered cut as the R2 DVD is four hour-long episodes.

Second, those who claim that the BBC are not as good as they used to be are, perhaps, not quite fair, but not totally wrong either. I imagine they are comparing Charles II to Elizabeth R; I, Claudius; or The Six Wives of Henry VIII, and yes, it's not as good as they were. But then, neither were the other series the BBC were making at that time.

But if such comparisons are not entirely fair, they are also inevitable. Elizabeth, Six Wives and Claudius were televised plays. They worked due to the interaction of great scripts and great acting. The costumes were icing on the cake; the direction and camera work were capable but never drew attention to themselves. These teleplays continued a dramatic tradition traceable back to Shakespeare. They were *plays*.

Charles II, on the other hand, as well as other historical dramas done by the BBC these days, has abandoned its dramatic lineage for cinematic aspirations, especially as technology becomes more affordable. I don't consider this a bad thing, though I do think it failed, just as many teleplays of the golden era failed in their attempts. There's nothing wrong with bringing direction, camerawork, production design, etc. to the fore. Unfortunately, the scripts suffer, at least in this case. The viewer is innundated with flashy techniques like handheld cameras which achieve nothing other than making the show look modern, or a seven-minute long single take near the end of the final episode which contained about three minutes of dialogue that actually advanced the plot or developed the character in meaningful ways.

Is it worth watching? Yes. But don't compare it the greatest costume dramas ever made. Take it for what is, and it's a fine drama.

Isn't it refreshing to know that TV can still produce gems like this? I love history and this period (the 17th century) is my favourite era. When I discovered that the BBC were making a series about Charles ii I was intrigued, when I heard that Rufus Sewell and Shirley Henderson were to star, I was excited. My excitement was not misplaced. This TV show is one of the best costume dramas ever made. Charles, one of the most scandalous of England's kings, is brought vividly to life by Sewell's delicious performance. Helen McCrory is hypnotically obnoxious as Lady Castlemain, official prostitute to the court of King Charles and Shirley Henderson excels as the long suffering wife of the philandering king. There is so much history to be covered in the reign of Charles ii, fire, plague, wars, religious tumult not to mention the inexhaustible line of Charles's mistresses and this production packs it all in. We even learn of Charles's ill fated father and the austere rule of Oliver Cromwell. The only unfortunate thing about this production is that there weren't more episodes.

"The Last King" is the title of the DVD we are able to rent in the USA. It is divided in two parts, each around ninety minutes. I understand it was not just condensed from the original U.K. version, it was bowdlerized. Considering what was left **in**, whatever A&E Network took out must have been pretty steamy stuff!

Rufus Sewell's masterful performance gives even us republican Americans a hankering for a nobility you can admire. Charles II had the qualities of a king including an imposing physical presence yet apparently was a sensitive man, even an affable one, and like many, he was defenseless against a woman's tears.

Let me add my voice to what many here have remarked. The cast of characters is enormous. Not unlike a soap they appear, reappear, are gone again. As they seem all to be Dukes, Earls, Countesses or Lords, it's easy for someone unaccustomed to titles to mix them up. The elaborate costumery does not help matters--the ten-pound wigs act as effective disguises.

When you see it for the second time and can concentrate on identifying the characters, it's more worthwhile.

The Countess of Castlemaine was nineteen years younger than Charles II. Helen McCrory, who plays her, is one year younger than Rufus Sewell and looks rather older.

Rufus Sewell stars as Charles II in this lavish adaptation chronicling the life and loves of the "Merry Monarch", from his last few months in exile from Oliver Cromwells Republican England, to his death. Supported by Rupert Graves as the treacherous Duke of Buckingham, History comes alive in this four-hour drama.

When he reclaims his throne after 11 years in exile, Charles II is determined to avenge his fathers murderers even if it means risking the wrath of his people, who are already furious at their Kings reluctance to banish the heretical Catholics from England. Things are not helped when the Kings brother, James, Duke of York converts to the catholic faith himself, causing uprisings and civil war, and as the King's marriage to the Portuguese Princess Catherine of Braganza is childless, James is the only heir, forcing the King to a very difficult decision. Should he abandon the Duke of York in favour of his protestant, and illegitimate son, James Duke of Monmouth? Or dissolve parliament and keep the Duke of York as his heir?

It's been a long time since I enjoyed a film like I did with this. Rufus Sewel Rupert Graves are spectacular, as well as the rest of the cast. The costumes dialogue, performances, all give this film it's authenticity. Best of all, from the little I know of history, this series deviates very little from history. It is as close to the actual history as you can get on film. One of the most well-made movies I've ever seen, from the first shot to the last.

The only warning I have is that be sure to have some time on your hands before starting to watch it. You won't want to stop. It is very binge worthy.

The film made its United States debut tonight on Arts and Entertainment Network with many commercials so I don't know if there were scenes cut from the BBC edition. The look of the film was beautiful and Rufus Sewell was the perfect Charles II. As an American, I found it very interesting about the Catholic vrs Protestant situation. As a student of English history, I found it gave a fair balance on both sides. I believe the Catholic band on those of the faith could not hold office until the 19th Century.

Rupert Graves who I usually see in modern films looked a little out of place with all those wigs but I am just use to seeing him either on stage or in modern films.

How can anyone forget those eyes of Mr. Sewell. This is his trade mark. I had put it on tape and so I could fast forward the commercals. Thank God for that. There must have been 30 commercals during the four hour telecast.

The BBC's 'Charles II: The Power, The Passion' is absolutely drenched in clichés of every sort. Here's a period that is really interesting in English history: we get the licentiousness, the decadence of the merry monarch's court, but what we don't get is a sense of the great religious and political debates that were happening at the time.

The question is what is the point of this? It looks cheap. The acting is fine. Rufus Sewell plays Charles with equal doses of high camp and grotesque excess; Ian McDiarmid, Rupert Graves and others fare adequately. Unfortunately, the BBC used to do this a lot better. Standards, it seems, have slipped and I don't know what they're playing at.