Charles II: The Power & the Passion (2003)

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

"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.

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.

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.

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.