Truly Dreadful Film

Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

One of the best films i have seen

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

"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.

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.

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.

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.