Watch Charles II: The Power & the Passion For Free

Crappy film

Boring

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

The Last King: The Power and the Passion of Charles II captures and squeezes twenty-five years of politics and debauchery into 188 minutes so well that the time focused and wasted on Lady Castlemaine, along with a few other minor warts, are forgiven.Charles II, a less formal King with never enough money, trusted no one; and so he told half-truths. This fact and the many other snippets of historical information interwoven with fiction makes The Last King a worthy and most enjoyable period piece. It's also a spring-board for those unfamiliar, but interested in learning more about Charles II's Restoration.Disappointing are the sets and physiognomy of the actors portraying some of the characters. There's also too many close-ups. Granted, these close-ups are supposed to convey intimacy between characters. I would have expected a better balance in the actors projecting the intimacy and the camera work.Diana Rigg is stellar as the dominating, moody, and excitable Queen Henrietta Maria.Rufus Sewell, although not swarthy like Charles's Medici ancestors, plays the King intelligently and with sensitivity.Helen McCrory, who plays Lady Castlemaine, looks a wee bit too old for her part. In 1665 Castlemaine would have been 25. Charles 35. Also, Lady Castlemaine is known to have been very beautiful, tall, voluptuous, and with blue-violet eyes. I'm sure those familiar with these historical figures were disappointed when they saw otherwise, and perhaps were scratching their heads.

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.

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.

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.