Wordiezett So much average

Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

Gary 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.

Caryl It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

inkslayer 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.

rouzanna 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.

sexy_pisces_gal 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?

kevinsspam2002 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.