Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Humbersi The first must-see film of the year.

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

Justina The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

TheLittleSongbird 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

savageparrot 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.

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.

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.