ShangLuda Admirable film.

Bluebell Alcock Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

bob the moo Following his appointment as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Francis Urquhart is rather plagued by guilt over the actions that got him there, while at the same time lacking a challenge to stimulate him in the way his political rivalries once did. This changes as the new King of England decides to throw his social conscience into the political ring, and as FU takes on a new 'slave' to inspire him and to tutor. The King's simplistic sentimentalizing of the plight of the poor leads FU to perhaps underestimate him, while he also remains unaware of the presence of a tape of his rooftop meeting that ended the previous series.There is a certain meanness and cynicism in this BBC film that is perhaps lacking in the US version, and this second part of the House of Cards trilogy continues with that. The viewer remains drawn into FU's world and decisions in a way where we are confronted by his cold maneuvering, and this continues throughout the episodes. This time the opponent is the new King – a very thinly veiled version of Prince Charles; the reality of this power struggle is perhaps not totally convincing, but to be fair the previous episodes were fine to play up the cynicism in return for giving up a bit of realism. The plot plays out quite nicely, although it must be said that the show does benefit from only having 4 episodes and not the longer run that the US version has.Outside of this, the series does rather repeat the model of the previous serial in that it places a young woman in FU's circle, sees an influential Afro-Caribbean woman playing a key role and also has a vulnerable male press role. It does have a certain familiarity to it, although mostly it does work on its own rights. The various plot twists and turns do not always convince; in particular the frequent bombings and the fate of some characters and devices go a little further than fits even the internal logic, but these are held together by the consistent spirit of meanness it has. A big part of that is Richardson's performance, which is attractive while also being repellant – much like his to-camera discussions which challenge the viewer to judge him. Equally good are Kitchen, Aldridge, King, and Farrrell – albeit that they have shadows of the previous series in their characters. Jeavons plays it well so that he builds from his position gradually and in a way that makes sense.Generally the series works well because of how nicely scripted it is with a cynicism that applies across the political spectrum of all those involved. This is delivered with a certain drollness and a narrative that engages even if aspects of it feel repeated from the previous series.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU An absolute masterpiece in political philandering. Politics is poison. Politics is perversion. Politics is treacherous intercourse between any man and any other person, any woman and any other human with only one objective: to seize power, to retain power, to "make history" as if they could, not understanding that power is illusive and evasive, and history is not made by anything or anybody because history is and nothing else. What makes it is unknown of everybody. Big Ben here is only to dictate the time of the beginning of each episode, 9:22 a.m. The general idea is that a plain apparatchik of the conservative party manages to push aside the successor to Margaret Thatcher, the longest- serving peace time Prime Minister, who was too weak for the job, and he becomes nothing but the brute of the job who uses young women to get his inspiration, kills them as soon as they could become dangerous, and is in fact entirely manipulated by his own wife, a new Lady Macbeth who even manages to make him confront the new king and force him to abdicate. What's the best part of it is that it is thrilling to follow the actions of this apprentice sorcerer and to see how he manages any situation to his own advantage and yet is heading right into the wall because to succeed too long becomes dangerous for your own health in the British system where only the sovereign can last long because he or she is not supposed to play politics. It is thrilling because we know the only end can be his failure when the wall of success will become so hard that he will have to be eliminated for the simple survival of the political system.Yet you will learn only in the very last scene who the manipulator of it all is and what his or/and her intention is too. And it is true the series is intelligent enough and well enough done that you cannot know who that manipulator is though we see his/her black gloves at crucial moments but the episode systematically mislead you to believing it (he/she) is someone else.The series is also a very good criticism of British democracy based on the free press that is as free as a tornado in a narrow and deep gorge between two very high mountains. The press is in fact on a very short leash: make money with news and make the news if necessary to make money, like Citizen Kane used to say. Parliament is an amazing maze of corridors and staircases, a comfortable bar and a House of Commons with only one interesting session, Questions to the Prime Minister, every week or maybe more often. This Parliament is a farce in many ways, at best a circus for gladiators who have no right to kill one another but who can bruise their own and respective egos in all possible ways.It is so easy to make the public believe what you want them to believe when you can pull the strings that hold the press. And then you can always manage someone to get killed here and there, now and then, who is embarrassing or annoying the big masters.I am so glad I am not engulfed in such an ugly activity. And yet I am sorry everyday because of them because they terrorize my own life all the time with their own caprices and incompetence. After that you sure will loathe politics, or at best want to be one of the few who can control the game.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

chaos-rampant Compared to the first House of Cards, this is a retread of familiar ground, far-fetched in spots, and fizzles out in the 'explosive' finale. It is still fun to watch, and together with Cards, a great primary text.The narrative tension arises from the fact that the protagonist—Francis Urquhart, now Prime Minister after the events of the first one—is both an actor inside the story and the capricious narrator who in telling it attempts to control that story and his environment, Lolita-wise. (which Ian Richardson has not only known, as anyone in his trade can be expected to, but actually played on the stage, in Albee's Broadway version as apparently Nabokov himself)We are roped in the story, by Urquhart making the camera a co- conspirator on his side.This could have been of more interest than the first. The issue of co- conspiratorial viewing more ambiguously rears its head here, because mixed with parliamentary intrigue, the great deceiver is beginning to show signs of doubt and remorse, but knowing him to be a demagogue, can we trust him? Is he lucidly toying with us? Do we open up? It all comes back to Lolita, the seduced younger woman, his mirrored nemesis the current Chief Whip. It is good material, a good text to work from.Alas, the same problem persists as in Cards.Urquhart's doubt grows from memories of the first film, the whole Mattie Storin affair. If you haven't seen Cards, he has done something horrible even by his standards, and tormenting visions begin to seep into and disrupt his control. Now there are two types of film when dealing with cinematic memory, mostly distinct of each other. Films where memory is a narrative device and the reminiscing self fetches the images as insight into some past story, a category of which this is a part of, and can be relied on for a good jigsaw but hardly much else. Hitchcock usually worked in this way.And films, much fewer, where true to the function of memory, images steal into the story as insight of the narrating self, images not always in the right order or logical that partly create the self. All the great films (as well as Lolita) fall in this latter category.So the narrative is clean and logical, which the British do better than anyone. The acting is fine, Richardson above all. But, there is no reason whatsoever for Urquhart to be truly confiding to the viewer, especially now that we see aspects of Urquhart he does not control. Everyone else is being lied to, uncertain and fumbling, but we are not. This is as if Lolita was just a chronicle of mischiefs, missing layers.

Edmund_Bloxam There is much more drama here, much deeper character development and, of course, the whole story has a whole new depth than that of its predecessor 'House of Cards', which everyone seems to prefer. That was mostly humorous, very light entertainment. I found this one far more rewarding due to the above. Gone was the inevitability and lack of challenge of 'H.O.C.'. Here the main character has to plum to real depths to achieve his aims.Onto the gripes: Primarily, the pacing is a real problem. It struck me that the first three episodes were little more than exposition, establishing the situations of the story, a three-hour Act One. Nothing really happens, story-wise, until the final episode.The presentation of the homeless was at times a little trite, although it was amusing to confirm my suspicions about Emma Bunton's acting skills.I did not find the ending forced at all. In fact, the means are far more convincing and difficult to pull off than any of the maneuverings of 'H.O.C.'What carries this serial through really is the relationship between Urquhart and Harding. Although clearly an echo of that of with Storrin in 'H.O.C', it does not seem out of place; here is something with strange, emotional, dark and disturbing undertones.