Charles II: The Power & the Passion (2003)

A bit overrated, but still an amazing film

Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

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.

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?

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.

I truly enjoyed this show. The production values were excellent and it was historically quite accurate. The acting was superb, with Sewell, Graves and McCrory as standouts. I had a real sense of the history of the period... considering that it was more a dramatic biography than the historical and political record of an era. This was not meant as the definitive documentary on the Restoration, but rather a portrait and narrative on the lives of Charles and his court during a period of great intrigue and change.One cannot cover the 25+ years of Charles' reign in 3 hours and include everything. Instead, it's there as background, for those interested in paying attention. As for sexual intrigue, that's as accurate as was the political. Charles was, from all accounts, a licentious man with many mistresses, several of whom caused no end of trouble.