IMDb-BEWERTUNG
7,5/10
1919
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Die Chronik der Zeit Karls II. auf dem Thron, seiner zehnjährigen Verbannung aus Oliver Comwells England und seiner triumphalen Rückkehr.Die Chronik der Zeit Karls II. auf dem Thron, seiner zehnjährigen Verbannung aus Oliver Comwells England und seiner triumphalen Rückkehr.Die Chronik der Zeit Karls II. auf dem Thron, seiner zehnjährigen Verbannung aus Oliver Comwells England und seiner triumphalen Rückkehr.
- Für 1 Primetime Emmy nominiert
- 4 Gewinne & 10 Nominierungen insgesamt
Folgen durchsuchen
Empfohlene Bewertungen
5-628
You cannot help but be impressed by the production values of this potentially great BBC series. However, the scenes jump quickly, characters come and go quickly and overall the story is hard to follow unless you read up on the history of the reign of Charles II. Either the editing has been so severe that the continuity has been damaged or the producers have assumed that viewers are fully aware of the history. Either way, a narrative would have helped to fill in the considerable gaps.
That said, the sets are impressive and the acting is first-class. With better continuity, this could have been an impressive tele-movie. In the form that it was presented on TV, it just misses the mark unless you already know your history.
That said, the sets are impressive and the acting is first-class. With better continuity, this could have been an impressive tele-movie. In the form that it was presented on TV, it just misses the mark unless you already know your history.
I've watched this twice now, since A&E has been broadcasting the show this weekend under the title "The Last King" -- presumably because American audiences can't be expected to know or care who Charles II is.
Anyway, I don't understand the earler negative review at all. Hard to believe we watched the same show. The one I watched is a fantastic, very human, extraordinarily well-acted, and surprisingly faithful period piece.
While the acting in general is at a very high level (special props to the actress who played Lady Castlemaine), Rufus Sewell is simply remarkable. He communicates intelligence, self-indulgence, simple human decency and moments of power and passion wonderfully well. A terrific performance. I suppose because of his dark, somewhat moody good looks he only gets cast as bad guys by Hollywood (Helen of Troy, A Knight's Tale), but he deserves better.
Two thumbs up!
Anyway, I don't understand the earler negative review at all. Hard to believe we watched the same show. The one I watched is a fantastic, very human, extraordinarily well-acted, and surprisingly faithful period piece.
While the acting in general is at a very high level (special props to the actress who played Lady Castlemaine), Rufus Sewell is simply remarkable. He communicates intelligence, self-indulgence, simple human decency and moments of power and passion wonderfully well. A terrific performance. I suppose because of his dark, somewhat moody good looks he only gets cast as bad guys by Hollywood (Helen of Troy, A Knight's Tale), but he deserves better.
Two thumbs up!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesShirley Henderson's elaborate hairstyle for Catherine's arrival initially took two hours to create.
- PatzerJust before the sequence concerning the smallpox epidemic, we get a brief look at The King's upper right arm and can clearly see a smallpox vaccination scar.
- Zitate
Nell Gwynn: [after being mistaken for Charles' Catholic mistress Louise de Kéroualle] Good people, you are mistaken; I am the Protestant whore.
- Alternative VersionenThe version shown in UK was titled "Charles II: The Power & The Passion" and its original running time is 235 minutes. It was broadcast on TV by BBC in four parts, as it is also on the UK DVD distributed by BBC. The longer UK version has also been released in many European countries (Finland, Netherlands and more) and Australia. The version shown in USA on A&E was titled "The Last King" and has a running time on 188 minutes, cutting it down by almost 40 minutes. The DVD released by A&E in USA is the shorter version.
- VerbindungenReferenced in The Making of 'Charles II' (2003)
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
- How many seasons does The Last King have?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsländer
- Offizieller Standort
- Sprachen
- Auch bekannt als
- The Last King: The Power and the Passion of Charles II
- Drehorte
- Produktionsfirmen
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen