IMDb RATING
7.5/10
1.9K
YOUR RATING
The chronicle of Charles II's time on the throne, his ten-year exile from Oliver Cromwell's England, and his triumphant return.The chronicle of Charles II's time on the throne, his ten-year exile from Oliver Cromwell's England, and his triumphant return.The chronicle of Charles II's time on the throne, his ten-year exile from Oliver Cromwell's England, and his triumphant return.
- Nominated for 1 Primetime Emmy
- 4 wins & 10 nominations total
Browse episodes
Featured reviews
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
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
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.
7=G=
"The Last King" is a 3 hour, two part miniseries from the BBC which traces the life of King Charles II who ruled from 1649 until his death in 1685. The upside of this film includes its sumptuous appointments and excellent cast. Well directed and crafted, the film is engaging, passionate, and delivers a strong sense of Charles II, his Monarchy, and the period. On the downside, however, the film is very difficult to follow given the absence of any prologue or didactics, the mixing of sir names and titles, and the presumption of some knowledge of the history of the time. The film squanders time on the sexual intrigues and personal relationships of the womanizing King while largely ignoring the more historical and profound matters of state. The Dutch Wars, for example, are barley mentioned while much time is spent on the machinations of one of his mistresses, Barbara Villiers making the film a bit more of a soap opera than a historical chronicle. Nonetheless, this elegant film is a must see for anyone interested in King Charles II and a should see for those into stories of the history of England's monarchy. No one does English period films better than the Brits and this one has production value equal to any similar films from Hollywood. (Note - the DVD I watched has no CC's or Subtitles with much dialogue spoken in whispers or thick English, French, of Portuguese accents). B
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.
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!
Did you know
- TriviaShirley Henderson's elaborate hairstyle for Catherine's arrival initially took two hours to create.
- GoofsJust 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.
- Quotes
Nell Gwynn: [after being mistaken for Charles' Catholic mistress Louise de Kéroualle] Good people, you are mistaken; I am the Protestant whore.
- Alternate versionsThe 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.
- ConnectionsReferenced in The Making of 'Charles II' (2003)
- How many seasons does The Last King have?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official site
- Languages
- Also known as
- The Last King: The Power and the Passion of Charles II
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content