The Last King

Charles II was the most unique king in English History. At the dawn of democracy, his father was executed by Puritan reformers in a great Civil War, and as a result young Charles had a misspent youth like that of any common criminal -- years on the run, a price on his head, living in taverns with low companions and learning to beg and borrow from other kings. Learning to disguise his emotions and trust in no-one, yet also learning to enjoy pleasure as the one sure comfort in life.

Rufus Sewell does an amazing job playing this complex, bitter, loving man, forever both sad and playful, the most notorious yet somehow most mysterious English king. The story covers all of his reign, from 1660 to 1685, and shows not only his relationships with his subjects, counselors, and family, but with the many passionate, demanding, and thoroughly bewitching royal mistresses who filled his days with glamor and amusement and his nights with excitement and pleasure. They range from the wickedly uninhibited, scheming and unscrupulous Barbara Villiers, to the cheerful, fun-loving Nell Gwynn, to the sweet and childlike Louise DeKeroualle. Last but not least, there is the king's own lawful wife, Catherine of Braganza, an extraordinarily resilient and caring woman who changes over the years from being a pitiful foreign outsider at the English court to being a beloved and respected companion of the king.

I have been reading about these fascinating historical personalities for years, and I have to say that by and large the movie captures all of them perfectly. There were moments so right they took my breath away -- the stupid, bigoted Duke of York flying into a religious tirade at the worst possible moment, for example. Or the weak-willed, feeble young Duke of Monmouth, Charles' doomed bastard son, being coaxed into the arms of Barbara Villiers one moment, and into treasonous plots the next, the handsome royal bastard no more than a fly caught in a web of pleasure and power. Or even the very brief scene of Charles' gentle and warm-hearted sister, trapped in a loveless marriage to a French nobleman, being consoled by the greatest king of all -- Louis XIV.

Of course, there were some interpretations I didn't like so much. Diana Rigg was wonderful as the king's fiery French mother, Henrietta Marie, but I think the writers exaggerate her vindictive, bitter attitude, and ignore her loyalty to her husband and son. In real life Henrietta Marie was not just a harpy shrieking for vengeance. She adored her son and took a very indulgent view of his pleasures at court. In her last years, the real Henrietta Marie was more likely to be found playing cards or going on shopping sprees or even indulging in love affairs with much younger men, rather than screaming for more executions and blood.

By the same token, the stunningly beautiful Melanie Thierry turns in an adorable performance as Madame Louise, Charles' passionate and very enthusiastic young French mistress. The real Louise was every bit as innocent and eager to bed King Charles as the film suggests. However young she was, however, Louise was no fool. She didn't need any coaching from the queen on how to look after the king. She made him so comfortable that she remained the favorite mistress until the day he died. Far from being a flighty scatterbrain, she was probably the most sensible and intelligent of the royal mistresses.

The film version ignores all this entirely, showing Louise as a clueless blonde with the mentality of a six year old. The real Louise was dark, with lustrous black hair and a pleasingly rounded figure that grew increasingly plump across the years. But it's most unlikely that Queen Catherine ever had to sit her down and lecture her on the right way to mother Charles. More likely it was the other way around, for the queen herself always referred to Louise as a "kind friend" and in fact often used to go to Louise for comfort and advice when she was feeling low and dejected in her later years.

In the last few years many saw Louise as almost something of a queen in her own right, able to dispense great wisdom while making the careers of many statesmen. When Charles was dying, she was the one who held his hand to the end (while Queen Catherine was rubbing his feet) and she also made sure he had a priest to confess to, since in his heart he had always been a loyal Catholic. It's a shame none of Louise's deeper shrewdness and strength comes across in the final segment of the film.

Yet on so many levels this movie is a masterpiece. THE POWER AND THE PASSSION tells the amazing true story of England's King Charles II with flair and style.

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

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!

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.

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.