TheLittleSongbird 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

damienmuldoon Isn't it refreshing to know that TV can still produce gems like this? I love history and this period (the 17th century) is my favourite era. When I discovered that the BBC were making a series about Charles ii I was intrigued, when I heard that Rufus Sewell and Shirley Henderson were to star, I was excited. My excitement was not misplaced. This TV show is one of the best costume dramas ever made. Charles, one of the most scandalous of England's kings, is brought vividly to life by Sewell's delicious performance. Helen McCrory is hypnotically obnoxious as Lady Castlemain, official prostitute to the court of King Charles and Shirley Henderson excels as the long suffering wife of the philandering king. There is so much history to be covered in the reign of Charles ii, fire, plague, wars, religious tumult not to mention the inexhaustible line of Charles's mistresses and this production packs it all in. We even learn of Charles's ill fated father and the austere rule of Oliver Cromwell. The only unfortunate thing about this production is that there weren't more episodes.

sexy_pisces_gal 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?

-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.