MovieChat Forums > Charles II: The Power & the Passion (2004) Discussion > The UK v. US cut

The UK v. US cut

posted 19 years ago by emst
19 replies | jump to latest

I've seen both versions. There are some important storylines cut in the American version but then, there are also some scenes that were in the US cut but not in the BBC cut. From what I can remember

The US lost:

- the secret treaty plot
- the dismissal of Danby plot
- Charles burning what seems to be the wedding certificate of his marriage to Lucy Walters (thus making James Monmouth legitimate)
- the trial and death penalty of some of the accused in the Popish plot
- a scene at the horse races where James convinces Charles to let him go to sea
- a more extensive scene of the beheading of Charles I
- Louise talking to Louis of France
- Minette being raped by her husband
- Minette being drugged/poisoned by her lady in waiting (not Louise)
- a meeting between Charles and William of Orange over the Dutch war
- a much longer scene at the lake with encounters with James and William of Orange
- a longer scene where Titus Oates wanders through White Hall to show Charles where the plotters plotted their popish plot ;)
- some old guy preaching doom in the fire of London and then have the building collapse with him in it
- a scene where Barbara tries to convince Charles to sleep with Lady Frances Stewart
- a shag here and there

The US gained:

- The visit of the old Queen and Minette to England when Catharine is pregnant.
- The scene where someone warns Charles that he'll be shot.

Anything to add to that?

[–] MJM5226 19 years ago

Okay, now I'm REALLY confused!

I'm in the U.S. and I rented this movie not long ago on DVD. It ran about 188 minutes, which, by my flimsy calculations, would just about equal a 4-hour TV movie minus the commercials, right?

And I remember seeing many of those scenes which you have listed under "US lost", including the scene where Charles burns his marriage certificate, Minette being drugged, and Barbara talking to Charles about Frances Stewart. But I certainly don't remember Minette being raped!

What the heck is going on here?!?!?

"Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!"

[–] ReganRebecca 19 years ago

Mjm5226, I think plantagenetqueen was talking about when it was played on TV. When they play it on tv they often cut scenes for time. If you rented it on DVD then you got the whole movie including some of the scenes that were cut for time on TV.

[–] MJM5226 19 years ago

I don't think I did see the whole thing though......I swear I don't remember Minette being raped!

But as far as I've read, the UK DVD is DEFINATELY the whole thing, right?

"Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!"

[–] emst 19 years ago

no, that's what I'm saying because even on the UK DVD, there are at least two scenes missing that were on the R1 DVD that I saw (see list). But overall, it's a much better cut than the R1 version. And yes, Minette gets attacked/raped by her husband on the UK cut.

[–] flextone1 19 years ago

I just watched the US DVD and noticed that all shots of breasts were cut, but on one of the included "extras", it clearly showed nipples and full breast scenes during the short "extra"! Does the UK version cut out breasts, as well?

[–] MJM5226 19 years ago

Well, I certainly don't remember boobs on the US DVD I got from Netflix. WTF is going on here??

Okay, let's say someone had a multi-regional DVD player and was able to buy and view both the US and UK versions of the DVD. Between the two of them, would we have seen a FULL movie with no bits left out??

"You know you want me, baby!" - Crow T. Robot

[–] SarahAB 18 years ago

If I remember rightly when it was on TV in England it was ran over a few weeks as a series not as an extremely long film. No idea about the UK DVD though

[–] MJM5226 19 years ago

Okay, I just rented this movie again last night (US two-part DVD), and using emst's template, I will report on what I did and did not see:

<<The US lost:

-the secret treaty plot Saw
- the dismissal of Danby plot Saw
- Charles burning what seems to be the wedding certificate of his marriage to Lucy Walters (thus making James Monmouth legitimate) Saw
- the trial and death penalty of some of the accused in the Popish plot Saw
- a scene at the horse races where James convinces Charles to let him go to sea Did Not See
- a more extensive scene of the beheading of Charles I Not sure...What specifically?
- Louise talking to Louis of France Not sure
- Minette being raped by her husband Definitely did not see!
- Minette being drugged/poisoned by her lady in waiting (not Louise) Did not see
- a meeting between Charles and William of Orange over the Dutch war Did not see
- a much longer scene at the lake with encounters with James and William of Orange Did not see...William doesn't show up til the end epilogue
- a longer scene where Titus Oates wanders through White Hall to show Charles where the plotters plotted their popish plot Probably didn't see
- some old guy preaching doom in the fire of London and then have the building collapse with him in it Saw
- a scene where Barbara tries to convince Charles to sleep with Lady Frances Stewart Didn't see...Babs never talks to Charles about Frances
- a shag here and there Ummmmm.....Can't really say

The US gained:

- The visit of the old Queen and Minette to England when Catharine is pregnant. Saw
- The scene where someone warns Charles that he'll be shot. Saw

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....!

[–] annedixon21 19 years ago

DID ANYONE NOTICE THAT ON THE PLATE WITH MONEY IN THE SECOND HALF, THERE WERE ENGLISH GEORGE VITH PENNIES (1936 - 1952) OUR QUEENS FATHER, RIGHT IN FRONT OF CAMERA, SO SILLY

[–] indigo_pie 18 years ago

How come it was called 'The LAst King' in the US?

He wasn't the last king! He wasn't even the last Stuart king (James II and William III along with Mary II and Anne who was the last Stuart sovereign).

JUst slightly confused over the title. Would Americans not understand 'Charles II: The Power & The Passion' then?

[–] rosamundi 18 years ago

Viewing the whole movie, you'd know it was called "The Last King" because Charles was the last absolute monarch in England - that is, the last to rule without a Parliament.

[–] indigo_pie 18 years ago

And completely forgot George I after Anne. Doh! I need to get my head screwed on properly this morning. So the Stuart line didn't die until 1727, but having said that Charles II was the last Stuart king with the Stuart surname as it were! The rest were daughters who'd married into European families. George I was a Hanoverian, but he was a Stuart on his maternal grandmother's side (his maternal grandmother was Charles I's sister Elizabeth). So why is it called 'The Last King'?

[–] MJM5226 18 years ago

Charles II was the last King to rule completely independent of Parliament. That's why he's considered "the last king."

"To have an idea is noble; to execute it is servile." -Leonardo da Vinci

[–] indigo_pie 18 years ago

Thanks for clearing that up. I still don't entirely understand it because I thought that Charles I would have been the last one to serve independent of Parliament. I thought the only reason why Charles II was allowed back was because he would not be ruling as supreme monarch.

Oh well!

[–] memmori 18 years ago

He dismissed the Parliament and till his death in 1685 there was no Parliament in England. His brother would like to rule without any Parliamentarians anywhere but it was the main reason to dethrone him in 1688.

The name The Last King is one of the silliest and most misleading names given to a British film in America. The worst one is probably The Bloody Judge that turned to... The Night of the Blood Monster.

[–] rosamundi 18 years ago

Oops, I should have kept scrolling down the page! :)

The point is that Charles wasn't supposed to be able to rule as a supreme/absolute monarch, but he wound up doing so anyway, for reasons more or less depicted in the film.

It's not completely historically accurate (particularly with regard to Castlemaine), but it'll give you a good idea.

[–] MJM5226 18 years ago

The very few historical inaccuracies that appear in this movie are wholly negligible when you look at it as a whole. It's actually pretty darn faithful to fact. There are a few chronology problems (such as Monmouth's presense at court immediately after the Restoration, which is not true), but IMO, the biggest inaccuracy was in a few portrayals. I laugh every time Charles and James have shouting matches in the movie, because neither man was at all prone to raising their voice. And the portrayal of Monmouth as a simpering, spoiled little wuss is not quite fair. Not to mention the fact that Charles would have never ever ever hit him. Other than that, everything else appears to be spot on.

"To have an idea is noble; to execute it is servile." -Leonardo da Vinci

[–] drouais 16 years ago

the stuart line stopped with the death of queen anne in 1714. her successor george I was indeed related (his mother sophia, electress of hanover, was a grand-daughter of james I; her mother was a sister of charles I and so charles II's aunt) to the stuarts, but his reign marked the beginning of the hanoverian line. he wasn't considered a stuart when he took the throne.

[–] rosamundi 18 years ago

When this was shown on TV in the US on A&E, two different cuts were shown on the same night. I don't recall exactly which scenes/subplots were shown or not, but it seems like they premiered with the original BBC cut, or something close to it, and then immediately followed it with a much shorter version. In comparison, the shorter version seemed more like a "summary" than like the whole story... but you might not know that if you hadn't seen both.

I just watched this on a single DVD from my local library. There are scenes in the documentary which don't seem to be in the film, so I think the single DVD version (which is still in two parts) might be the shorter version that A&E used for any subsequent showings after the premiere.