The Last King


Ok so I bet noone will ever read this, but I can hope. All US fans who would like to see this movie it is being released in the US on April 27, 2004 under the title "The Last King". Hope I have brightened your day! I know I'm going to get it because I am a huge fan of Christian Coulson and Sean Biggerstaff. One month to go and it will be here!

*Nikki*

reply

It was on A&E last night and it was incredible! I loved it. A little sad that Sean Biggerstaff had such a small part, but it can be forgiven by the performances Rufus Sewell and Shirley Hendersen. Not to mention the whole cast was fantastic. For those who missed it, you can catch another performance this coming Friday. Check local listings, but I believe it will again be on A&E for all Americans and Canadians.

*Nikki*

reply

Cool movie. Just one question--why isn't the title the same as the one they used for UK?

You're not a unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else.-FC

reply

Sometimes the US is not allowed to use the same title of the movie and has to change it. I've seen it a few other times simply because they aren't given permission or depending on where they filmed. It's kind of a stupid concept if you ask me, but it happens. I'm just glad I found that out, otherwise I would have been angry hearing it was going to be released in the US and then not being able to find it anywhere. At least now we know.

*Nikki*

reply

Excellent stuff! Loved Rufus Sewell, an actor I didn't appreciate before. And Helen McRory was magnificent. I've seen her in a few British things like North Square and I'm intrigued by her - she's very sexy. But my favourite was Shirley Henderson - loved her in Hamish Macbeth and she's fab in this. I kept rooting for her character. Emma Pierson as Nell Gwynne was great but not in it enough.

All I can say is I'm glad I studied Charles II in history at school otherwise I'd have been totally lost - I can't imagine how American audiences have taken it. There were a few things I couldn't understand and I think this may be due to bad editing or scenes being cut to fit in all the ads.

And why The Last King when he wasn't?
Still, highly enjoyable all the same.

Fiona from Canada

reply

He was the 'Last King' to ever try to rule without parliament. hahaha I didn't study Charles II at all and I totally agree with you, Fiona. I was so lost, although I'm not from America. But it was still good for some reason.

You're not a unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else.-FC

reply

[deleted]

"Talk of the exclusion of the Duke of York from succession to the throne is treason.................."

does anyone know if the A&E marketed DVD version of this BBC mini series is the same as the original BBC version? it is listed as running 188 minutes which would put each of the four BBC segments at 47 mins running time. A&E ran it twice at 4 hours and then the reruns were trimmed down to 3 hours. they hacked out all the scenes with the Charles' sister, the scene with Louis XIV, the (important) scene where you see Charles being dressed before the regal display in parliament. not having seen the original BBC version, i am not sure that even the 188 minute DVD/VHS is uncut.

btw here is the web site of the BBC original series:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/charles/

and here is the A&E product:

http://store.aetv.com/html/cat_prod_listing/index.jhtml?id=cat790004

"Let there be NO CONFUSION. The Duke of York IS my heir and shall remain so..........."

reply

The original BBC running time is 234:42 which is what the R2,4 DVD runs. The US released version has had over 40 minutes of run time removed, probably why some poeple have complained about it being a bitt jumpy and missing things.
I assume it was to remove some of the sex and violence?
The Region 4 DVD is excellent, spread across two discs and with 3.5 hours of extras.

reply

I am from the uk and I have to say that if the american version was cut then you it would have been the sex scenes, they are very graphic but there to tell the story. Didn't Rufus go out with Helen once? God that must have been weird.
I thought all of the actors did a good job but Rufus was exceptional. The way he showed how he was vunerable in certain situations, for example when his mistress threatened to kill his bastard child, but how strong, some might say ruthless in other situations. It is about time we got to see him being noticed.

reply

Actually, sex scenes were minimally what was cut out. There is an hour's worth of quality footage eliminated. Of course any film with Rufus in or on it is quality film. Great extension to the story was removed although it does not make The Last King not-understandable. The removable of an hour's worth of film for the US is infuriating enough. Without the ability to see a Region 2 DVD (get a region free DVD player) I would have missed an even better film. In the end, whether it is called The Last King or Charles II, Rufus is exceptional and deserves all the accollades he receives. Although they use dramatic license to capture the story in the minimal time of four hours, the historical fact is not misconstrued as it is with the Tudors which is fiction with a bit of history.

reply

I loved this drama; it certainly excels the new drama, 'The Tudors' in terms of acting, writing and directing. The cast in ‘Charles II’ were superb (particularly Sewell and Graves). How much did they cut when it was broadcasted on US tv? I only caught bits of it on UK tv and then watched it completely on DVD but don't know what they cut when it broadcasted. I really recommend the DVD!


We are born princes and the civilizing process makes us frogs - Syrus

reply

I watched this last night and I loved it!!! Rufus Sewell was amazing and the entire cast was great.

reply

I thought this film was fantastic. I have always enjoyed Rufus Sewell (though my exposure to his work was limited to maybe three or four films), but seeing him in The Last King just cemented my fandom. Wow, and he's a hotty, too! The overall piece was just amazing - that final scene in Parliament I could watch over and over, just for his delivery. I didn't study Charles II in school, but I didn't find the film that difficult to follow. It only served to pique my interest in this historical period - and I have already ordered a book about Charles II to get all the additional background I crave. I truly hope the DVD release contains the entire BBC version - I saw the original A&E showing on the Sunday night, and it had many scenes that were cut from the subsequent showings. The three-hour version is definitely too short ... choppy and difficult to follow. But the four-hour is much better (though I'd love even more ... if it meant more scenes with Rufus!)

The other actors were also phenomenal - Rupert Graves was really great. I had heard of him, but was not familiar with his work, so it was nice to see a new face. Many of the actors I recognized but couldn't place ... though I'm sure they are somewhere in my collection of A&E films!

reply

Yes having not seen the British version I did think it had been cut because as you mentions it felt quite choppy in parts. And there must have been a death scene with his sister becuase I mixed that up with the scene when his brother's wife's dead body is being mourned so that was confusing - I felt they should have kept that in the A&E version. And there must have been more Nell Gwynne scenes as she bore him two sons I believe. Frustrating. Guess I'll have to wait for the DVD OR hope against hope that Canada's TVO will show it in its entirety at some point in the future. They tend to get Cdn rights to stuff previously shown on PBS or A&E.
Fiona

reply

[deleted]


There's a story that The Madness of George III was retitled The Madness of King George for the US because the distributors feared the public would think it was a sequel.
Could this be the case here too?

I taped this months ago and am watching it now whilst off work. Truly amazing!

reply

[deleted]

this is mainly true, not to down talk any american's but because they obviously don't kow as much of our history anyking or queens name followed by a number the distributers worry AMerican's will think is a sequal
this is true for madness of king george and this film, they didnt wnt to put which charles or which george so it didnt look like a sequal or whatever
so there ya go lol

reply

How could George III be a sequel to Charles II?

reply

Are you mad? George the III is an example of the title being changed because it was feared that some American's would not see it because they havent seen George I or George II. Same with Charles II. All the number means is they have been the second King Charles.

reply