Restoration

source: Restoration

I really enjoyed this movie set in King Charles glorious days. The scenery,acting and story were all great and Meg Ryan put on a passable Irish accent.I suppose that there will always be nit pickers like myself,and although Purcells great music was played throughout the movie,he would have only been five years old when these events took place.Still,I recommend this one and if you enjoy it try and also view'England my England'which is set during the same period.

This has to have been one of the most beautiful movies I have ever seen. I am not as up on history as some people, but I think the time - the costumes, the dress, the manners, (though not the language), was stunningly represented. The transition of Robert Downey's character was also wonderfully done - we watch him go from boyishness to maturity in a slow change throughout the film, it's not just randomly done because of one event, but of a series of events. The music was out of this world, and the last half of the movie very chilling, very sad, very emotional. Have a tissue box handy!!

Mainly a biography of a lustful doctor, "Robert Merivel ," (Robert Downey) who has his way in the king's palace for the first half of the film and then helps out the downtrodden in the second half, mainly "Katharine" (Meg Ryan). The GOOD - Fantastic set decoration (i.e. the lush king's palace) and costuming make this a visual treat. The language is also very tame. Ian McKellen and Hugh Grant provide interesting support. The BAD - After 50-60 minutes, this movie simply gets too boring. It desperately needed to be given some spark after an hour but it does the opposite: it drags on and on. The script certainly needed some badly-needed "restoration," shall we say? The film may look nice but it's a long two hours to sit through.....too long.

Fortunately, I do not judge a film merely by its technical excellence. Other reviews seemed to overemphasize the limited script, miscasting, lack of focus, etc, that this movie supposedly represents. All of it may be true, and certainly if the movie did not reach me, I too, would come up with a barrelful of sophisticated reasons why it didn't work. The problem is, it moved me. It touched my heart in just the right way, and left me once again, with a longing have known everyone who ever lived, suffered and died. Ah, the human condition! The first half of the film was slow, and seemed to be searching for itself. But from the time Robert entered into the home for the insane, it became engrossing. I thought the story of the "Lost Valley" was poignant and worth the whole movie. All that came before was necessary background for all that came after. So...not extraordinary, not outstanding, but quietly satisfying and definitely memorable. A little gem -selected with care- to share with those you love.

the restoration of the crown, the restoration of the theatre and the restoration of a man's purpose in life. I don't think this movie was marketed well, the notes on the case make it look like a silly bedroom farce, which, indeed, it is not. Robert Downey Jr is a revelation, as much as he was in Chaplin. Sam Neill makes Charles such a lovable scallywag that you can't disapprove of the randy King. I don't even mind meg Ryan. This film is so beautiful to look at, but don't watch it with a rowdy crowd. One needs to listen and absorb. I give copies of this movie as gifts.

"By the books" mid-90s historical epic, that like others of the era (Dangerous Beauty, Emma, Cousin Bette...) now feels slight and superficial; even corny at parts. The story is elaborate, but played mostly for sentiment. No villain, no chase, or explosions. But the piece of history covered is interesting in and of itself. And no movie about friendship is completely worthless. Prior to 2001, movie-makers scoured the storybooks for the right material to squeeze emotion out of you; and they frequently felt the need to time travel to do so (Titanic). This ruse now feels rather stretched, insufficient and manufactured. Not a complete waste of time, but reaction will depend on the viewer. There are some elaborate sets. Meg Ryan here is not making a good enough effort, or she knows that she shouldn't have taken the part. Hugh Grant's early stammering is on display.

Robert Downey Jr. in a 17th century wig and dress was enough to make me shudder, but I couldn't believe a great actor like Sam Neill actually took a part in this movie. The whole thing was unbelievable. I especially like Merivel's "cure" for the crazies. They dance...and hey presto! everyone's happy and they're all better! I guess I just didn't like the character Merivel too much. Therefore, watching a whole movie about his supposed transition from a whoring buffoon into a great physician was grueling. Also, I'm not entirely sure, but I didn't think the plague as well as the famous fire of London took place simultaneously.

When this movie came out, the movie critics all jumped on and called it a failure. They said it was a hugely disappointing role for Robert Downey, Jr. Although, this movie was not superb, it was at least decent. That's why I never listen to critics. Downey plays an idealistic young surgeon with great promise. Chance has it that King Charles The Second discovers the young surgeon. If he promises not to sleep with the king's mistress, he will marry her and maintain an estate. Downey's Sir Robert is, of course, a man who chases after women, and when he falls in love with her, a spy (played by Hugh Grant) discovers it, reports it to the king, and Sir Robert is banished. Sir Robert finds favor again by devoting himself to treating the victims of the plague of 1660. What I liked about the movie, is that it showed that 1660 was the beginning of the transition to the modern World. Superstitions were falling, and surgeons like Sir Robert were starting to be seen as an asset. The King was even getting into science and medicine. Robert Downey, Jr. also does an excellent job. So, why all the bad reviews?