|
|
Post by ambra on Jan 22, 2009 23:50:40 GMT
Oh yes, I forgot about that breed.
|
|
|
|
Post by lizap on Jan 23, 2009 17:02:21 GMT
Hi, my first post here. Would anyone who's seen the region 2 version care to give the deprived a general idea of what is contained in that missing hour?
|
|
|
|
Post by tipou on Jan 23, 2009 17:14:41 GMT
HELLO THERE!
i saw the original version - on youtube, talk about devotion! - and when i found out that the "american" version was shorter, i wanted to check before ordering - which i have, btw.
i saw a dvery detailed comparison between the 2 version, i believe it was on wikipedia, but i am not certain. let me check when i get home, i will let you know on this thread.
i have not yet watched the american version, so i cannot say myself yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by lizap on Jan 23, 2009 17:50:19 GMT
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by tipou on Jan 23, 2009 17:55:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lizap on Jan 23, 2009 18:28:28 GMT
Thank you so much, tipou!
|
|
|
|
Post by tipou on Jan 23, 2009 18:33:44 GMT
you are very welcome! and you made me want to see this great drama again (and on a bigger screen!) during the week end, so it was worth the effort!  |
|
|
|
Post by Vittoria on Feb 7, 2009 3:02:59 GMT
;D  ! What an awesome mini-sereis! I watched it via YouTube and I was transfixed! It's so engaging and sweeping. The acting was awesome, the costumes were beautiful and the history was fascinating. Rufus' Charles II is so endearing and of course watching so much of Rufus for four hours was a real treat. And of course the love scenes with Rufus in them.... my heart just pitter pat and my breath was taken away in spots... never mind my horomones raging.  |
|
|
|
Post by rueful on Feb 7, 2009 15:04:32 GMT
It was wonderful! I watched it the same way, via youtube. I'm saddened that US viewers missed so much and that if I ordered the US version it would be the butchered one.
Rufus makes Charles so human, which I think is often so hard with a king, because it's hard for people to relate to their problems. As always, he does so much with his eyes. For example, I love the way his eyes just soften as he stands looking out the window at Catherine playing in the garden with the dogs, or the instant change from shock to worry to tenderness when Catherine has miscarried and asks him about their other children.
I also get a kick out of the comedy of him trying to deal with all those crying or angry women. Cracks me up!
I will not dwell on the sex scenes, because then all the prior intelligent analysis would go right out the window.
Finally, even though it's bound not to be historically accurate, I did feel like I learned a bit about the period, which I knew nothing about before.
All in all, great production!
|
|
|
|
Post by tipou on Feb 7, 2009 17:30:59 GMT
well, most "history" movies would be super boring if they stuck to history to the letter.
i want to be told a story. if i want a history course i can read a history book.
i want filmmakers not to put too much fiction in it and then call it historical, of course, apart from that, i am intelligent enough to understand what creative license means.
if they had shown charles II dancing the jitterbug, i would have been outraged. but there was logic throughout (except in one place - why does charles burn the friggin letter that would get all his troubles to disappear is beyond me still) - and i am looking at a tv series after all, so i know i have to suspend disbelief somehow, otherwise i am a fool.
charles II was about the man more than about his time, but since he influenced his time, they had to maintain some acurateness, which they did, enough so we would not snore.
and since we learn about the man, want to know more about his era, and did not snore, well, the filmmakers bloody well did their job, if you ask me.
and as far as hormones are concerned, yes, these sex scenes were quite amazingly effective. oh boy, that king would have been allowed any creative license with me, anytime, i would have been a very obedient subject, yes, siree.
|
|
|
|
Post by miss october on Feb 7, 2009 17:44:43 GMT
Eek!!!! I didn't know the original version was on youtube. I have the American version on dvd.
*runs off to youtube*
|
|
|
|
Post by rueful on Feb 7, 2009 22:17:06 GMT
See you in a couple of days, miss october  |
|
|
|
Post by Vittoria on Feb 7, 2009 22:59:52 GMT
if they had shown charles II dancing the jitterbug, i would have been outraged. but there was logic throughout (except in one place - why does charles burn the friggin letter that would get all his troubles to disappear is beyond me still) - and i am looking at a tv series after all, so i know i have to suspend disbelief somehow, otherwise i am a fool. Hmmm... I was under the impression that he was burning his prior marriage certificate. Tipou said: Indeed! Count me in! |
|
|
|
Post by tipou on Feb 8, 2009 2:38:30 GMT
yes, the marriage certificate that would have proven his "illegitimate son" to be legitimate, and so would have settle the quarrrel about who would succeed, brother or son
the only reason i can see is that he did not want to threaten his marriage to his current wife
|
|
|
|
Post by rueful on Feb 8, 2009 3:02:22 GMT
Interesting question on the marriage certificate. The Wikipedia entry on the film (cited above) mentioned this scene specifically:
I'm in the camp that if such a doc existed, he would not have burned it. I think it was just dramatic license.
|
|
