Restoration

Rating:
Summary: Restored Faith in the Movies
Review: It's hard to find a film which encompasses a character entirely, seeing him/her throughout the good times and the bad, and fully gaining understanding of his/her range of emotions. "Restoration" is such a film, spanning the totality of Robert Merivel. Not only is "Restoration" well-written it is also a rush for the senses with brilliant colors, exquisite costumes, and a remarkable soundtrack. An impressive cast led by Robert Downey Jr. takes the viewer back in time to the age of restoration.

Rating:
Summary: Beauty is only skin deep.
Review: It's very hard to judge a film on content when its visual effects overwhelm its every other aspect, so I am sympathetic to intelligent reviews so taken away by Restoration's look and feel that they lose, misinterpret or invent its meaning, which is, I find, regrettably absent. Is this a history of a merry king? a ribald story of life at court? a moralilty play of a debaucher turned caring doctor and loving husband?

Perhaps it IS one of these, or all - but all that I saw in Restoration was a cliched and convenient costume melodrama pandering to our natural empathies at the expense of a good and believable story. Sure, we have fun when Merivel has fun, we are sad when Merivel is sad, we feel good when Merivel makes good, but that's about all there is to it. We think with our hearts and not with our heads. Restoration never establishes WHY we should feel as we do, why Merivel is worthy of our empathies - and a good movie does just that. (It's called character development.)

What is the message of this movie? Restoration of character, moral virtue? Fine - but Merivel never does anything to redeem himself - to "restore" his character - unless you call bedding and impregnating a patient a virtue, or doing one's duty as a physician (i.e., healing the king's mistress) a good deed. (I don't.) Even after his fall from grace (or rather, from the king's favor) and supposed change for the better, and despite fine acting by the wonderful Robert Downey Jr., Merivel is a shallow, empty character, and our caring for him is sham. He's likable but there's simply not enough to him to make him deserve our affection.

Not that I wouldn't like an im/amoral story, like the very different novel of the same title on which Restoration is based. What I would like is consistency - is this a moral story or an im/amoral story? If it is moral, then why is Merivel's change so ambiguous, and why "restore" Merivel to the king's favor by film's end, setting him up for more debauchery? If it is im/amoral, then why the sappy love and maudlin death scenes?

Yes, readers of the excellent Rose Tremain novel will be disappointed to see that the film version has made its characters into these one-dimensional, undeveloped and simplistic mannequins for elaborate periwigs and costumes. And for those who haven't read the book - well, I hate to say read the book!, but, read the book! You'll have to sacrifice the visual tapestry the movie weaves so well, but you will be rewarded with a much more vocal, intelligent, human and conflicted Merivel, a fresher and more engaging plot, and less stereotyped secondary characters including Pierce (played by the underrated David Thewlis in the film). Or in other words, what you lose in looks you gain in story.

So: I confess, after all this railing: I WAS smitten by Restoration's beautiful sets and costumes, and that's what I give my 3 stars to. The visual effects are spectacular, they are beautiful. But are they admirable? I don't think so. Beauty is only skin deep. Restoration is pretty to look at, but not much to think about. More's the pity!

[On a side note, in response to a couple of the previous reviews... First, the refusal of William Penn and other Quakers to remove their hats and bow before Charles II was not a social faux pas but a deliberate demonstration of their belief that no man is better than another. I personally am more impressed by the Quakers' bravery than by the king's good humor. Second, Quaker is not the same as Puritan. The mental asylum scenes may well have represented just how bleak and boring Merivel's new life had become, but they also hinted at Quaker causes such as social reform and equality of the sexes - causes not championed by Puritans.]

Rating:
Summary: A film as lavish as the era it represents!
Review: Let me preface my review by saying that I've always thought Robert Downey, Jr. to be one of the best actors... This film just confirmed that for me; I managed to catch it on the Independent Film Channel, and I couldn't get out of my chair at all. Fabulous sets, excellent performances, and a great cast made this a truly memorable film. I'm so intrigued by the story itself that I've decided to buy the book while here writing my review! I found it hard to believe that the running time is 2 hours because the film so involves you that time just slips away. I highly recommend it for Downey fans and for anybody who wants to see a film that will stay with them way beyond the credits. FABULOUS!

Rating:
Summary: read it...!
Review: My enjoyment of this movie was somwhat dimmed my the fact that I read the book first. With the greatest will in the world, Robert Downey Jr. although a superb actor in no way resembles the character of Merivel in the book.

Although the movie itself is entertaining, I really must recommend reading the book. (It's by Rose Tremain)

Rating:
Summary: Monarchy Restored you say...I should cocoa...
Review: Not in all the films (probably only one but it seems like hundreds) with Richard Chamberlain playing The Sun King (Louis XIV) did a court look as sumptuous as that of the restored Charles II (the first of that name having been beheaded of course). It is a very strange take since Britons never went in for, and were never comfortable with, the opulence favoured by our continental cousins...it wasn't done you know...we've always been a bit reticent to pile on the treacle in that way. Consider if you will , for example, with more cause than any nation in the history of the world to have our kings declared Emperors, we never did...well the very idea, that was always something foreigners went in for at every opportunity. Still I liked this grandiose and flamboyant (to put it mildly) take on the restored monarchy, and it was as amusing as it was impressive, quite an achievement.
For the two Oscars it pulled (and deserved? just watch it) for Costumes and Art Direction, this film is definitely worth a look. See...now you've seen it you know don't you... Oscars are not the sham they're sometimes accused of being er!...Who's eating their words now then.
As a film of two halves, and neither of them having (or seeming to have) a great deal in common with each other it is a difficult film to quantify. That said though for Robert Downey Jr. and his performance as the surgeon in the right place at the wrong time it ought to be compulsory viewing. Robert you are something to watch...I like you, well we all do...and I am never likely to ever meet or know you...what's your secret kid?

Rating:
Summary: Fall In Love With RDJ
Review: One night flipping through channels, I came upon Restoration. I watched it and became engrossed. When it came on again, I made sure I was watching it. At first, I fell in love with the costumes, scenery, and music, but then I started to notice this adorable actor. He was superb. Through the entire movie, it felt like I was a part of the movie because his acting pulled me in.

Rating:
Summary: I'll stay at Court, thank you
Review: RESTORATION is an excellent example of what happens when artists suppress what gives them and us pleasure in order to make us better human beings.

As long as it stays at the court of Charles II (Sam Neill, one of the most wasted actors of the past twenty years, here at his sly best), RESTORATION is a luscious romp, as rich and delectable as a fully ripe peach. You can practically hear the filmmakers giggling in pleasure at the sumptuous period spread they've given us. Designed and photographed superbly, these sequences amply suggest why England welcomed the libertine Charles back to the throne after Cromwell's grimly Puritanical interregnum. Even the scenes in the slums of London have an atavistically sensuous appeal, as if the very dirt, blood and garbage were alive with erotic potential.

Alas, 17th Century England may have had enough of the Puritans, but filmmakers are never allowed to suggest that sensual pleasure may be enough on its own. It always has to be justified with a "deeper" message. Sure enough, after the fun comes the good doctor's "salvation" in a solemn, sanctimonious parable of redemption through suffering. (With Robert Downey in the part, it's hard not to view the doctor's excesses in light of the actor's own difficulties with drugs and alcohol, but do we really have to go to his AA meetings with him?) You can't say the film is exactly hypocritical for indulging us one minute, then preaching the next. There's not enough conviction in these dim scenes to suggest the filmmakers really care about virtue. It's obvious they're longing to sneak back to court.

The problem is, convictionless or not, the scenes are still heavy-going, humorless slogs through a set of moral clichés calculated to prove, once again, that those who enjoy themselves too much are bound to pay for it one way or another and can only achieve their true humanity by finding love for another. Yawn. Thank goodness the King conveniently turns up at the end to make the doctor's life fun again. It's wonderful how filmmakers always manage to let us have our cake and eat it too. So the real lesson you are likely to take away from RESTORATION is that if you're going to have fun, make sure Daddy's around to bail you out when you get into trouble. That may be a more truthful observation about our contradictory attitudes toward pleasure than anybody realized.

Rating:
Summary: you forgot to mention how *hilarious* this movie is!
Review: Restoration, I think, is an extremely funny film! Robert Downey Jr. is perfect-he has the ability to be subtle yet completely ridiculous at the same time. The cast was perfectly picked (ex: Meg Ryan's small but wonderful role). I was laughing out loud! Watch this movie if you like period films but want to see one that's a little different than the rest.

Rating:
Summary: Wine is Fine.
Review: Robert Downey Jr. is great in the film. His portrayal of the degenerate young physician Merrivel is utterly convincing and his wine tired eyes really steal the show. I also enjoyed the first half of the film for its suggestion of flamboyance and energy: the beautiful sets are sumptuous and inspiring, which is more than can be said of the film's script. The court of Charles II is visually attractive, although the only criticism I can think of is that it could have been even more colourfully expressive for even greater effect.
The second part of the film is weak. Clearly, Merrivel's restoration to a more morally tranquil character is intended, but it is painfully dull. This part of the film is like the countryhouse given to Merrivel by the King: dour and sanitised. There is absolutely nothing wrong with morality on screen, but the film succeeds in portraying it faithlessly and conventionally. The episode in the aslum is without emotional truth or intelligent characterisation; Meg Ryan, for her part, does not convince as an emotionally disturbed young woman. Also, Sam Neill is detrimentally neglected by the film; his demonic presence would have been so valuable to the narrative worth of the film as a whole that it is a disappointment to see him disappear for most of the second half. All in all, a good cast, (although Iain McKellen is lamentably given such a small role), an average script and good to watch only if you have a good bottle of sweet wine with you for the second half.

Rating:
Summary: Whats not to love?
Review: Robert was in prime form in this movie and was incredible in his ability to convince us that he was a 17th century doctor/playboy. I loved every minute of this movie and bought it so i could watch it again and again.