Restoration (1995) User Reviews

I loved it.

[Yarigosa · 7/10 · 15 August 2004]

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!!

The Age of Enlightenment

[sampleman411-1 · 7/10 · 10 May 2002]

After watching this film, I felt my faith in humanity had been (somewhat) restored, and not for the squishy, feel-good reasons either. Instead, I felt that filmmakers can often demonstrate truly wondrous, creative talents; Try not to think of all those sumptuous 18th Century European paintings that feature either the rich or the starving, while taking in the cinematic beauty of Hoffman's 'Restoration.'

So what if Meg Ryan has a role in this one, I still enjoyed it. This film is not about her anyway (the film is told from an exclusively patriarchal viewpoint, and doesn't sink into syrupy romance... at least not the way I saw it).

Eugenio Zannetti (I'm not entirely sure about the spelling, but he is a production designer of infinite wisdom and talent) created endless aristocratic hallways, gorgeous rooms, and locations of richness and pestilence that exist side-by-side. Zannetti went on to 'architecturally' design the central, Rococo menace in "The Haunting" (1999).

Downey Jr's performance (as a doctor) is Raphaelesque, a walking representation of the period in which this story takes place (the anguish and hope he must undergo and have is thespian splendor). Ian McKellan also appears (need I say more) here as a disheveled, yet benevolent supporting hero.

I strongly recommend you experience this 'restorative' piece of cinematic art.

Why such bad reviews?

[jeremy3 · 7/10 · 29 May 2007]

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?

Analysis aside, this film moved me.

[pb-10 · 13 December 2000]

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.

Robert Downey, Jr. Is Billed as the Star, But Wait Till You See the Sets

[evanston_dad · 7/10 · 12 May 2009]

Robert Downey, Jr. stars as a physician at the beck and call of the royal court in 17th Century England, and serves as our guide through an overstuffed story that includes lunatics, fires and the plague. As a narrative, it probably could have been tighter (o.k. let's face it, it could DEFINITELY have been tighter), and I think another reviewer here at IMDb said it well when he claimed that the movie is better than the sum of its parts, but I do remember liking this quite a bit. The jaw-dropping production and costume design is alone worth sitting through the movie for.

With Sam Neill as a king and Meg Ryan as one of the lunatics.

Grade: A-

Great sets and costumes, but despite a good cast, it doesn't really click completely

[llltdesq · 7/10 · 2 November 2000]

This movie has a great deal going for it-beautiful sets and costumes, a fine cast (although Downey's performance is uneven and Neill is largely underused) and a decent story. Problem is, the movie is too long and poorly paced. The script isn't terribly bad, but it isn't very good either. Performances by Ian McKellan and David Thewlis are very good. Meg Ryan and Polly Walker turn in good work in their parts as well, but they are also wasted. This could have been better than it was, but is worth watching, particularly if you like costuming and lavish sets. Worth a look.

Wonderful with a major exception

[style-2 · 6/10 · 31 January 2005]

Visually magnificent, with plenty of opportunities for oppressive opulence in this delicious, but ultimately convoluted epic, *Restoration* is a lovely mess. Spanning the reign of Charles II, the great fire, the plague, ad nauseum, the "restoration" refers to, not only the period, but the human condition. But that conclusion is a difficult one to arrive at, and will only be understood by those viewers who actually sit through the movie. Shot in England and Wales, and winning Academy Awards for Art Direction and Costumes, the script involves a promising young doctor, Jack Merivel (Downey), whose gifts attract the attention of the King. Entering the revered court circle, Merivel has the delights of the world at his fingertips and ultimately succumbs to debauchery. But it is a story of restoration (as well as *the* Restoration) and redemption, with certain timeless aspects that have modern consequences, but the script begins to fray throughout the second half. With the exception of an unpleasant, jarring characterization of a mentally ill woman by Meg Foster (whose forte is definitely not period pieces), the leading and supporting roles are well cast. Downey has an appeal and charm (one that survived his recent tribulations), and gives Merivel humor, irony and dedication, in addition to the human foibles he falls victim to. Neill carries off the role of King Charles II with style and assurance, as he seeks to secure the permanent services of his mistress by marrying her off the Merivel, thus keeping her near. The King has selected Merivel for his inability to be placated with one woman – Merivel's desires keep him on a constant conquest for new and different lasciviousness – but the King's one condition is that Merivel not fall in love with his own wife. Needless to say, that is exactly what occurs, and thus begins the tumultuous fall from grace. And that's just the first part of this lengthy movie. The second half deals with Merivel's quest for redemption – not from the King, but from himself and God. It involves his daughter by the Meg Ryan character, and this is where the story changes from costume drama to social commentary. It is through Merivel's personal travails, as well as those inherent in the period: disease, pestilence and ignorance, that Merivel understands that the only reason he is on earth is to care for this child that is an extension of himself. His flight to find her and prove his worthiness in overcoming the obstacles set before him is a moment that would have been served at little earlier in the film. Despite the lush cinematography, there is an overdose factor involved that, once the outcome of the movie is evident, the viewer yearns for it to hurry along and be over. That said, it also leaves lingering memories of beauty and gratification.

Surrounded by lavish sets and costumes...

[DukeEman · 6/10 · 3 February 2000]

The first half follows the bawdy adventures of medical genius, Merivel, who lived it up during the Seventeenth century. The second half has him down on his luck and seeing the light as he turns to saving humanity. It's a shame that the emotional second half wasn't given the treatment and the attention wasted on the excesses of the first half.

An over-looked jewel, artful period piece with redemption.

[shp-2 · 9/10 · 6 March 1999]

"Restoration" is an overlooked jewel of a movie, a fascinating and atmospheric journey to another time and place. Robert Downey, Jr. is outstanding as a young physician who develops depth and compassion. The music, costumes and settings are full of rich detail. While Meg Ryan's character as an insane Irish girl was perhaps a bit overwrought, I found little to fault in the movie. I have seen it three times and enjoy it thoroughly each time. I'm sorry I missed it on the big screen. Interesting scenes portraying 17th century medical practice, the plague, the Great Fire of London. Not for the squeamish, but not overly violent either.

Coign of Vantage

[grafspee2 · 7/10 · 12 August 2003]

Coign of Vantage

is an advantageous position and for our Merivel he yaws between said locale and the bowels of contemporary existence.

The film is full of literary allusions to previous works and the religious/social dynamics of the post Interregnum England upon the rise of the Phoenix (Charles II)from the ruins of Parliament/Cromwell's rule over the Three Kingdoms (England, Ireland and Scotland).

Well back the comments: Merivel (Downey) rises to a court position after saving one of the Kings dogs and is venal to the temptations of the usual hedonism. He becomes the unofficial jester and is used to wed one of Charles' Mistress Celia (Polly Walker)as a means to calm her conniptious behavior. A marriage in name only.

And in proper course Merivel falls in love with Celia and makes the mistake of tawdry approaches to Lady Celia. The King banishes Merivel and repossesses his property, and he flees to live with a Quaker Doctor friend of his. (Thewlis) Merivel slowly comes to live with his dull new digs and inpregnates an insane Irish women with an unusual way of walking. Again banished, the two set off for the tepid/fetid plague infested city, London. She dies giving birth and redemption follows upon good works before the Lord under his Quaker friend's name.

The title reveals much more than if the movie were, Robert Downey Junior's Adventures in England. The film has moments of humor, gilded production values subtlety and how doing good for others will bring you true happiness.

Better than most period pieces about the Stuart Dynasty and deserved of its Academy Awards even without use of dead writer's work to be made by Merchant/Ivory.

Lush, But Boring

[ccthemovieman-1 · 4/10 · 5 May 2007]

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.

Overlooked Period Piece of 1600s England

[classicalsteve · 10/10 · 25 June 2007]

Europe of the 1600's has often been an overlooked era, sandwiched between the idealism and art of the Elizabethan/Shakespearean Age (late 1500s) and the Enlightenment of the 1700's. In many ways, 1600s England was a transitional time reflecting the growth of England toward a modern sensibility while still being hindered by the traditions and outlooks of the past, primarily the hold of Medieval thought which held to a strict hierarchical strata while discouraging and even destroying the pursuit of knowledge and truth.

Robert Downey Jr. does a tremendous job as a character that appears to be a fore-runner of the coming Enlightenment. He is a physician on the verge of ground-breaking new scientific discoveries in the area of medicine. However, through a serendipitous and at first fortuitous run-in with King Charles II, the Restoration monarch (played brilliantly by Sam Neill), Downey loses his way and becomes a willing pawn in the king's sexual chess games. He even forsakes his precious medical texts to a colleague. In return, Downey gains a royal title, a royal tract of land, servants, and a wife. The only stipulation that is placed upon him: He cannot touch his own wife--she ultimately belongs to the King as one of his many mistresses.

In this way, Charles II is still a monarch enacting a role that was first prescribed in the Middle Ages: that of the absolute ruler with absolute authority that can use his subjects for his own whims, and he can also discard those that are no longer useful. Simultaneously, there is another side to Charles II. Although he is the son of his late father Charles I, Charles II is the heir to Cromwell who devoted time and money to philanthropic projects, such as the study of science and medicine, the improvement of architecture, and the creation of schools. Charles II continues the enterprises begun by Cromwell and becomes a transitional monarch who has aspects that reflect both the Middle Ages and the Enlightenment.

In many ways, Restoration is about these two worlds, and how Downey lives in both of them, from the luxurious life of a nobleman to the humble physician working with Quakers in an insane asylum. The king is also a person caught in both worlds. At first he appears the selfish ruler using his subjects as chess pieces in a large game in which he is always the bona fide winner. But then in another scene, we see him as a kind of philanthropic monarch financing and encouraging scientific and liberal research and discourse. In an interesting scene, Downey enters a kind of laboratory in which knowledge, research, and discovery are are being supported by the king who presides over the work of many scholars. Behind him is a strange swirling circus-like representation of the cosmos. We can't quite tell if the representation depicts the earth as the center of the Universe or the Sun, as if this notion is still being debated. But to his credit, the king is allowing for debate--something a Medieval king under a Medieval Church would have never allowed. Later, we learn that Downey is also an amateur astronomer, gazing at the stars in the heavens with a telescope.

Through his adventures in and out of these worlds, Downey sees the light and dark of both and becomes something greater than he had before, particularly through an episode in which he falls in love with one of the patients (Meg Ryan) at the insane asylum. One aspect of the film that is quite revealing is the shades of color used to represent the different "worlds". The world of the king is bright and colorful. The world of the Quakers is far more gray, but toward the end of the movie, the world of the king becomes darker hued.

In the end, even the King seems to understand the importance of scientific discourse and research--that these ideas could ultimately help not only his people but himself. Medieval monarchs played games with people's lives for their own selfish ends, and sometimes stifled those who could make positive contributions to their societies and even humanity at large. Restoration is about the transition from the Medieval model to a new societal design in which personal gain becomes an outcome of talent and contribution and not monarchical whim. Today, we are still challenged by the notion of privilege over substance. People in power still often give major opportunities to those they favor over those that could make important contributions who are less adept at playing the political game.

When historical epics go wrong

[makrb · 6/10 · 24 February 2003]

Lavish sets and costumes; debauchery and intrigue set Restoration moving at a terrific pace and the film threatens to be a classic. The first half is extremely watchable. Sam Neill excels as the King; and Hugh Grant displays real acting talent as a manipulative court painter. Unfortunately, both Neill and Grant are on-screen far too infrequently, and that leaves the mis-cast Downey Jnr to trundle along alone as the film very quickly loses its rhythm and slows to crawling speed.

The film is far too ambitious. It's worth watching, if only for the first hour or so; but you will be left wondering what might have been had enough time and effort been given to character development, plot or history that is needed in order for it to become the historical epic that it trys to be. 6/10.

Great costumes but little else

[illinformedgadfly · 5/10 · 6 January 1999]

If sets and costumes were all it took to make a movie, "Restoration" would certainly be considered an all-time great. Unfortunately the filmmakers did not pay as much attention to the script and the casting as they did to their lavish recreation of the court of Charles II. Behind the frills of foppery at its most extravagant, the film is little more than an old melodramatic formula: gifted man falls victim to debauchery and loses his talent, only to rediscover it after a series of tribulations. The film is so overplotted that each scene introduces a crucial dilemma, leaving little room for character development. And yet the stolid camerawork makes things feel rather slow.

"Restoration" also features the most bizarre casting of any English period drama I've ever seen. The problem: Practically nobody's English! Instead we have Sam Neill, who's clueless in the role of King Charles; you'll wonder, how exactly did this wooden, charmless man seduce all those women? Meg Ryan is at her most ridiculous as an Irish woman driven to insanity by the loss of her family; cute as Ryan is, she's an actress with an extremely limited range. Robert Downey Jr. as the hero manages an amusingly off-beat performance, but the script puts him through such extremes of emotion in such short periods of time that he's forced to underplay. I can't argue with its Academy Awards for costumes and art direction, but as a movie, "Restoration" is the equivalent of an expensive wig.

Lush And Unnervingly Eerie

[httpmom · 29 March 2004]

The set design and art direction on this movie was entirely mesmerizing! I will never forget the scene in which Dr Merivile returns to court (after The Plague has ravished London) in which this huge heavy swishing pendulum like incense burner, apparently to help ward off sickness... makes such a haunting and ominous sound as it waves smoke across the vast room...you can almost smell it! This movie is robustly lush and unnervingly eerie. As has been mentioned by a few others on the database...it's full of contrast on all levels.

Personally, I was gladly surprised at how inventive Robert Downey Jr was with the role of Robert Merivel. He began with a laughing stupidity which grew to eventual compassion and downright intellect by the end of his story. Sam Neil is always all around proficient at what ever he takes on, his portrayal here is no exception, although I think he granted Charles II a lot of likableness and charm that was surely improbable in reality. Got to love the fifty or so Spaniels meandering with him down the plush hallways of the nobility through out the kingdom. And the scenes with intricate scientific inventions and mechanisms of the era were sheer beauty to behold. At the same time there was such desperation and bleak contrast when dealing with the devastation and hopelessness of The Plague...only to be followed by the horrific Fire Of London. It's a wonder civilization survived at all in England at the time. The movie's art direction was of such a brilliant intensity. Parts of the script were a bit slow but the visuals tended to make up for it. The only truly unfortunate aspect of the film was the casting of Meg Ryan...just Plumb Awful(as they say)in the role of Dr Merivil's asylum inmate lover....who was by the way, miraculously cured of her insanity by his physical attentions. Whoever twisted Hollywood arms to get her on this project should be quartered and drawn.

Considering all, this movie made me curious enough to download a copy of Samuel Pepys Diary 1665 to read more about the history of the Restoration. Isn't that what a good historical adaptation should do?

A wonderful piece of art...as paintings go, but as a film....

[mark.waltz · 6/10 · 1 November 2016]

Sometimes as stunning as a museum visit, often turn away ugly, and filled with starts and stops that would be more potent as a limited series, where detail could have been greater. A lot is covered in two hours in this brutal look at an ugly time in the many chapters of world history. This takes place during the reign of the great restoration king Charles II of England and Great Britain, a ruler whose life had been part of "Forever Amber" and later the lengthy cable continuing series "The Stuarts", a major part of the often filmed "Nell Gwynn", and as notorious a ladies man as his distant cousin of a century before, Henry VIII. Sam Neill looks the part in the most commanding if ways, subtle in his nobility, yet flamboyant in his excesses.

The era was a great time of change in England, and this story focuses on one particularly complex man. Robert Downey Jr. proves once again his great versatility as a great doctor, hired for the king's court, who looses his gift for medicine from an unrequited love for Polly Walker, part of an arranged marriage set up by the king. Downey is dismissed, goes off to treat those suffering from a plague, falls in love once more (with peasant girl Meg Ryan) and proves his strength as a doctor, even under the most tragic circumstances of his own life.

There are moments when I had to turn my head, particularly a scene at the beginning involving a patient of Downey's whose chest cavity is open, exposing his innards as he stands erect. The plague scenes are realistically gruesome, with no hiding of the ugliness of that era. Charles' court is lavish, almost operatic in its sets, and the music is gloriously profound. Still, there's a missing element that makes it stand out as terrific, although it's a marvelously good try.

Lush period piece loses focus

[shobill · 6/10 · 25 September 2004]

Director Michael Hoffman presents us with a lush period piece of 1660's England during the reign of Charles II after the restoration of the monarchy. Robert Downey Jr. plays a young doctor who is driven to find his calling through circumstances and women, and the king himself, who drive him. There is a strong cast and beautiful photography: no wonder this film won Oscars for its visuals. The story line loses power because of its wavering focus - although if that clearly reflected the main character's own journey, perhaps that would not be such a weakness. The plague, the London fire, the environs of the time are richly portrayed: so are the women and the sex, belying the film's opening statements that it is about a man of science bringing reason to his times. It's certainly worthwhile but doesn't deliver its potential.

a physician's life in a new era

[lee_eisenberg · 7/10 · 7 July 2020]

Michael Hoffman's Oscar-winning "Restoration" looks at a new period in England's history as seen through the eyes of a physician (Robert Downey Jr) hired by King Charles II (Sam Neill). In seventh grade, I learned that Charles II - whose father Oliver Cromwell executed after the end of England's civil war - wasn't an effective leader. The movie depicts him as a party animal (was there ever a monarch who wasn't a party animal?).

This movie won't be for everyone (it IS a period piece, after all), but I enjoyed it. Since it stars Downey and Neill, plus David Thewlis, Ian McKellen, Hugh Grant and Ian McDiarmid, I'll say that it stars Iron Man, Alan Grant, Remus Lupin, Gandalf, playboy and Emperor Palpatine (I don't identify co-star Meg Ryan with any particular role).

Glamorous court and rudimentary story

[tonosov-51238 · 6/10 · 26 November 2023]

The first hour of the film is so rapidly paced that it turns what could have been a gorgeous period movie into somewhat lavish melodrama. You can unmistakably tell it was written by Brits, since only they would have this amount of reverence for their king. And despite his clearly abominable conduct, portray him as a paragon of mercy and sagacity. Merivel's storyline is so predictable that you can tell ten minutes in advance how his fall from grace is going to develop. Ten minutes is how long it takes him to be presented with the fake marriage, have a sham wedding, and fall in love with her for real anyway. The pace is so quick that there is no time for anything else. That includes Ian McKellen, who just got squandered in the film.

What totally wasn't wasted is the talent of James Newton Howard. The soundtrack is outstanding, and perfectly matches the fabulous production design.

Unfortunately, the story fails to leave a lasting impression, and akin to recognizing a play turned into a film, I could also tell this was a rather butchered adaptation of some novel.

To this film's detractors:

[haroldnmaude · 8/10 · 20 April 2006]

I'm not sure we saw the same movie and I'm puzzled.

This is a tremendously rich, emotional film, very true to Rose Tremain's novel, and just wonderful.

The casting is divine, and I thought Meg Ryan was fine as Catherine.

Charles II is my favorite English monarch and Sam Neill portrayed him just as I pictured him.

Robert Downey was Marivel to a T, as was David Thewliss as Pierce.

The costumes and scenery were magnificent -- from the palace to the countryside and back -- and those fabulous Spaniels running through the palace and environs was just how I'd pictured England's most enlightened monarch's place to be!

How anyone can find this movie to be anything less than a gem is beyond me.

Disappointing Hugh Grant

[soarecushul · 7/10 · 11 April 2004]

I rented this movie because it was produced by Andy Paterson, a physicist who also produced "Hillary and Jackie" and "Girl with a Pearl Earring" (2003). I very much enjoyed the art direction and costumes, but I wonder why they deserved an Oscar and those for "Girl...", which depicts the same year, 1665, did not. I was disturbed by the miscasting of Robert Downey Jr. as a British lead - I usually love his work. Was he cast because he looks like Tom Hulce ("Amadeus")? Another low point in acting was provided by a miscast Hugh Grant as a 17th century English painter. Everything about Hugh makes him too modern to play period pieces. Fortunately, Ian McKellen saved the movie for me, a great thespian in the right role.

All dressed up...

[alice liddell · 5/10 · 19 April 2000]

One of the tasks facing the adapter of famous novels is the transfiguring of literary metaphor into cinematic image. You cannot simply transpose a figure from one medium to another, but this is precisely what is done in RESTORATION. Rose Tremain's source novel has been acclaimed, not only as an excellent piece of historical recreation, but for embodying the consciousness of mid-17th century England, without reference to or taint of our own century.

This isn't strictly true - indeed it is impossible, you can't unknow what you know, and there is an early example of what would become Freudian psychoanalysis here - but she does write her novel using much of the figurative language of the time. For instance, there is a great play with opposites - light/dark; death/birth; wealth/poverty; sex/celibacy etc. - that become transformed into a whole; there are metaphysical conceits (all the play with the stars), especially the fundamental structure of the four elements - air, water, fire, earth, which play such a vital role in the plot.

The title itself is a bookish pun, signifying not only the restoration of the Monarchy after eleven years, as the inter-titles tell us, of 'bleak Puritan rule'; but also the restoration of its hero's humanity, decency and maturity; the restoration of London after the Plague and the Great Fire of London.

All of this is imported directly into the film, which is divided neatly in two, from the dazzling splendour of Charles II's court, and riverside aristocratic estates, to the austerity and misery of Quakers, medicine, madness, childbirth, death, plague, the Great Fire. This duality is figured in lighting (bright/dark), costume (gaudy, ornate/simple, threadbare), composition (noise, bustle, excess/spare, quiet), dialogue (witty aphorism/flatulent sincerity). You could even add entertainment (mildly amusing/torture).

This literary literalism extends to characters, eg the King is linked with the sun. The four elements are also included: the air that holds the stars, and carries the plague; the earth of Merivel's 'estate' (another pun), whose ownership is symbolically fragile; the water that connects his estate with the court, and also becomes a metaphor for Merivel's moral progress; the Great fire that signals a final destruction of corruption, the past etc.

The problem with all this is that these figures are all literary. In a book they have tremendous resonance, because they anchor the book firmly in its time, as well as the history of literature, Shakespeare, Spenser, the metaphysical poets etc. However, cinema has developed different metaphors and meanings. If you see a film with a river, you are less likely to think of Ben Johnson than Renoir or Vigo. By failing to make the film cinematic, to tie its theme of history with cinema history (as Ruiz does in the extraordinary LE TEMPS RETROUVE), the film's representation of history seems insubstantial.

RESTORATION's great glory is the art direction. Though not authentic in any meaningful sense - the plague scenes are as artificial as the ornate gardens - they give a very real intimation of the age's artifice. The sets quite literally swamp the story, from which it never recovers, and who can blame us when the characters are so unreal (a wonderfully camp Hugh Grant and moving Ian MacKellan excepted), while the buildings, the gardens, the vast halls, the statuary, the bric-a-brac, the drapery, the costumes, the colour seem so alive.

Merivel claims he is sick of death and wants colour, and who can blame him? Unfortunately, the film takes the opposite route and follows Merivel into abstention via some very queasy morality verging not only on pro-life, but in dispensing with women, mothers and sex altogether, as well as suggesting that the King's caprice was actually a very sophisticated moral test.

So the first half of the film is like wandering dazed through a very elaborate museum. However, the staticness (sic?) of the comparison begins to tell, and Hoffman's lack of cinematic nous soon makes us weary of finery, because he is unable to bring either his drama or decor to life, as Ruiz does. I cannot remember a single memorable shot, and as the plot drifts into dully lit, talky, historical-epic moral progress, I quickly lose interest. The largely pastiche score often seems anachronistic to the tune of 50 years. Amid so much mediocrity and timidity, you hunger for the iconoclastic vigour of a Greenaway.

An English doctor finds good medicine during the Restoration.

[susadyks · 9/10 · 12 January 2006]

This is a diamond of a movie -- a diamond with an inclusion, but a diamond nonetheless. As the shallow court doctor, Robert Downey Jr's performance makes one cry for the habits that have kept him away from so many productions.

This medical rogue, because of fluky fame, is summoned to King Charles II's court to save a beloved dog. When the dog recovers without any explanation, Downey's doctor is the star of the moment but his moment passes quickly.

Sam Neil is one of filmdom's most convincing Charles II -- the merry monarch. He can be superficial and deep, a coward and hero all at the same turn. David Thewliss is also convincing as a Quaker doctor who helps lead Downey's character away from the excess of the royal court.

Now, here's the inclusion part. Meg Ryan plays a psychiatric patient that Downey's character seems to cure in a manner not recommended by most Colleges of Physicians. Ryan is not right for the part.

All else -- costumes, cinematography, music are wonderful. A sweeping film about fate and redemption during one of England's most dynamic reigns, Restoration is worth getting as a DVD because it really does improve with more than one viewing.

Horribly miscast

[dragana_blazevic · 3/10 · 31 December 2018]

Visually impressive, but nothing much else. The plot is predictable and the script too dishevelled (like the costumes of Mr Downey). Sam Neill is maybe the worst choice for the part, tie-in with Ms Ryan. If you want period drama with quirky casting and emotional twists opt for Dangerous liaisons.

Hidden Gem!

[Steve P. · 2 May 2000]

Restoration is one of the great overlooked gems of the 1990's. This movie is beautifully shot and competently directed. It is based closely on the original novel, and also reminds me of some of the more juicy excerpts from Samuel Pepys Diary. The use of real historical locations in Britain is inspired, for instance, the Fire of London and Cheapside market scenes were shot at Caerphilly Castle, the 13th-century moat doubling for the 17th-century Thames! Robert Downey gives a highly respectable performance as Merivel (and has an excellent British accent), but Meg Ryan is totally mis-cast, seeming very lost in some scenes. Sam Niell, I think, is probably the best casting for a British Monarch since Alec Guiness as Charles the First in Cromwell, and Dudley Sutton as James the First in Orlando. One of the best performances, however, comes from David Thewlis in support. His moving scenes with Downey at Tretower Court steal the movie. I worked as an extra on the movie, and some scenes for Pierce Brosnan's 'Crusoe' were shot back to back on the Cheapside market set. That movie has still to be released. 'Restoration' was filmed during 1994, and was delayed for release amid rumours of re-shooting scenes with Meg Ryan, and probable cold feet after the box-office difficulties with 'The Red Letter'.

This movie has not been given the credits it truly deserves, and is an excellent illustration of Court life and marriage politics during the reign of Britain's sexiest Monarch!