User reviews

Francis Urquhart has risen through the ranks of Britain's Conservative Party and its political ranks to become Prime Minister. Now a new King is being crowned who stands opposed to everything Urquhart stands for. What happens when a liberally minded King and a conservative Prime Minister meet head to head in a battle for control of the UK's political life? That is the question that lies at the heart of To Play The King, the second miniseries in the House Of Cards trilogy.

Like its predecessor, if there is any single element that makes this miniseries as much of a success as it is, it is lead character, Francis Urquhart as played by actor Ian Richardson. Richardson plays Urquhart as a modern day (modern day being an alternate version of early 1990's UK) version of Shakespeare's Richard III as much as he did originally. Urquhart might be at the top, but he's determined to stay there at whatever cost as he tries first to use and then do battle with the King. Yet we begin to see the human side of this man as he haunted by the events at the end of House Of Cards and must face the possibility of treason by those closest to him. Once again, Richardson makes all this work incredibly well and makes Urquhart a man who is ruthless yet immensely charming and likable nonetheless. It is a compliment to Richardson and his skills that he can make it all work, especially the soliloquies, while being evil yet charming all at the same time.

Opposing Urquhart is the new King played by actor Michael Kitchen. Kitchen's King is a likable, charming liberally minded monarch who wants to use his place in the nation to help improve his country. When any and all of his ideas are tossed aside, the king is forced into a head to head confrontation with the Prime Minister. Kitchen plays the King as a man of principle who is really a simple man. In fact it his the King hopes that right equals might in taking on Urquhart that makes him a perfect antagonist and a worthy opponent indeed.

Backing both Richardson and Kitchen is once again a fine supporting cast. Returning from House Of Cards are Diane Fletcher as Urquhart's wife plus Colin Jeavons as Tim Stamper, who finds himself increasingly compromised and frustrated by Urquhart, who both give strong performances. Kitty Aldridge joins the cast as Sarah Harding who becomes a communications aide to Urquhart and while she gives a good performance, the relationship between her and Urquhart pushed believability in my mind. There's also Nicholas Farrell and Rowena King as the King's aides David Mycroft and Chloe Carmichael, respectively, who both find themselves having the help the King do battle and face becoming causalities themselves. There's also Nick Brimble as security man Corder and Bernice Stegers as the estranged Princess Charlotte who leave quite an impression with their brief appearances. Not forgetting Susannah Harker as Mattie Storin who, while only appearing in sound and film clips from House Of Cards, still looms large over the events that unfold. Like its predecessor, this miniseries is blessed by a fine cast backing its two leading men.

There's the production values as well. Many of those who worked on House Of Cards returned to this miniseries and their work is just as good here. Once again there's fine production design by Ken Ledsham who creates the worlds ranging from 10 Downing Street, Buckingham Palace, the Houses of Parliament, and beyond. There's also the cinematography of Jim Fyans and Ian Punter which once again brings a fine sense of atmosphere to the world of the miniseries. Last but not least here is once again the music by Jim Parker, especially with the main title and end title pieces which serve as a perfect start and closing to the four episodes of the miniseries. All of this, once again under the direction of Paul Seed, helps to make the miniseries stand up against its predecessor well indeed.

Which brings us to the script. Once again Andrew Davies adapts Michael Dobbs novel into a script that is less a political thriller then a political parable if not satire at times. Davies looks at what happens when the two opposing mind sets of a liberally minded King and a conservative Prime Minister meet head to head. The result is a battle of wits as the two men attempt through their various lieutenants to help their cause come out on top. It is a story about the modern process of media control and how that can clash with both the idealistic and the cynical alike. It is also a story that looks at how power effects those who hold it as Urquhart is haunted by the events at the end of House Of Cards and must face the possibility of treason by two of those closest to him. There's also a fair bit of satire as well covering the scandals of the royal family in the early 1990's and the media's reactions to them as well. The result is a script that isn't quite as gripping as House Of Cards but more thought provoking.

To Play The King is a fine successor to House Of Cards. From the performances of Richardson and Kitchen in the lead roles, a fine supporting cast, good production values and a well written script as well. While it is not the thriller the original was and is somewhat less gripping as a result, To Play The King works as something else instead. It is a parable about what happens when the liberally minded and the conservatively minded face each other head on. The result is thought provoking indeed.

'To Play the King', an adaptation of Michael Dobbs' novel of the same title, is superb as we are invited by the protagonist, PM Francis Urquhart to watch as he attempts to cling to his position of absolute power. Ian Richardson as the unscrupulous right-wing premier is magnificent and the cast are brilliant; stand-outs including Colin Jeavons as Stamper and Michael Kitchen as the socialist King.

Urquhart's direct-to-camera moments are memorable and the viewer can't help but admire the person we should in actual fact loathe. The action is at a break-neck pace and the plot builds up to a satisfying climax.

Is it better than House of Cards? As Urquhart would say:

"You might very well think that, I couldn't possibly comment."

Although weaker than House of Cards, To Play the King is consistently entertaining, perhaps more so than the other parts of the trilogy, which ended with The Final Cut.

Francis Urquhart has been PM (played by the wonderful Ian Richardson) for some time now, and he now faces a challenge in the new King (a compelling impersonation of Princes Charles by Michael Kitchen), who's views on Britain conflict wildly with Urquhart's. Added to this, Urquhart is engaging in an affair with Sarah Harding (Kitty Aldridge), a pollster, and seriously getting on the wrong side of his oldest friend and Chief Whip/Party Chairman Tim Stamper (played by Colin Jeavons, who almost steals the show from Richardson), who has incriminating evidence concerning Urquhart's involvement in the death of journalist Mattie Storin.

To Play the King carries on the Urquhart trilogy with great confidence. Despite the fact that it came three years after House of Cards, all of the recurring cast slip back into their roles with ease. The location work and music are also outstanding. However, the real weakness with this production is that Andrew Davies' script goes over old ground. The dialogue is naturally superb, but Urquhart's relationship with Harding is thin compared to the one between him and Mattie, and the ending strangely lacks the emotional edges of the other two in the series.

That said, To Play the King is highly enjoyable, and worth checking out if you were a fan (and who wasn't) of House of Cards.

Prime Minister Francis Urqhart will stop at nothing in his bid to gain ultimate control over Great Britain. Now, he is threatening to expose some of the royal families most scandalous secrets if the king continues to stand in his way. The media explodes as the two men go head to head in their efforts to gain the upper hand. Stories of sexual escapades, economic fiascos and more flood TV, magazines, the internet and newspapers. It appears that Urqhart just may succeed in his attempt to overthrow the monarchy.

Underhanded, dirty, low down politics (are we sure this isn't the U.S?) take center stage in this story of ego and the ultimate bid for supremacy.

The sequel to House of Cards opens with the coronation of King Charles (many years before his real-life ascendency to the throne.) It is implied that this takes place in the near future of 1993, probably some time between 1994-96.

Britain under Urquhart has become frighteningly authoritarian. Violent crime is rampant, and often seems directed by the government. The security services are willing to gun down, or plant explosives to kill, enemies of the government at the Prime Minister's whim. It is even suggested that a bomb may be in place in the vehicle of everyone connected with Urquhart, ready to detonate if needed. Despite this, Tim Stamper believes that the police could be trusted to fairly investigate serious allegations about Urquhart, implying that law enforcement has bifurcated into the ordinary police and another branch made up of Urquhart's personal army, and that there may a tension between the two.

There's a chilling moment when Princess Charlotte (representing a rough caricature of Sarah Ferguson) reveals that not only does she have shocking stories about those close to her, but that she has also been threatened with an 'accident' if she publishes them. It is also stated that much of the media is fixed in favour of the government.

Ian Richardson continues to play a deeply fascinating portrayal of Urquhart as a convincing manipulator and deceptively sympathetic figure on his face. I constantly have to remind myself that the tyrant is a liar and a murderer, when he talks fondly about Mattie Storrin, for example.

The main downside is perhaps the slightly ineffective in-universe opposition to Urquhart's rule. Neither the King nor his allies are shown to have any coherent of specific ideas for a better Britain. The King rather feebly tells a family in poverty that 'something will be done'. FU's relationship with Sarah, and the King's brief encounter with Chloe are perhaps also unnecessary. David Mycroft's coming out as gay is handled progressively for the time, although he is ultimately still forced out of his job, which is unthinkable now.

The final act contains what may be Urquhart's greatest ever political manoeuvre in humiliating his adversary: on the day before the general election. But even after that, will Urquhart be able to do what he needs to do to remain safe still?

A very worthy sequel, gripping throughout, and with significant historical interest. 9/10.

This is great and fascinating. You should watch it! Not sure is it an action or a crime-thriller? Maybe adventure.

Actually in this show I have learned what is parliament politics. The owner of this serial are British - it explains why it is so good. This is real - the ways in the politics... What to do, to survive. Actors are so fine in this movie. No complains. All scenes are great. King is King - his role is the best.

I have open my brain to maximum when I was watching it.

I give my full ten points for this movie.

Best, D

There is much more drama here, much deeper character development and, of course, the whole story has a whole new depth than that of its predecessor 'House of Cards', which everyone seems to prefer. That was mostly humorous, very light entertainment.

I found this one far more rewarding due to the above. Gone was the inevitability and lack of challenge of 'H.O.C.'. Here the main character has to plum to real depths to achieve his aims.

Onto the gripes: Primarily, the pacing is a real problem. It struck me that the first three episodes were little more than exposition, establishing the situations of the story, a three-hour Act One. Nothing really happens, story-wise, until the final episode.

The presentation of the homeless was at times a little trite, although it was amusing to confirm my suspicions about Emma Bunton's acting skills.

I did not find the ending forced at all. In fact, the means are far more convincing and difficult to pull off than any of the maneuverings of 'H.O.C.'

What carries this serial through really is the relationship between Urquhart and Harding. Although clearly an echo of that of with Storrin in 'H.O.C', it does not seem out of place; here is something with strange, emotional, dark and disturbing undertones.

The first of two sequel series to 1990's 'House of Cards' (mandatory viewing for anybody who has not seen it yet), the other being 'The Final Cut', 'To Play the King' is every bit as good.

Perhaps not quite the superlative piece of television or one of the best dramatisations of the 90s like 'House of Cards' was, but what made 'House of Cards' so good remains still in 1993's 'To Play the King'. A daunting task to follow and take on and it didn't seem like anybody involved was daunted by such an undertaking. Whether it's a good or faithful adaptation of the source material feels completely insignificant, deviations are numerous and some are major but the spirit and attention to character and mood detail are present.

'To Play the King's' ending scenes don't quite have the explosive punch they could have done, not quite as moving or as shocking as with 'House of Cards', and perhaps a little too neatly wrapped up) while still remaining interesting.

Visually, 'To Play the King' looks wonderful, full of elegance and atmosphere in the design and class and style in the way it's filmed. It's also beautifully scored by Jim Parker with a very memorable main theme, and the direction lets the atmosphere and drama breathe but still never undermines the momentum.

Andrew Davies once again also deserves a lot of the credit. The script has dry cynicism, sharp wit, dark bite and class, with some deservedly iconic lines that have since become part of popular culture. The nation's mood is brilliantly captured and the political elements are handled so truthfully and don't feel shoe-horned (it's actually essential here) or heavy-handed. The storytelling is ceaselessly compelling, and just as deep and rich as before (perhaps even more so), throughout the whole four one hour episode duration, hooking one in and never letting go despite not being a series that deliberately and wisely doesn't move "fast".

Once again the casting is perfect. Can imagine nobody else in the role of Francis than Ian Richardson, demonstrating why the role is his best-known one and bringing everything that made his acting in 'House of Cards' career-best work of a distinguished career.

Diane Fletcher also like in 'House of Cards' impresses as a modern Lady Macbeth-like character that sees a side of her one wouldn't associate with her, and Michael Kitchen shows how well he excels in understated but commanding roles that he did even better with 'Foyle's War'. Colin Jeavons was simply born for his character and David Ryall shows a lot of enthusiasm.

In summary, excellent and just as good. 9/10 Bethany Cox

Not since the Rocky and Bullwinkle Show have I seen a production so completely devoted to absurd stereotypes, tropes, and cliches. The entire premise of the program is absurd, and the writing is laughable. While "House of Cards" was at least marginally entertaining, this cacophony of nonsense and sneering pseudo villains was a painful failure. I abandoned it after episode two. It's impossible to imagine that this was relevant or entertaining, even for its time.

This mini-series is the second in the three adapted by Andrew Davies from Michael Dobbie's books. It is less of a romp than the first, `House of Cards', in which Francis Urquhart (Ian Richardson) gets to the top of the slippery pole by various underhand means; in fact he is now secure as prime minister and leader of the conservative party. He has, however, a problem with the king, a Prince Charles-type figure, who is not prepared to be a mere figurehead but aspires to be the conscience of the nation. This of course simply will not do and Francis and the king are soon on a collision course. The result is inevitable, and once again `F U' leaves bodies in his wake.

The king's angst is wonderfully realised by Michael Keaton, though he does seem a bit intelligent for a member of the present British royal family. Again, the supporting actors are delightful, with Colin Jeavons, the man born to play Uriah Heep, creepily unctious and then coldly furious as Stamper the Whip, who Francis rejects for higher office. Diane Fletcher as Elizabeth Urquhart continues smoothly in her Lady Macbeth role and there are some great clown characters such as the two princesses (not a million miles from Diana and Fergie) and the gallant Sir Bruce, editor of the `Daily Muckracker,' played with boozy enthusiasm by David Ryall.

Towards the end the show weakens a bit, and the final explosions are rather contrived. It is interesting, though, how an able, ruthless character like `F U' attracts supporters – there are plenty of people more than happy to carry out his orders, like Corder, his security man (Nick Brimble). The King, on the other hand, is supported by nice people, but like him, they become victims.

The relationship between hereditary monarch and elected prime minister is an important one, and Dobbie has to be commended for drawing attention to it; his bleak conclusion is that the King, who once could do no wrong, can now do no good. That's a pity, for someone needs to exercise some supervision over the `F U's' of this world. Once again, this is good entertainment, if not such a romp as the first series.

To Play the King is an outstanding follow-up to House of Cards, expanding on the themes of power and manipulation with remarkable precision. Francis Urquhart, now Prime Minister, faces a new and formidable adversary in the form of the idealistic and outspoken King. The tension between the two, representing tradition versus political ambition, is at the heart of this gripping drama.

Ian Richardson's performance as Urquhart is as chillingly charismatic as ever, masterfully portraying a man whose desire for control knows no bounds. The King, played by Michael Kitchen, provides a refreshing contrast with his genuine concern for the people, making their conflict all the more compelling. The political machinations are as sharp as ever, and the series doesn't shy away from delving into darker moral territory, raising questions about loyalty, democracy, and the price of power.

The writing is razor-sharp, with plenty of memorable lines, and the pacing is tight, building tension throughout. While it doesn't quite match the raw surprise of its predecessor, To Play the King is still a near-perfect political thriller that keeps viewers enthralled until the very last scene.

If there's any drawback, it's that some side plots could have been developed more fully, but that doesn't take away from the overall impact. To Play the King is a must-watch for fans of political drama and a fitting continuation of Urquhart's ruthless journey to power.

Very predictable. The Prime Minister is very dependent on the stupidity of those surrounding him, especially those that got killed. For top of the line political hacks, these idiots walk happily to their death when everyone is shouting at the screen for them to turn around. If there are people who will go this far in pursuit of power actually exist and enjoy it, the humanity is doomed. Get ready to take a shower after watching as this show is just as disgustingly cynical as the American version.

This entire BBC series is well worth watching. The screenplay is literate and hilarious. All the actors are wonderful, the script is great, and they've spared no expense with locations! This is an exciting series and I can't recommend it highly enough. Too bad in the United States we don't have actors talented enough to pull of a series such as this one. Diane Fletcher and Ian Richardson are perfect! All the actors in this were first rate and I certainly hope to see more of all of them in the future.

Compared to the first House of Cards, this is a retread of familiar ground, far-fetched in spots, and fizzles out in the 'explosive' finale. It is still fun to watch, and together with Cards, a great primary text.

The narrative tension arises from the fact that the protagonist—Francis Urquhart, now Prime Minister after the events of the first one—is both an actor inside the story and the capricious narrator who in telling it attempts to control that story and his environment, Lolita-wise. (which Ian Richardson has not only known, as anyone in his trade can be expected to, but actually played on the stage, in Albee's Broadway version as apparently Nabokov himself)

We are roped in the story, by Urquhart making the camera a co- conspirator on his side.

This could have been of more interest than the first. The issue of co- conspiratorial viewing more ambiguously rears its head here, because mixed with parliamentary intrigue, the great deceiver is beginning to show signs of doubt and remorse, but knowing him to be a demagogue, can we trust him? Is he lucidly toying with us? Do we open up? It all comes back to Lolita, the seduced younger woman, his mirrored nemesis the current Chief Whip. It is good material, a good text to work from.

Alas, the same problem persists as in Cards.

Urquhart's doubt grows from memories of the first film, the whole Mattie Storin affair. If you haven't seen Cards, he has done something horrible even by his standards, and tormenting visions begin to seep into and disrupt his control.

Now there are two types of film when dealing with cinematic memory, mostly distinct of each other.

Films where memory is a narrative device and the reminiscing self fetches the images as insight into some past story, a category of which this is a part of, and can be relied on for a good jigsaw but hardly much else. Hitchcock usually worked in this way.

And films, much fewer, where true to the function of memory, images steal into the story as insight of the narrating self, images not always in the right order or logical that partly create the self. All the great films (as well as Lolita) fall in this latter category.

So the narrative is clean and logical, which the British do better than anyone. The acting is fine, Richardson above all. But, there is no reason whatsoever for Urquhart to be truly confiding to the viewer, especially now that we see aspects of Urquhart he does not control. Everyone else is being lied to, uncertain and fumbling, but we are not. This is as if Lolita was just a chronicle of mischiefs, missing layers.

Following his appointment as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Francis Urquhart is rather plagued by guilt over the actions that got him there, while at the same time lacking a challenge to stimulate him in the way his political rivalries once did. This changes as the new King of England decides to throw his social conscience into the political ring, and as FU takes on a new 'slave' to inspire him and to tutor. The King's simplistic sentimentalizing of the plight of the poor leads FU to perhaps underestimate him, while he also remains unaware of the presence of a tape of his rooftop meeting that ended the previous series.

There is a certain meanness and cynicism in this BBC film that is perhaps lacking in the US version, and this second part of the House of Cards trilogy continues with that. The viewer remains drawn into FU's world and decisions in a way where we are confronted by his cold maneuvering, and this continues throughout the episodes. This time the opponent is the new King – a very thinly veiled version of Prince Charles; the reality of this power struggle is perhaps not totally convincing, but to be fair the previous episodes were fine to play up the cynicism in return for giving up a bit of realism. The plot plays out quite nicely, although it must be said that the show does benefit from only having 4 episodes and not the longer run that the US version has.

Outside of this, the series does rather repeat the model of the previous serial in that it places a young woman in FU's circle, sees an influential Afro-Caribbean woman playing a key role and also has a vulnerable male press role. It does have a certain familiarity to it, although mostly it does work on its own rights. The various plot twists and turns do not always convince; in particular the frequent bombings and the fate of some characters and devices go a little further than fits even the internal logic, but these are held together by the consistent spirit of meanness it has. A big part of that is Richardson's performance, which is attractive while also being repellant – much like his to-camera discussions which challenge the viewer to judge him. Equally good are Kitchen, Aldridge, King, and Farrrell – albeit that they have shadows of the previous series in their characters. Jeavons plays it well so that he builds from his position gradually and in a way that makes sense.

Generally the series works well because of how nicely scripted it is with a cynicism that applies across the political spectrum of all those involved. This is delivered with a certain drollness and a narrative that engages even if aspects of it feel repeated from the previous series.