Reviewed in the United States on December 12, 2020
I am vexed about this film. The erroneous dates not with standing! Many of the scenes are accurate and well played. The Parliament scenes were accurate and realistic as far as they went (not far). Charles II was not a simple nor dull man. He was also a kind and affable man. Charles spent years fighting to regain his thrown. First, he raises a half-arsed Scottish army that turns tail and runs back to Mother Scotland leaving Charles to hide in trees and amongst absurd disguises. In his hiding he lived poorly and often was obliged to share meager vittles with common people in all sorts of common situations. I.e., this was probably the only King of England who KNEW what it was like to be destitute and suffer alone. E.g., in wounds and ailments, Charles was treated as a peasant. These essential events have been omitted for reason I cannot guess. The hiding and scrounging for food on the run in England was what made Charles a man's man. Dear lord, this was a King, when faced with the great London fire of 1666, ran into the streets, unguarded, and fought the flames with his own hands. He was a black as Hades and worse for the wear in the end. This was NOT a "regal' king. Dear lord, we have ample historic source in the diaries of Samuel Peyps (pronounced "Peeps"). Why omit this golden historic bounty? Because Hollywood film consultants are morons or ignored?