eil-2

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.

If this movie had ended straight after the superb opening titles then perhaps I would think more highly of it. Well, initially, it's fairly average, with a fair dash of schmaltz, but nothing too terrible... but it goes on for so long. Chase movies shouldn't last 140 minutes. CMIYC continues Spielberg's inexplicable trend of dragging the ending on forever. Surprisingly, the one good thing about the movie is Tom Hanks, playing an up-tight obssessive FBI agent. But in the end, it ain't enough. I have now vowed never to see another Spielberg movie again after this waste of time.

It's a hard decision to make- which is better, Batman or Batman Returns, as both represent the quality end of action cinema superbly. Batman Returns lacks a truly great villain; Danny DeVito's hammy Penguin is more sympathetic than the Joker but not as charismatic, and the finale stretches the credibility of even a superhero movie. In it's favour, Batman Returns is more exciting than the original, with brilliant performances from Keaton, Pfeiffer and Walken, playing villainous (surely some mistake) businessman Max Shreck. Danny Elfman provides a typically excellent score, and the Christmas stylings work in the film's favour. The things falls apart slightly with the script; dialogue is generally funny (in a good way), but as I mentioned above, the ending was far too silly. Batman Returns is good fun, and possibly superior to the original. It's certainly better than Joel Schumacher's camp garbage take on the caped crusader. 8/10