IMDb user comments for
Restoration (1995) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 4:

[1] [2] [3] [4]

Index

35 comments in total

---

23 out of 24 people found the following comment useful :-
Analysis aside, this film moved me., 13 December 2000
Author: Paul R. Bynum (pb@coldwellbanker.com) from Fayetteville, AR

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.

---

22 out of 26 people found the following comment useful :-
First rate without one bloody battle!, 28 July 2004
Author: scttwortman from Columbus, OH USA

Good Lord! a historical epic without a spectacular set piece till the fire of London. There was not a minute of this film I did not enjoy! Those who need chariot races to feel historically present need to know we can't all hang out with Cleopatra or Rhett. These people, in this film, came across as real through the ages! After seeing this delight,I mourn for Downey's career. Rent, NO! Buy this movie and step back into time for two hours. As historical drama, this is surpassed only by " A LION IN WINTER" and "LAWRENCE OF ARABIA". Mel Gibson should see this film before he messes with historical characters again. Please, you critics watch this with your heart; not your eye for spectacle 'NUFF SAID!

---

18 out of 19 people found the following comment useful :-
Lush And Unnervingly Eerie, 29 March 2004
Author: httpmom from San Francisco Bay Area

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?

---

17 out of 18 people found the following comment useful :-
Hidden Gem!, 2 May 2000
Author: Steve P. from Cardiff, Wales

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!

---

12 out of 13 people found the following comment useful :-
An Intelligent, Literary Film, 2 March 1999
Author: Dagon II from Seattle, WA, USA

A beautiful & thoughtful movie about chance and caprice in human lives,and about how love and folly shape us. A unity of word, appearance, and action distill the reign of Charles II into the soul of a doctor who lives through a "new age" of human flowering. A movie aspiring to and attaining the qualities of a literary novel, powerfully combining the naturalistic and the symbolic, and equal to best adaptations of Jane Austen. Restoration will be certain disappointment for movie-goers who expect explosions instead of drama and grunts.

---

11 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
I loved it., 15 August 2004

Author: Diana (Nayari) from U.S.A.

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!!

---

12 out of 15 people found the following comment useful :-
The Age of Enlightenment, 10 May 2002

Author: Sample (sampleman411@earthlink.net) from Hollywood

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.

---

7 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
An over-looked jewel, artful period piece with redemption., 6 March 1999

Author: anonymous from Eugene, OR

"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.

---

5 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
Why such bad reviews?, 29 May 2007

Author: jeremy3 from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

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?

---

6 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
A gem of a movie, 12 September 1999

Author: Arnie Mellor from Launceston, Tasmania, Australia

I really enjoyed this movie set in King Charles glorious days. The scenery,acting and story were all great and Meg Ryan put on a passable Irish accent.I suppose that there will always be nit pickers like myself,and although Purcells great music was played throughout the movie,he would have only been five years old when these events took place.Still,I recommend this one and if you enjoy it try and also view'England my England'which is set during the same period.

---

---

Page 1 of 4:

[1] [2] [3] [4]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Amazon.com summary	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Parents Guide	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history