For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

You take a risk in filming any book, but here we have one of these fat simple books that flow easily and have simple substance. Its targeted at the sorts of things that appeal to romance readers: redemption, a hostile world, love, discovered honor. The book is a cartoon with faux travails from a lurid homeworld. If you were going to make a film of this without changing the book very much, and targeting the same audience as the book. You couldn't turn the story into something interesting, true or valuable. You couldn't make these characters matter. Lucky, because the director is incapable of doing so.What you could do is be lush. You'd create a home world that is lurid, with the earth sexually excited. You'd have full reds in a tumescent space (and rainy greys in contrast). You'd have novel ornamentation, excessive costumes. That's what we have here. As with other commentors, I say that the only thing interesting here are those sets. In this case, two women anchor and become part of the sets: one dark redheaded and one light. Oddly, neither are photographed as beautifully as they have been elsewhere.What's interesting is how our set designer has folded the sets. You can't have an intelligent introspected story because the book is so pedestrian . But you can have folded sets. We have a wall of receding arches that is really a tapestry through which the king enters. We have a model of London, in which the king and our hero meet. And the best of all, we have an Orrery with the king at its center. An Orrery, if you don't know it is a mechanical model of the solar system. Its a marvelous thing, and has an iconic meaning in films where it is used. I collect these images because they are so few and deep. This is the loveliest I know.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

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 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?

Robert Downey, Jr. was terrific as always in Restoration.When I give reviews on films or when I tell family or friends about films, I like to go into detail of why I liked each character, the writing, the actors' performance, etc...With "Restoration", I can't do that here. Why? Because I would ramble and go on typing forever. This is, to put it simply, an outstanding film. Sure, there are aspects of the historical time that didn't jive, but this film was meant to entertain, not to give us a history lesson.It was masterful. The performances of the leading couple were breathtaking. Great directing and writing.The film is wonderfully done. Although when the trailer was first aired and I wanted to see it very badly, the first time I actually saw it was in the theater.