This movie is visually stunning--the spectacular sets (the floating wedding scene), the sumptuous costumes.But it's much deeper than the glorious surface would suggest--it's not just a costume drama--the story is about someone and something--one man's life from selfishness to selflessness.Downey's acting is superb, he's always been a wonderful actor, and here he's both subtle and broad and always believable. Meg Ryan is so different here from her normal cute roles that you might not even recognize her.The script, direction, acting, editing, and beautiful score combine to make this a rich, emotionally moving experience.

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.

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?

Mainly a biography of a lustful doctor, "Robert Merivel ," (Robert Downey) who has his way in the king's palace for the first half of the film and then helps out the downtrodden in the second half, mainly "Katharine" (Meg Ryan).The GOOD - Fantastic set decoration (i.e. the lush king's palace) and costuming make this a visual treat. The language is also very tame. Ian McKellen and Hugh Grant provide interesting support.The BAD - After 50-60 minutes, this movie simply gets too boring. It desperately needed to be given some spark after an hour but it does the opposite: it drags on and on. The script certainly needed some badly-needed "restoration," shall we say? The film may look nice but it's a long two hours to sit through.....too long.