Ian Richardson (From Hell, M. Butterfly) leads an all star cast in this malevolent satire of greed, corruption and ambition in the highest realms of government. As Machiavellian monster Francis Urquhart, he schemes and backstabs his way to the top until he is standing on a pile of broken promises, betrayals and the bodies of those who oppose him.

Ian Richardson (From Hell, M. Butterfly) leads an all star cast in this malevolent satire of greed, corruption and ambition in the highest realms of government. As Machiavellian monster Francis Urquhart, he schemes and backstabs his way to the top until he is standing on a pile of broken promises, betrayals and the bodies of those who oppose him. Every step of the way, Urquhart lays out his plans

Average Customer Review: ( 114 customer reviews )
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.

Well cast, well directed, and with three thrilling political stories. However, this series would be nothing without Richardson, who amazes. Perhaps the best moments are when he breaches the fourth wall by talking to, or simply raising an eyebrow to, the viewer. While we could never approve of the things "F. U." does, it is hard not to love the character, as brought to full-color life by Richardson.

The only extra given on the DVDs, other than cast biographies, is a short BBC segment discussing the controversy over "To Play The King", or, to be more specific, over a line which some felt implied that the King used to send out for prostitutes (in context, it clearly does not, it implied he sent out for well-born ladies who would feel it their duty to come).

Each DVD contains four 50 minute episodes, so it is a good buy.

Recommended.

64 of 66 found the following review helpful:

"Shall I put a bit of stick about?"Mar 24, 2004
By M. Dog
The Brits may no longer rule the world, but they sure produce some of the best television the medium has seen. In any discussions of the best projects or series in television history, this trilogy will have a place.

The series opens with Conservative Party Whip, Francis Urquhart, fondly holding a portrait of Margaret Thatcher, remarking that all things, no matter how good, must come to an end. This perfectly sets the time and tone of what is to follow. Urquhart must maneuver and control the political scene in the power vacuum left by the exit of the Iron Lady.

This production strives for Shakespearean proportions, and hits the bull's eye. The main character, Urquhart, played by Ian Richardson, is a crafty blend of Macbeth and King Richard. Like Macbeth, Urquhart has a power hungry wife gently messaging his shoulders and whispering pretty treacheries in his ear; and like Richard, Urquhart takes the viewer into his confidence, revealing his black plans with wicked joy. This technique of Urquhart speaking directly to you, the viewer, is a tremendous stroke. Like with King Richard, you will find yourself somehow cheering for this cold, angular blade of a man, as he slices through well-meaning fools and bumbling bullies alike (or, as Urquhart says, "put a bit of stick about").

A great production throughout, with wonderful writing and acting. Highly recommended. --Mykal Banta

100 of 112 found the following review helpful:

Brilliant, but in the end flawedAug 14, 2004
By Nichomachus
Me watching this took on the manner of a voracious animal consuming its prey. The entire trilogy is beautifully done, magnificiently produced, and the acting is simply incomparable.

The HOUSE OF CARDS, the first season, is quite clearly the best. The wit, the plot, the sheer malignancy of it is just pure delight. I worked briefly at the House of Commons, and I thought the presentation of Parliament and Westminster politics was brilliant. I don't think there is anything equal to the cynicism on display here, as France Urquhart (Ian Richardson) cheerfully outmaneuvers and destroys his political opponents (his colleagues within his party). The mockery of the British political system is right on. Richardson has these asides to the audience that work perfectly, and heighten the hilarity. It's what something like WAG THE DOG wishes it could be for American politics, but unfortunately American audiences don't always have the political sophistication to enjoy this level of satire. *****

TO PLAY THE KING has Urquhart as Prime Minister (known appropriately by the initials FU), master of his domain. The arc in this series focuses on the place of the monarchy in the constitutional system, with many asides on homosexuality in politics, manipulation of the press, exploitation of disaters, and the staging of politically convenient terrorist attacks. Not as good as the first season by any measure, however, Urquhart's systematic destruction of the King (a brilliant Michael Kitchen) masterfully communicates some of the political tensions built into Britain's constitution. This season generated a lot of controversy with the British public, many of whom thought it was intentionally and excessively disrespectful to the monarchy (see the DVD extras). All in all, the writing doesn't have the same degree of biting and wit, although Richardson's performance is still on the money. ****

THE FINAL CUT is the unforunate third season, and takes on the character of Shakespeare's RICHARD III, but makes it tedious. Richardson's vicious asides to the audience are almost totally absent, which relieves him of his charm. It's not nearly as funny or interesting, and seems to meander along until its excessive and fairly overwrought ending. The spirit of cynicism is tries to maintain takes on a certain unreality, and this robs it of the delicious aspect of the first season. By the end, this version of Britain is so remote that it just isn't plausible or engaging. We are basically reduced to watching the antics of some banana republic, but with Westminster Palace in the background. **

So respectively five stars, four stars, and two stars; averaging out to just over 3.6, I will round up as the kindly teachers of my childhood instructed me, and thus four stars for the set.

23 of 23 found the following review helpful:

"I am in blood, Stepp'd in so far..."Jul 13, 2005
By Christopher Fung
This is without a doubt, one of the very best dramatic series I have ever seen. Why on earth hasn't Masterpeice Theater replayed it? Given what PBS has recently gone through with its governing board and accusations of "liberal bias", perhaps it's understandable that they don't want to be seen to be criticizing our political masters, but the point has already been made. Why leave it up to mealy-mouthed special-effects fests like "Retread of the Sith", when works like this do so with so much more poise and precision?

The House of Cards series combines superlative acting skills with pointed commentary on power, ambition and politics. Three great scripts (I disagree with those who say Part 3 was weaker than the others, but more on this below), and superb directing and acting make this the highlight of my summer viewing for sure. For US viewers, this series is as excellent as the Sopranos, and Homicide and for similar reasons (interesting characters, wonderful actors and compelling plot lines).

*General spoiler alert*

This series is many things to many people, but it is to my mind, first and foremost a Shakespearean drama. Screenwriter Andrew Davies makes this quite clear in his discussions of the series. To that end, the most important thing in the series is our villain and his arc from charming, ruthless monster to cornered animal.

How sad that Ian Richardson hasn't been given the chance to display his incredible acting talents to a wider audience. His portrayl of the caiman-like Conservative politician Francis Urquhart captured the simultaneously mesmerizing and sheer evil quality of Urquhart beautifully (Richardson won a BAFTA in 1991 for House of Cards and was nominated again in 1993 for To Play the King, and again in 1996 for The Final Cut). Richardson's training in theater (he was with the Royal Shakespeare Company for 15 years) stand him in excellent stead here, but the most compelling pieces of acting he does are often expressed with no more than a glance at the camera, or a lifted eyebrow or corner of the mouth. The man's a genius in my humble opinion.

House of Cards has had an interesting effect on political behavior in the UK in particular. The non-denial denial "You might say that... I couldn't possibly comment" that was one of Urquhart's favorite catchphrases has become established usage among British public figures, including then-Prime Minister John Major. It's also been acronymized for use in cyberspace as YMSTICPC.

As a number of other people have pointed out, this series strongly evokes specific Shakespearean works, notably MacBeth, and Richard III. There are however, echoes of other tragedies as well, particularly King Lear (Urquhart's soliloquy on being "a father of daughters" for one, and the use of the "sharper than a serpent's tooth" quotation) and Titus Andronicus (F.U.'s ease with violence, and the black humor throughout the series) particularly in Part 3 (The Final Cut). I suppose if one wanted to play the "match the series with the play" game, Part 1 would be analogous to the first half of MacBeth, Part 2 to Richard (up to the Battle of Bosworth), and Part 3 would be Lear with Act V of Richard thrown in for good measure.

Thus the supposed "weaknesses" in F.U.'s behavior in Part 3: his tendency to surround himself with weaklings, his descent into open violence, and his inability to "smell the mood" of his colleagues can in fact be better understood as classic Shakespearean indicators of the ruler who has finally lost his edge through age, hubris or paranoia (or some combination of all 3).

Much has been made of Mrs. Urquhart's similarity to Lady MacBeth, but she's really more like the homicidal Goneril in "Lear": None of Lady M's weak-kneed descent into madness for her. In fact, the Tragedy of Francis Urquhart (apart from the mayhem he inflicts -indirectly depicted by the director for the most part, on the well-being of ordinary British people) might well be most clearly expressed in the treacherousness or self-servingness of those who surround him at the end.

Some people believe that this series does not translate well for American audiences, my sense is that this is far from the case. Certainly some of the more subtle satire and the British cultural references might be lost, (such as the reference to the children's hand-puppet character Sooty - think Lamb Chop or Elmo as a stuffed bear) and it certainly helps to have a passing familiarity with British Parliamentary procedure (in particular the wonderful institution of "Prime Minister's Question Time").

Nevertheless these are minor details in the overall scheme of things. British politics has no monopoly on stupidity, manipulation or naked ambition. Viewers in other countries will have no trouble recognizing their own domestic versions of F.U., some perhaps in their own workplaces. Can we recognize this same behavior (admittedly with much less wit and sophistication) in some people in the current US administration? You might think that, you might very well think that, ... I couldn't possibly comment.

16 of 16 found the following review helpful:

Pre-Sopranos evil...maybe done nastier!Jul 30, 2004
By Paul F. Johnson
I won't rehash the plot, but the real appeal here is Ian Richardson's breaking of the fourth wall. He forces us all to admit that evil can be so fun, and that sometimes the wrong thing to do is completely the right thing.

I had read that Richardson wouldn't agree to end the series if F.U. didn't eventually meet his demise. I concur that The Final Cut (the third episode in the set) is by far the weakest, and a politically correct cop-out, but the devilish pleasures of the first two installments more than make up for its mawkishness. The same fascination with evil allows us to feel superior when Francis finally meets his end in the last volume.

I have to recommend that you buy the whole set to see the complete story, but I'll bet that your repeat viewings will be of the first volume only. It is so awfully, spanking good that you may be shocked at how good you feel about leaving your conscience behind.

Wish I could make this review relevant to current political times in the U.S., but this series exists solely as a British animal. Its appeal is grounded in the parliamentary system. It's all very Britishly perverse, especially the sexcapades of middle-aged politicians and royals. Pour yourself a Guiness and enjoy the ugliness. You might not think it's appropriate...I couldn't possibly comment.

See all 114 customer reviews on Amazon.com