User Reviews

Francis Urquhart is a senior member of the British Government. He expects a promotion when the new Prime Minister, Henry Collingridge, takes office and is bitterly disappointed when this does not take place. He sets in motion a plan to usurp Collingridge and become Prime Minister. Part of his plan involves manipulating a junior political reporter, Mattie Storin, in order to gain more favourable press coverage than Collingridge. This works well initially but then Storin starts digging into recent political events.

Superb political drama. Very intriguing and highly plausible with some very sharp dialogue. The political machinations are quite believable. Quite Shakespearean in its wheels-within-wheels, examinations of the worst parts of human nature and outcome.

Great performance by Ian Richardson as Urquhart. He embodies all that is to be loathed, and yet grudgingly admired, about politics, and does so with a cunning charm and spot-on delivery. Good support by Susannah Harker as Mattie Storin.

I much preferred this, the original House of Cards, to the far more famous recent US version. The US version seemed all about Machiavellian machinations just for Machiavellian machinations' sake. There was no point to many of the intrigues and sub-plots, other to fill up space. This, the UK version, was much more focussed, was far less gratuitous in its scheming and knew when to stop.

Almost twenty-five years on, House of Cards stands up well today. Thatcher has just left the government (which coincidentally happened just after episode 1 was screened) and likable if bland Henry Collingridge (David Lyon) has won the coveted Prime Minister job. Waiting in the wings is Chief Whip (the person who informs all the MP's of the party's policy and what vote they should cast on key issues) Francis Urquhart (Ian Richardson). Though Urquhart seems old-fashioned and mild-mannered, like Iago he follows his master to serve his turn upon him. But Urquhart holds all the cards, knowing everything and everyone. He plots his ascent to the Prime Minister.

Although it looks a bit stuffy and dated, this is thrilling stuff. The two-facedness of politics rings true today, as does the scandal (for example, one MP claims expenses for his coke habit). As others have noted, it has a Shakespearean tone to it. Urquhart is a modern day Richard III.

The parallel is reflected in the affair Urquhart embarks on with ambitious young journalist/modern-day Lady Anne Mattie Storin (Susannah Harker, immediately recognisable to Pride and Prejudice fans as Jane Bennett). Mattie yearns to know what's going on behind closed doors and Urquhart realises that it would be handy to have a journalist on board. They begin a partnership that soon turns into...well, a partnership. The audience collectively gasp in horror at Mattie's fetish for him (as with Richard III, Urquhart is relatively unbothered by her- though even he is shocked at Mattie's overt Electra complex).

Mattie may seem terribly weak to modern viewers as she repeatedly fails to see Urquhart's involvement in the scandals but she is blinded by her love of power. Urquhart fulfils both her fetish and desire for power. Also, as an intelligent man who would probably do a good job of ruling the country if he wasn't such a snake-in-the-grass, Mattie sees him as the last bit of hope for the government. It's a tough role but Harker bravely takes it on, showing Mattie as both strong and naive. Such complexities are what make interesting female characters.

Of course as the actor with the plum role, Richardson is the star. He craftily does Shakespearean asides to the audience, which draws us into his scheming. Without these little winks, it just becomes the tale of a very unpleasant man. Richardson brings out the seductive appeal of Urquhart; an unlikely seductive figure as he looks about sixty and how we expect 'old boy' politicians to look. What is perversely seductive about Urquhart is his amorality and his power. Mattie is a necessary character because she serves to emphasise the aphrodisiacal nature of power. Though the male characters don't see it quite as an aphrodisiac, they let their guard down around it.

I have not watched the U.S House of Cards yet but the original is the perfect length: four sixty-minute episodes. It's long enough for us to get a taste of Urquhart's evil without having to explain anything. Of course, with any show that relies upon evil plotting, suspension of disbelief is required. Richardson's ability to play Urquhart as 'normal' with an insidious desire for evil makes him more plausible than playing Urquhart as being Mr Lovely to the outside world and Mr Villain to the audience. We can believe such vile people exist in the government, confirming our distrust of politics.

Where I worry about the U.S version is in its length. The longer you show us an evil figure, the more you have to explain things. We can enjoy four hours of someone being vile and despicable but to spend thirteen hours in their company, there's going to need to be a reason why they're like this. As soon as you start getting into character background, you remove the mystery- hence why at the end of Othello, Shakesspeare chooses to have Iago refuse to say another word (and keep to his promise) once he is confronted about his crimes.

House of Cards is a pacy political thriller that feels like a sneaky backstage look into parliament and its workings. There's enough politics for it to be believable but not so much that it overwhelms the viewer. Mainly this is a tale of power and why people are so enthralled by it.

This is no doubt one of the best TV drama serials I've ever seen. I got it on DVD and it was so well-done that I saw the first installment (House of Cards) during one night, and the following two installments (To Play the King and The Final Cut) the following two nights. I just could not stop watching it until it was finished. It is very suspenseful, in addition to being intelligent, revealing, and I must say quite cynical. It is based on the book of the same title by Michael Dobbs, who has been a political insider and was at one point Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party. He clearly knows the kinds of things that can happen in the highest echelons of power.

If one is to choose the single best thing in the serial, it is no doubt the performance by Ian Richardson. He is a highly capable and versatile actor and this may well be his best performance. It is really priceless to hear him saying "You might very well say that, I couldn't possibly comment" throughout the series. All the other actors are excellent, the screenplay is of the highest quality, and the whole production is exceptional.

One night I happened to be channel surfing looking for the next sci-fi, action, horror thriller when I happened upon PBS's broadcast of the BBC's "House of Cards." I put down the remote for a good 4 hours because what I was experiencing was something truly special. "House of Cards", of course, does not have aliens or chainsaw wielding maniacs. "HOC"'s monster is instead someone frightfully believable. Thanks to Ian Richardson's amazing performance, one can believe such a monster exists and can become PM or President. I won't beat the Shakespeare comparison horse (other users have done so and you can read their comments) but Mrs. Urquhart could easily hold her own in a series focused solely on her. Indeed, all of the characters are well-written and not dumbed-down to the viewer. If only American TV had the guts to produce something like "House of Cards" and let it end instead of dragging it on forever like the American version of "Queer as Folk." That aside, Dobbs and Davis have written a nice tidy political thriller which made me hunt down the DVD years after I saw the TV showing and made me recommend the trilogy to all my friends. I say give "House of Cards" and the sequels a try. Your remote and your intellect will thank you for it.

"House of Cards" is an entertaining and frightening tale. Ian Richardson, playing the intelligent and ruthless Francis Urquhart, immediately draws the viewer into the tale with his wry comments to the camera, discreet confidences just between the two of you, and compels you to accompany him as the tale moves from an amusing political fantasy to something altogether darker.

The writing and acting is spot on (I must give kudos to Susannah Harker whose fine performance as Mattie Storin has, I think, been overlooked by many viewers), and the pace of the show doesn't slow until the final, shocking end.

I am constantly recommending "House of Cards" to friends, to the point of hosting viewing parties at my place every few months, and I'm not tired of watching it, yet! :) I find that anyone who enjoys such pieces as "I, Claudius" or any other involuted, political drama, will enjoy "House of Cards".

I'm a sucker for both British television and political thrillers in general. So having heard much about this miniseries, the first of a trilogy of miniseries's, I have been looking forward to seeing this for some time. Having seen it, I found that my expectations have not only been reached but surpassed as well. House Of Cards is one of the finest examples of the political thriller that you are likely to see anywhere.

If there is any single element that makes this miniseries as much of a success as it is, it is lead character, Francis Urquhart as played by actor Ian Richardson. Richardson plays Urquhart as a modern day (modern day being an alternate version of late 1980's or early 1990's UK) version of Shakespeare's Richard III. Urquhart is a man who,as the Chief Whip who feels unappreciated by the Prime Minister he helped to elect, sets out to bring down the Prime Minister, and then take the job of for himself. Like Richard III, Urquhart does this by laying out traps, rumors and blackmail while all the while delivering soliloquies to the audience relaying them to us the viewer. For all intents and purposes, Urquhart is a man we should hate as he does all of those things. Yet it is Richardson makes this work incredibly well and makes Urquhart a man who is ruthless yet immensely charming and likable nonetheless. It is a compliment to Richardson and his skills that he can make it all work, especially the soliloquies, while being evil yet charming all at the same time.

Backing Richardson is a fine supporting cast as well. There's Diane Fletcher as Urquhart's wife who, like Lady Macbeth, pushed her husband and his plans along which makes her a character that is almost as fascinating as her husband. There's Susannah Harker as the young, attractive reporter Mattie Storin who begins using Urquhart as a source before they start going in a dangerous direction which leads to an incredible finale. There's Miles Anderson as Roger O'Neill and Alphonsia Emmanuel as his girlfriend Penny Guy who both end up snared by Urquhart's traps and end up victims of that. There's Colin Jeavons as Urquhart's protégé Tim Stamper who has a marvelously sleazy feel to him. Last but not least there's David Lyon as the targeted Prime Minister Henry Collingridge and James Villiers as his brother Charles, who end's up being part of Urquhart's plans. Theses are only a few of those amongst others in what is a fine cast backing a great leading man.

House Of Cards is also blessed with fine production values as well. There's some fine production design by Ken Ledsham who creates the worlds ranging from the Houses of Parliament, 10 Downing Street, press rooms and beyond. There's the cinematography of Jim Fyans and Ian Punter which brings a fine sense of atmosphere and shadows to the world of the miniseries. There's also the music by Jim Parker, especially with the main title and end title pieces which serve as a perfect start and closing to the four episodes of the miniseries. All of this, under the direction of Paul Seed, makes for some fine production values to the miniseries.

Last but not least is the script. Andrew Davies adapts Michael Dobbs novel into a fine political thriller about the effect of power on one man and how far he will go to gain power. There is a definite Richard III vibe running throughout the entire miniseries as Urquhart decides to seize power and begins to lay plans to do so. As a consequence, the plot can get fairly complex at time with Urquhart playing numerous plans at once which will require the viewer to pay just a bit more then perhaps they usually would. Also, Davies knows how to write fine dialogue especially for Urquhart including the famous line "You may think that, but I couldn't possibly comment." The script never fails to deliver right up to the shocking finale.

House Of Cards is a fine example of what the political thriller can be. From the performance of Ian Richardson as Urquhart, the performances of the supporting cast, good production values and a fantastic script as well. It is a complex story with a complex protagonist that takes a look at power and its ability to corrupt and how far one will go to achieve it and is a fine one at that.

This is without any doubt the best political thriller I have so far seen. Not only does everything seem so chillingly possible, I also think the actors are great, especially Ian Richardson. What I liked best was the end - it is different than the ending in Michael Dobbs' book. One should of course despise Francis Urquart, but his charm makes that very difficult. House of Cards is a must!

I found the series at Best Buy (House of Cards, To Play the King and The Final Cut) all packaged together. I was really excited, because I think this is one of the best to come from the BBC. Ian Richardson was superb. Wicked and cunning. I watched the first installment the other night and was glued to my chair for 4 hours. I highly recommend this series.

"The House of Cards", based on a novel by Michael Dobbs, is a television series that is based upon one character's use, abuse and manipulation of the political system to achieve his own political goals.

Ian Richardson's performance as the malevolent Francis Urquaht is outstanding and the standards of acting in this series are upheld by Susannah Harker and Diane Fletcher.

This series of political intrigue and deception is an excellent one and I wouldn't recommend missing an episode.

I somehow missed this series on its first BBC broadcast well over 20 years ago but went looking for it after seeing the recent David Fincher / Kevin Spacey Americanised remake, which I had much enjoyed.

Looked at today, I'd have to say I prefer the remake. In my opinion, the poisonous mix of sex, politics and power plays better against the backdrop of the more open and ruthless brand of politics across the water than staid old Britain. Unlike Spacey, Ian Richardson as the reptilian villain of the piece exudes no sex-appeal whatsoever, so that you get no sense of a physical attraction between him and the young female investigative reporter (Susanne Harker), indeed there are almost no bedroom scenes of the couple to hammer home this point.

I also found the plot-lines just too fanciful and unbelievable, Richardson's Francis Urquhart character's stop-at-nothing persona taking the cliché of the utterly selfish and self-deluding politician's ambition a bit too far. Yes, there are identifiable types in the background characters, but that's all they are, ciphers more than characters. As a for instance, the American series builds up the background character of Urquhart's wife more effectively than here, while complicit in her husband's rise up the ranks, she too is a shadowy, unsubstantial figure, another wasted opportunity. The only person we're interested in is Urquhart and besides himself the only people he appears interested in are we the viewer, as he breaks the fourth wall and speaks out directly to his untouchable audience. This first series ends up with a bang, literally, but shockingly spectacular as it is, it's too fantastical and doesn't ring true, like lots of other plot-lines in the show.

The acting is very good, despite my observations above, Richardson obviously relishing every line, especially the now familiar tag-line "...I couldn't possibly comment". This was still however racy, entertaining viewing although even knowing it was written by a Westminster insider, I never got the sense that I was close to the realms of truth, but once that point is conceded, this parliamentary pantomime is fun to watch.

This film is excellent (10+ stars).

The characters are well cast. All the acting is excellent (there is not a bad actor in it, all are good). The directing, and especially script writing is well done (excellent).

The film drags you in so that at the end of the hour of each episode you would crawl naked across poison ivy just to watch the next episode. Although at first it may seem unusual that he talks to you; you will soon grow to love it!

With a devious wife, a brilliant affair and a whole crew of supporting actors this movie deserves awards!

At first I feared the 1990 production quality was going to taint my appreciation of the original House of Cards. However, it soon became clear that this was not the real issue. Ian Richardson's performance was strong, but the frequency of the broken fourth wall was like being beaten over the head. The reliance on this technique to advance the narrative felt like a needlessly "quick and dirty" method of telling a story that could have been done so much more organically. The secondary characters were entirely one dimensional and predictable. The actor who portrayed Stamper was so unbelievably terrible that his performance was almost a parody of itself. It all left me yearning to rewatch Beau Willimon's vastly superior rendition of the story.

That is one of the many great quotes from this film. Ian Richardson plays the character of Francis Urquhart for all it's worth, and the rest of the supporting cast is quite stellar. Paul Seed does a competent job of the direction, and has a good talent for photographing faces.

The way the Francis frequently comments (breaking the 3rd wall so to speak) encourages viewer participation, and I found myself agreeing with him, or even yelling at him during the course of the film.

If it ever comes on television, do yourself a favor and watch this one. It is long (clocks in at about 4 hours, 1 hour per episode), but it's certainly worth your while. I'm eagerly looking forward to the next part in the series, "To Play the King", which I've heard is just as good.

Daniel Baker has mentioned echoes of Macbeth in HOC. One of the many clever things about it and its two sequels was the liberal use of quotations from Shakespeare and other dramatists of the period (I think I caught some from Middleton's "The Changeling").

After all, this really is Jacobean drama set in the 1990s!

Heard nothing but great things about 'House of Cards', and 'To Play the King' and 'The Final Cut', and saw it to see how it compared with the US version of the same name. That show was brilliant for most of its run, but its final season saw one of the most severe declines in television in recent years. The UK version's crew in front of the camera and behind the scenes had talent that was immense.

Will always hold the US version in very high regard, or at least for the first four seasons, but to me this is superior and more consistent in quality. 'House of Cards' is superlative viewing, seeing British talent at its best, and some of the best television of the 90s. While there has been the odd gem here and there in recent years, like the period dramas and David Attenborough's nature documentaries, there has been very little on this level of brilliance. Whether it's a good or faithful adaptation of the source material feels completely insignificant, deviations are numerous and some are major but the spirit and attention to character and mood detail are present.

Visually, 'House of Cards' looks wonderful and full of elegance and atmosphere in the design and class and style in the way it's filmed. It's also beautifully scored by Jim Parker, and the direction lets the atmosphere and drama breathe but still never undermines the momentum.

Andrew Davies also deserves a lot of the credit. The script has dry cynicism, sharp wit, dark bite and class, with some deservedly iconic lines that have since become part of popular culture. The nation's mood is brilliantly captured and the political elements are handled so truthfully and don't feel shoe-horned (it's actually essential here) or heavy-handed. The storytelling is ceaselessly compelling throughout the whole four one hour episode duration, hooking one in and never letting go despite not being a series that deliberately and wisely doesn't move "fast". The ending stays with you for how it effectively shocks.

Pitch perfect casting also plays a large part. Cannot add to the vast amount of magnificent adjectives summing up the role of a lifetime acting of Ian Richardson. Have always liked him, but this is his most famous role for a reason, he has never been better and it is hard to see anybody come to his level. It is very easy to overlook the rest of the cast and say they're in the shadow, they may not dominate like Richardson does but they are just as good.

Susanna Harker has an affecting charm and Diane Fletcher also impresses in a role that sees a side of her that one wouldn't associate with her. Miles Anderson's acting here is some of his best too, he's never had a meatier character since.

Overall, really brilliant. 10/10 Bethany Cox

More than 20 years after its release, House of Cards still manages to thrust a steely rapier under the viewer's skin, its view of the hostile British political maneuverings of Urquhart and his kind both riveting and shocking. By the end of four hours, Francis Urquhart had ruined several lives, brought down a prime minister and murdered two people. He then proceeded to take out a reigning monarch. Ian Richardson's performance, as Parliamentary Chief Whip Francis Urquhart, is delightful: he IS F.U. Anybody else can only pale by comparison (sorry Kevin!). Urquhart played by Ian is ruthless and immoral, but also a very capable executive, who is right about some important policy questions while his well-meaning rivals and victims are wrong.

Do yourself a favor and WATCH the original before watching the American version.

The UK "House Of Cards" trilogy starring the late Ian Richardson appears to be the basis for the more recent "House Of Cards" (2013 Netflix) USA TV dramatic series starring Kevin Spacey.

The "new" "House Of Cards" (2013 NetFlix) is based on a UK mini-series done in the 1990's, starring Ian Richardson.

The USA version is set in Washington DC with American characters, and centering on high level USA politicians.

The UK show depicted infighting and back-stabbing on the parts of high level politicians trying to get even higher, or trying to keep high places already achieved.

The world of behind the scenes politics is nasty at times, and the variety of ways nastiness can happen is what "House Of Cards" (both UK and USA versions) seems to be about.

The unsettled, unpleasant, and unstable world of high level politics is not new to the world of movies and dramatic TV shows, and "House Of Cards" (2013) appears to be a recent addition to a long tradition (going back to Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" play and before) well known to the history of dramatic presentations.

That the show will be tawdry and unpleasant seems likely.

High level politicians, in addition to being powerful and dramatic, are often well educated, cultured, interesting people with varied interests and interesting personalities.

The "House Of Cards" (2013 Netflix) show could be better than the UK show if it depicted some of this along with the same old, same old back stabbing, careerism portraits of egotism amongst the rich, famous, and powerful.

Whether it will be (though it could be) charming, intelligent, informed, even erudite remains to be seen.

The addition of these qualities would be welcomed, if unexpected.

----------------------

Written by Tex Allen, SAG-AFTRA movie/ TV dramatic actor.

Email Tex at TexAllen@Rocketmail.Com

The public, be it in the United States, Europe or Britain, often see their political figures at press conferences or in front of large crowds offering endless platitudes through endless speeches. Occasionally, the public sees the interesting discourse which occurs during the Prime Ministers Questions in the British Parliament or the speeches made on the floor of the House or Senate in the United States. What the public doesn't see is the internal relationships between many of the key players, and how either great achievements or small missteps can either make or break promising careers. But most of all, we the public almost never hear the internal thoughts of political operatives.

The BBC's "House of Cards" gives us something we probably will never be able to enjoy in real life: the actual thoughts of someone working within the most powerful circles in politics. Ian Richardson plays Francis Urquhart, the Whip of the British Conservative Party who has taken hold of Parliament and the seat of the Prime Minister after Margaret Thatcher. In politics, "the Whip" is typically an informal position in party politics designed to keep other party members in bounds. He is there for counsel but also for discipline. From the very first, Urquhart speaks directly to us, an unseen constituency who has been privileged to hear what a leading politician really thinks about his fellow colleagues and even his thoughts about the system itself. While outwardly, Urquhart supports all the members of his party, inwardly he tells us his thoughts about all the contenders to leadership, including how he views the present Prime Minister Henry Collingridge.

Urquhart desires to influence the highest levels of his political party but seems uninterested in attaining the position of Prime Minister. As the Whip of his party, he must not only keep all elected party members in line but enact damage control if any member involves him or herself in behavior which could escalate into a scandal. To help, he allies himself with a young but precocious journalist, Mattie Storin, played brilliantly by Susannah Harker. The party Whip and the journalist form a strange but trust-worthy bond, a relationship almost like an uncle and niece. Urquhart believes by trusting someone in the press, he can at least have some influence on how the press handles the inner-workings and dealings in Parliament, be they success or failures.

Most of the series involves the many behind-the-scenes shenanigans the public rarely sees, let alone knows about. While politicians always present a facade of cool confidence and determination, we see the men behind the curtains. Their weaknesses, doubts, and hypocrisies are laid bare as if we, the audience, have been allowed to sneak inside the corridors of power. For example, a party member is caught using party funds for a cocaine habit. The Whip decides to use political black-mail to acquire his full political support. In exchange he expunges his financial record but threatens exposure if the member/addict ever breaks out of line. Things begin to heat up when the journalist learns that private research reveals the Conversative Party is in trouble with the public and must decide if there will be an internal coup d'etat.

A thoroughly compelling, excellently acted series which paved the way for the West Wing almost 10 years later. However, unlike "the West Wing", the main players are revealed as being all-too human. The Prime Minister has his doubts in the face of dwindling public support which is fueled by the exposure of a scandal. And the Whip begins to realize, partly with the help of the young journalist, that he may be underrating his own leadership qualities.

If there is anything we can glean from "House of Cards", it is as the title suggests. Politics is a house of cards, a game of subtlety, delicacy and intense strategy. Players must make their moves slowly, with precision and deftness. Well-thought-out moves can not only help the party but help the country. Hasty and ill-conceived moves can hurt party reputation and lead to losing elections. At any moment, if not played right, the cards will topple.