--- title: "House of Cards" year: 1990 kind: "series" canonical: "https://film.one/tv/house-of-cards" fi1m_id: "house-of-cards" imdb_id: "tt0098825" tmdb_id: 21720 wikidata_id: "Q1055984" fi1m_score: 84 critics_score: 85 critics_reviews: 4 published: "2026-09-13" updated: "2026-09-20T21:07:56.046338+00:00" region: "KR" licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # House of Cards (1990) Created by Andrew Davies · 55m · War & Politics, Comedy, Drama ## Identity House of Cards - **Canonical:** https://film.one/tv/house-of-cards - **Type:** Series - **Fi1m ID:** house-of-cards - **IMDb ID:** tt0098825 - **TMDB ID:** 21720 - **Wikidata ID:** Q1055984 - **Same entity:** https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098825/, https://www.themoviedb.org/tv/21720, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1055984 **Fi1m score: 84** · Critics 85 (early) from 4 reviews *In a sentence:* Ian Richardson makes political corruption sound like a minor breach of table manners > Ian Richardson makes this sharply written political thriller a disreputable pleasure. The supporting characters need more life of their own, but the scheming is brisk, funny and worth the time it asks of us. ## Synopsis Public office, private ambition and the usefulness of other people occupy Francis Urquhart (Ian Richardson), a chief whip looking for promotion. *House of Cards* follows his manoeuvring in Westminster, where getting ahead involves calculations about who can help and who stands in the way. Susannah Harker plays Mattie Storin, Miles Anderson plays Roger O’Neill and Diane Fletcher plays Elizabeth Urquhart. Directed by Paul Seed, this four-part adaptation of Michael Dobbs’s novel combines a political thriller with comedy, concentrating on Urquhart’s efforts to advance his own position. ## Review *House of Cards* is a sharply entertaining political thriller with one considerable advantage: Ian Richardson makes its chief schemer worth watching even when everyone else needs more to do. Paul Seed directs the four-part series with a welcome appetite for the unpleasantness of Francis Urquhart, a chief whip impatient for promotion. The humour depends on our enjoying a man we would have good reason to distrust. Richardson makes that bargain easy to accept, which is where some of the discomfort comes from. Richardson’s delivery is arch, but he avoids making every line sound like an invitation to applaud. His Urquhart seems certain that he has understood the people around him before they have finished understanding themselves. We laughed at the way he makes contempt sound courteous, then felt grubby for enjoying it. That reaction matters: the performance keeps the scheming entertaining without asking us to mistake Urquhart for a decent man. Andrew Davies’s script gives him plenty to work with. Adapted from Michael Dobbs’s novel, it takes evident pleasure in political calculation and in the language used to make ambition sound respectable. Seed treats the material as melodrama and allows it to be theatrical without letting the humour cancel the threat. The plotting is devious enough to hold our attention, though the sharpest writing is concentrated so heavily on Urquhart that the imbalance eventually begins to show. Jim Fyans and Ian Punter’s cinematography feels appropriately formal around Richardson, whose performance would not benefit from a camera trying to be equally knowing. Ken Ledsham’s production design gives the pursuit of office a persuasive air of entitlement. These are useful choices for a story about people who regard proximity to power as their natural condition. The surroundings support the performances without demanding that we admire them separately. Howard Billingham’s editing is particularly valuable in keeping the plotting clear. There is pleasure in following the manoeuvres, and the cutting does not confuse complication with excitement. Jim Parker’s music is more insistent about the drama’s wickedness than we always need it to be. Richardson already supplies so much amusement and menace that the extra encouragement can feel unnecessary, though it is a small complaint in a series that generally knows how to maintain its pace. The supporting characters are the more substantial limitation. Susannah Harker’s Mattie Storin and Miles Anderson’s Roger O’Neill have to hold our attention beside a central role that gets most of the wit and psychological interest. Davies does not give the surrounding people enough independent life, and their usefulness to Urquhart can become too apparent. A thriller benefits from characters whose desires seem to continue beyond the immediate plot; here, we too often find ourselves waiting for Richardson to return. As political melodrama, this asks us to accept a concentrated dose of calculation and vanity. Anyone after a broad account of how government works should adjust their expectations before settling in. Four episodes is a sensible commitment for this much enjoyable bad behaviour, even with the thinner roles. Choose it when the prospect of a well-spoken scoundrel sounds like better company than someone admirable. *Fi1m score 84, published 13 September 2026.* ## Straight answers **Is House of Cards worth watching?** *House of Cards* is worth watching for anyone who enjoys a well-spoken scoundrel, and we scored it 84. Ian Richardson makes Francis Urquhart's scheming brisk, funny and quietly menacing across four episodes. The supporting characters are thinner than they should be, and viewers wanting a broad account of how government works should look elsewhere. **How long is House of Cards, and what is it rated?** *House of Cards* has episodes of about 55m. It is a war & politics and comedy series. **Where can I watch House of Cards in South Korea?** *House of Cards* is not on any streaming or rental service in South Korea at the moment. It is available in 5 other countries; change your country at the top of the page to see where. Availability is checked daily. **How violent or frightening is House of Cards, and is it suitable for children?** *House of Cards* carries a UK 15 certificate, which rules it out for children and younger teenagers. Its unpleasantness lies in political corruption, contempt and manipulation rather than in anything frightening or graphic, so the squeamish have little to fear. Older teenagers with a taste for adult drama will follow it without difficulty. **How does House of Cards compare to The Thick of It?** *House of Cards* is the more controlled of the two, built around one man's calm, courteous scheming, while [*The Thick of It*](https://film.one/tv/the-thick-of-it) is louder, more frantic and far ruder. The earlier series depends almost entirely on Ian Richardson; the later one spreads its wit across an ensemble. Choose Richardson for menace and formality, Capaldi for chaos and abuse. **Is House of Cards based on a true story or a book?** *House of Cards* is based on Michael Dobbs's novel of the same name, not on a true story. Andrew Davies adapted it for the four-part series directed by Paul Seed, with evident pleasure in political calculation and the language that makes ambition sound respectable. You do not need to have read the book to enjoy Richardson's performance. **What should I watch after House of Cards?** After *House of Cards*, try [*The Thick of It*](https://film.one/tv/the-thick-of-it) (2005, Fi1m 94): Political vanity gets a louder, more frantic examination, with less reliable manners. Then [*Z*](https://film.one/film/z) (1969, Fi1m 84): For political corruption treated with greater urgency and considerably less amused detachment; and [*The Servant*](https://film.one/film/the-servant) (1963, Fi1m 89): A quieter contest of power, where manners provide little assurance of good intentions. ### Reviews we read (4) - **The Guardian** (90/100, inferred): The 1990 four-part BBC series adapted by Andrew Davies from Michael Dobbs's novel is described as a fabulous hybrid of political satire and human drama. It is praised for being gleefully astute and magisterially arch, revelling in theatrical duplicity distilled in the memorable catchphrase, with serpentine machinations that felt indulgently native to Westminster. [Read](https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2014/feb/15/house-cards-babylon-line-duty-review) - **Radio Times**, David Brown (8.5/10): The critic praises this 1990 depiction of Westminster machinations at their most devious, centered on the promotion-hungry chief whip Francis Urquhart. The British original remains the most devilishly compelling version compared to the later US remake. [Read](https://www.radiotimes.com/programme/b-7di46h/house-of-cards/) - **The Telegraph**, Daisy Bowie-Sell (85/100, inferred): The original British TV series is back-stabbingly glorious. It follows the ruthless machinations of Chief Whip Francis Urquhart with seductive, ruthless cool in a sordid portrait of Westminster politics. [Read](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/dvd-reviews/9979622/House-of-Cards-Trilogy.html) - **The Times**, Sheridan Morley (80/100, inferred): The critic finds the series a timely and entertaining political thriller, with Ian Richardson delivering a silky, arch performance as the scheming Francis Urquhart that elevates the material. Davies' script is praised for its witty, devious plotting and Jacobean melodrama style, though supporting characters are seen as underdeveloped. [Read](https://www.thetimes.com/article/are-they-taking-the-michael-xrjsgbgnn) ## Details - **Created by:** Andrew Davies - **Creator:** Andrew Davies - **Director:** Paul Seed - **Writer:** Michael Dobbs, Andrew Davies - **Novel:** Michael Dobbs - **Cinematography:** Ian Punter, Jim Fyans - **Editor:** Howard Billingham - **Music:** Jim Parker - **Production design:** Ken Ledsham - **Costume design:** Rosalind Ebbutt - **Producer:** Ken Riddington - **Cast:** Ian Richardson as Francis Urquhart; Susannah Harker as Mattie Storin; Miles Anderson as Roger O'Neill; Alphonsia Emmanuel as Penny Guy; Malcolm Tierney as Patrick Woolton; Diane Fletcher as Elizabeth Urquhart; William Chubb as John Krajewski; David Lyon as Henry Collingridge - **Runtime:** 55m - **Release (South Korea):** 18 November 1990 - **Genres:** War & Politics, Comedy, Drama ## Where to watch in South Korea Not streaming, renting or buying in South Korea at the last check. Also available in: AT, CA, GB, IE, US. Add `?region=XX` to this URL for another country. ## Awards - Peabody Awards 1996: Peabody Awards (won) - BAFTA Television Awards 1991: Best Actress (nominated); Best Drama Series (nominated); Best Actor (won) ## If you liked this - *The Thick of It* (2005), Fi1m 94: Political vanity gets a louder, more frantic examination, with less reliable manners. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/tv/the-thick-of-it.md) - *Z* (1969), Fi1m 84: For political corruption treated with greater urgency and considerably less amused detachment. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/z.md) - *The Servant* (1963), Fi1m 89: A quieter contest of power, where manners provide little assurance of good intentions. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/the-servant.md) - *Borgen* (2010), Fi1m 84: For a broader political drama that allows ambition some respectable company. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/tv/borgen.md) - *The Death of Stalin* (2017), Fi1m 83: The scramble for power becomes even uglier, and the comedy more alarming. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/the-death-of-stalin.md) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Canonical: https://film.one/tv/house-of-cards