King Charles III (TV Movie 2017) Poster

(2017 TV Movie)

User Reviews

Review this title
56 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Wonderful acting but a deeply flawed concept.
RichardvonLust14 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
The day has finally arrived. Charles is at last king and without the restrictions of his mother. Almost immediately he finds himself at odds with his prime minister and refuses assent to a bill passed by Parliament.

In typical Shakespearean style Charles then finds himself tangled in political intrigue and family betrayal. The politicians seek his abdication. William is portrayed as a rather weak character entirely under the ambitious thumb of his ruthless wife who lusts for power. Harry seems more obsessed with finding love somewhere in an East End council flat than the duties of his birth whilst Camilla does her best to keep everything together.

So far so good. All the characters are entirely believable and extremely well cast although perhaps Prince Harry is somewhat better looking than his stage counterpart.

But sadly there is major flaw in the script. The bill in question would restrict press freedom and the plot suggests that public outrage at the King's refusal to allow this is sufficient to cause 'bloodletting' in a virtual civil war. Such is more than unlikely. Moreover both William and Harry turn against their father as the crown is wrestled from him by force with their support. Such is even more absurd. Eventually Charles accepts the betrayal and crowns his own son with bitter sentiment. Never can one imagine that the ancient rites of kingship would be so trampled simply because the king would protect free speech. And were that to transpire I am certain that Charles would invoke the Plantagenate curse that saw the Tudor usurpers extinct in three generations after their treachery at Bosworth. Now that would have been a far better ending as Charles crowns the son that stole his throne. What a pity the writer did not compose with greater imagination and less absurdity.
32 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
To play the king
Prismark105 June 2017
King Charles III is a fictional drama with cod Shakespearean type language as it is spoken in blank verse which sees Prince Charles finally becoming monarch after the death of the present queen.

Almost immediately the new king causes a constitutional crisis by falling out with the elected Prime Minister over the issues of giving assent to a new law regarding press privacy.

King Charles's action brings chaos to the country and causes division within his own family with a grasping Kate seeing this as an opportunity for her husband William to seize the crown.

This was one of Tim Pigott-Smith's last performance who reprises his stage role of King Charles III, a man who finally gets to play the role he was born to play but whose ambition exceeds his constitutional grasp.

This was a finely performed film, however I would have thought in this crisis the press would be overwhelmingly on the side of the new King as he defends the freedom of the press.

The big issue I had though that the plot was similar in many ways to the BBC series, To Play the King (the second part of the BBC's House of Cards trilogy) which also had a Princess Diana type character vying to wrest the crown from her then errant husband and pass it on to her son. Here we see the ghost of Diana and Kate taking on the substance of the character who is an opportunist.
12 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Finally-a return to form for the BBC
Adams590510 May 2017
A bit of a curate's egg, this one… Some wonderful acting from an especially well selected cast, who had all obviously studied their respective characters carefully, as was evidenced by some particularly effective body language and posture, and, in some cases even looked rather uncannily like their personas-particularly worthy of mention were the wonderful late Tim Pigott-Smith (who will be sadly missed), in the eponymous lead, and, in a much lesser role, Margot Leicester as Camilla. I felt Charlotte Riley (Kate) was rather over-egging the pudding at times, presumably to illustrate her overarching ambition, but Richard Goulding, as Harry, was simply wonderful, and eerily familiar… I shall gloss over the plot, as it's difficult to criticize without giving too much away, but, although somewhat 'dumbed-down', as is today's fashion, it was probably the most cerebrally challenging new drama I've seen in quite some time-lots of food for thought, and 'what if's?'… Well filmed, although this wasn't really too difficult, as most of the shots were interior, and beautifully dressed, this was a good return to form for the beleaguered BBC, which begs the question-why bury it in the midweek schedule, on BBC2?..

I do have some criticisms, however-my perennial complaint about diction and vocabulary (with the exception of TP-S), a few foolish throw-away lines (the Duchess of Cornwall telling the Duchess of Cambridge that 'we don't have a constitution'-well, actually, we do, it's just not a written constitution), and some procedural errors: although Charles would be referred to 'His Majesty' by courtesy immediately upon the death of his mother, his son would need to be invested as the Prince of Wales, and would not, therefore, refer to himself as such until then, nor would he be addressed as 'His Royal Highness' until after his father had been crowned (you can see why they were simply credited as 'Charles' and 'William')-I thought the inclusion of a ghost was juvenile and preposterous-a silly device to allow the author (Mike Bartlett) to hammer home the characters' thoughts- but these are mere semantics… On the whole, it was a well thought-out and well written piece-perhaps a little clumsy and obvious in places, but most enjoyable nonetheless… If you missed it, I should recommend catching-up as soon as possible-don't be put off by the fact that it's written in blank verse-Shakespeare it ain't, believe me, and the rather peculiar mix of flowery prose and C21 slang is initially rather grating on the ear, but as the play progresses, you soon learn to ignore it. Enjoy it as it is, if only as this was T P-S's last performance…

Oh, and I thought Tamara Lawrance was simply delicious
25 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Decent acting in...
BooBoo5162 April 2020
A terribly flawed film. As a Shakespearean style tragedy, it's an interesting premise, but as "what if" history it surely falls flat. The writer (Mike Bartlett) needed to do his research (much better than he did). I can't believe this is what the BBC has become. I think they've lost their minds if they think they can keep distributing messes like this one.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A new dawn, a new king
As people mourn the death of the queen, Prince Charles prepares to become the king of the monarchy. All things good, we get the idea, but I feel like the movie emphasizes more the characters, than the action itself. Plus, it seems like the situation presented turns into a game with no end, but we already know how things may change. I mean, it's obvious that in a moment when things go wrong, the only solution for the man in power is to give up, right? I just think that the movie could have come up an impartial opinion on how things evolve after the tragic event and let the public decide what path, good or bad, the king may choose.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
MODERN DAY MACBETH. MUCH BETTER THAN MOST PEOPLE WOULD HAVE IT HERE
jmvscotland19 July 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Well, what can I do here apart from expressing my belief that an awful lot of reviewers appear to have missed the point somewhat.

I think that the current Prince Charles is a very fine and honest human being who will do a great job as monarch when HM the Q finally leaves this world. I hope that doesn't happen any time soon but, at her current age of 94, one has to suppose that her days might be numbered.

I liked this telemovie very, very much. I thought that Tim Pigott-Smith and Margot Leicester were especially good and very convincing as Charles and Camilla.

What, I wonder, is so hard for many reviewers to accept that a man of clear principle and good conscience such as Charles might refuse Royal Assent to a Bill that sought to limit the freedom of the press and, evidently, to make it a criminal offence for reporters to do what reporters do now without fear of being thrown into gaol.

Frankly, although refusal of Royal Assent does not evidently happen in practice, I would hope that a British monarch would refuse Assent to a Bill such as that briefly described here in this movie.

I also have great difficulty in accepting that such a Bill would in fact pass both houses of Parliament in the UK anyway. Freedom of the press is something that every thinking person should support despite some in the media's preparedness to abuse it. Freedom of the press is, after all, what separates civilized Government from left or right wing dictatorship.

I liked the use of Shakespearean style dialogue here and it is clear to me that "King Charles III" is in fact something of an update to Shakespeare's Macbeth. Clearly, Kate is the nasty piece of work in Lady Macbeth, Charles is King Duncan and William is Macbeth himself, a bit soft but motivated to dreadful acts by his wife.

All in all, I really rated this movie and I will watch it often. When he becomes King, I think the current Prince Charles may very well be the first British monarch to refuse Royal Assent, assuming that that has never before happened.
10 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
What the hell did I just watch?
LyonME21 May 2017
Where did this fantasy "reality" drama come from? It takes real living people and turns them into farcical characters with evil or untoward motivations. Yet, like a train wreck, I couldn't look away. I guess it's interesting to watch but I'm not sure why. We all have our opinions on the royal family and what we think makes them tick. It just seems a bit irresponsible to commit those notions to film, which has the unfortunate effect of being interpreted as having a basis in fact.
46 out of 76 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Don't mind the 'Shakespearian' language.
eatomson14 May 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Previous reviews have mentioned the odd 'iambic' Shakespearian language, suggesting that it might discourage people. I thought it was effective, in showing the distance between the Royals' lives and 'reality'. And if you listen, it makes sense even to those who 'doth daily go, back and forth, upon the Clapham omnibus', as the Prime Minister describes the regular people who have always backed the Royals. If it were spoken in normal 'posh' English, it would sound like some soap opera, 'Real Housewives of Windsor' perhaps. Or some show about the doings at a big family-run firm. My down-votes were for the dim lighting in too many scenes, and the depiction of Kate Middleton, which, I suppose in an effort to give her something to do, made her a scheming political creature.

I would like to see the playwright do Edward VII and Edward VIII. The first also waited most of his life to take the throne, and the second gave up his throne 'for the woman he loved'.
21 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Absolutely ludicrous.
rolandkavanagh7 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
If I could give this -10 I would.

CANNOT believe that the monarch who stands up against the government (who want to censor the freedom of the press) is made out to be the evil character.

I was expecting at every turn for this delusion to be corrected, that the populace would support the monarchy over the government, but no.

Typical BBC garbage propaganda. The biggest irony is that a BBC produced piece was in support of press censorship... Says it all.

The chap that played Charles III was a very good actor however and put in a good performance. So much so that I am still in shock that he was the "bad guy". Make sure you listen to his words closely, at least on that part, the script was somewhat decent. Again, so difficult to understand how or why we are supposed to be against him.

Also if you MUST watch it, then please do so illegally and don't pay a penny to the BBC for the privilege.
26 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A thought provoking story...
aldebaran6820 May 2018
Its astonishing the kind of battering this movie has taken from some critics. I watched it last night after the Royal Wedding (Harry & Meghan). I needed an antidote to a ceremony that had all the trappings of history and state yet seemed in other ways strangely...'other'. This movie certainly provided the antidote. I enjoyed it for its controversial view of a post Elizabeth II monarchical scenario. I think it scored well in several areas. It underlined the uncertainty arising after 70+ years of Elizabethan rule. That's 3 generations. Assuming Philip would have passed on before the Queen. Charles is shown as 'confused'. Quite probable. However much he prepares himself, the event when it happens will change everything... There is this question in many minds as to whether Charles will accept the kingship or pass it on to William asap. Then how will the political establishment react to the inevitable passing, esp. in view of a possibly stalling Brexit (not mentioned in the movie but there nonetheless). The relationship between Charles and the political establishment, and his sons, is esp. worth watching...

Tim Piggott-Smith does a very good job as Charles. I think William was also well drawn by the actor playing him. The interplay between William and Kate was fascinating. Is she really so driven? I was less impressed by the way Harry was drawn. Not the actor's fault...The script drew him as weak, muddled, somewhat rebellious and a bit 'out of it'. The Harry we know is gregarious, engaging, very active and dynamic, very much his own man and doing his own thing. But he is also very angry about everything re his late mother and how the Palace treated her. This hardly comes through at all. However, I agree with how the story portrays his relationship to the monarchy v the outside world. I watched this film online. I'll buy the DVD. Its worth it. It serves to remind people esp. in the UK, that there are ahead no more Royal weddings...only Royal funerals, for Philip then the Queen, within the next 5 yrs? This movie does us a service by helping to prepare people in the UK esp. and worldwide for that experience. When it happens, the world will change. However much anti-monarchists reject this, the British Monarchy is a Force, recognised and celebrated word-wide for 70+ years. When this happens, everything will change, somehow. I thank the producers for making this movie when they did. There are no spoilers in this review as far as I'm aware.
16 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Total Crap and not based on the rules and customs of the Monarchy.
sabrinamichaels123 May 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This was horrible, yet I couldn't turn it off. I just laughed and I did it often. It wasn't the blank prose that annoyed me. It was (Spoiler alert) the most ridiculous premise. The author didn't do any actual research on the monarchy. I'm an American and I know that the whole thing was crap. Kate wanting to rule was so ridiculous. She will be Queen consort not a co-ruler. The King entering the house of commons, ugh yeah no that is illegal. They never discussed his constitutional role and he has no real advisers. The PM speaks to him like a child. The list goes on and on. The actor who plays the King was great and I liked when he broke the fourth wall. I hated it when the Duchess did. Good actors, but the movie is horrible.
28 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The "Future History Play" Comes To The Screen
timdalton00715 May 2017
Warning: Spoilers
"What if?"

It is that question that lies at the heart of all storytelling. No matter the medium, no matter what the genre, it all comes back to that same basic question. King Charles III is no exception that rule. Indeed it is a prime example of it being a self-described "future history play" in the words of its writer Mike Bartlett. Adapted from his 2014 stage play for the BBC and shown here in the United States on PBS, the TV film adaptation is an interesting piece of work to say the least.

The basic premise is a simple one. After a lifetime of waiting to be crowned king, Charles finally takes the throne. His reign though is not to be a peaceful one as Bartlett imagines the crisis that breaks out when the new king finds himself caught in a moral quandary regarding a law he does not agree with that could damage the freedom of the press. Given recent events on both sides of the Pond, it's a story that has that eerie sense of being on the cusp of reality despite being something of an alternate history work. More than that, Bartlett takes in the notion of Shakespearean tragedy along the way as well with themes familiar with anyone who has ever experienced any of the plays dealing with English history.

Plus, it's given that extra added something by Bartlett's dialogue. Taking the themes of Shakespearean tragedy one step further, the dialogue is written and performed in blank verse. The result may be jarring for viewers not expecting it but no one ever drops a "thou" or speaks in too anachronistic a fashion that it becomes implausible. Indeed, once one's ear attunes to it, it makes for an interesting experience as Bartlett gives Charles soliloquies to speak and character's express their thoughts and passions in ways the viewer is not likely to expect. The result further reinforces the idea of a "future history play" in the Shakespeare tradition.

There's also some fine performances on display as well. The sadly late Tim Pigott-Smith in the title role dominates from the moment he gives his first soliloquy right through to the very last shot. Pigott-Smith plays Charles as a man born into duty finally given the chance to fulfill his perceived destiny only to be caught in a quandary that is part moral and part political. The past is never too far for Pigott- Smith's Charles, haunted figuratively and perhaps literally by the spectres of the two major women in his life and the question of what the role of a monarch is in today's world, something that the actor brings to life superbly. It is an extraordinary performance and one that stands as a fine tribute to the late actor.

The supporting cast is strong as well with many actors involved in various productions of the play playing roles. Oliver Chris and Richard Goulding play the Princes William and Harry who find themselves caught up in events and trying to find their own way as a result. There's Margot Leicester as Camilla and Adam James as the fictional Prime Minister both reprising their stage roles while the gender swapping of a role gives actress Nyasha Hatendi the chance to play Stevens, the head of the Opposition party in Parliament. The biggest surprise though comes from an actress not previously involved in any other production of the play: Charlotte Riley as Kate Middleton. Riley packs in a surprisingly powerful performance including a major monologue that draws parallels with one of the Bard's greatest female characters (a role that I find myself now wishing for Riley to play). The results as solid across the board.

Between Bartlett's script and the performances, King Charles III makes for a solid piece of drama. It also stands as a fine example of how to bring something from the stage that could be perceived as too highbrow and adapt into a new medium. It also stands as tribute to a fine actor who left one final, amazing performance behind. Or to put it another way: it is well worth a watch if you've got the ninety minutes to spare.
19 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
An American Viewpoint
bkzsmith15 May 2017
Warning: Spoilers
*May contain spoilers* I've read some Shakespeare, but this portrayal of a modern-day succession to the throne is a laughable conjured-up tragedy. The premise is way too heavy-handed. The Queen has died a natural death in her nineties, not had her head chopped off. Camilla informs clueless Kate that Charles doesn't have to wait to be king until the actual coronation? Why are William and Harry such joyless, tortured souls? I give it three stars instead of one because of the awesome requiem music. I'm not the typical American Diana-worshipper but her ghost scene was impressive. Apropos, as this is faux Shakespeare.
19 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A stunning Shakespearian take on the post Elizabeth II transfer of the Monarchy in an unsettled England.
lesleyswc18 August 2019
While it is shocking to see living people turned into characters that behave in unexpected ways, it is a pure and glorious tragedy that any Greek or Elizabethan playwright would recognize. Betrayal and unmasked ambitions abound. There is even a ghost!
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Can They Do That?
nungman3615 May 2017
This is a fictional story but using largely real, living people not even thinly disguised but under their real names. The time is the Day After Tomorrow, that is the very near future. My first reaction to seeing this is it is a blatant invasion of privacy and exploitation of their name and fame that would invite furious litigation in the USA. The portrayals of certain of the royals is quite defamatory, too.

On the other side, these are public figures and maybe under British law they have no expectation of privacy to defend. Or perhaps they all have given permission to BBC to portray them in any light it likes. The effect is startling here.

The musical score with its recurring bassoon motif is very similar to the music in the movie **Hamlet (2000)** starring Ethan Hawke as a modern day Prince of "the Denmark Corporation". Tribute or rip-off?
24 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown...
ianlouisiana16 May 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Behold the king.As yet uncrown'd;his beloved mother,a clever and subtle queen loved by her people recently dead. He is weak,vain,embittered ;a vaunting ambition to execute his own will even to the detriment of his people's. Two princes:one of serious mien with a wife keen for power.The other a jackanapes set on earthly pleasures before duty. As their father waits to assume the trappings of kinghood they plot to steal the throne. Bernard Levin wrote a clever poem comprised entirely of quotes from William Shakespeare. It was very popular.People understood it. Quite why there is an assumption on some writers' parts that the viewing public would not "get" a 21st century play written in part in blank verse I am not sure.I think these writers are underestimating the intelligence of the audience. I thought "King Charles the third" was rather elegantly done. We all know the Royals don't occupy the same planet as the rest of us. This play merely confirmed that. Monarchist or Republican,there is nothing in it to change your point of view. Just enjoy the magnificent Mr T.Piggot - Smith having a whale of a time and enunciating beautifully as the spoiled 70 -odd year old new king. He and Miss C.Riley use the speech patterns most successfully . The conscience of the king proves to be his downfall. Aided and abetted by the Prime minister and the Leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Charles would have been justified in saying " A pox on both your houses".
17 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Dreadful. If you were a fan of the monarchy, you might not be after watching this
thrall715 May 2017
I will open by saying that I'm not a fan of the monarchy, anywhere. It baffles me that taxpayers in the UK and elsewhere are willing to have billions of their funds wasted on a bunch of people who simply by an accident of birth get to live lavishly on the backs of the taxpayers, for almost no return. Maybe it's for tourism, who knows.

I also will say that I've been a big fan of Tim Piggott-Smith for many years, and was saddened by his recent death. It was his presence in this mess that got me to watch it in the first place.

The play is so self-consciously trying to ape Shakespeare that it's embarrassing. Much of the dialogue is stilted as a result of the writer trying so hard. The palace intrigue had potential but was badly handled. If you want great British political drama go watch the original "House of Cards."

I found the acting, aside from Piggott-Smith, to be poor. To be fair, the actors had to work with what they were given as a script.

Overall, it's a bad soap opera dressed up by pretensions to classic drama and the royalty. It simply didn't work for me.
33 out of 75 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Tim Pigott-Smith Should Get Knighthood At Least!
Sylviastel15 February 2019
The drama first appeared on stage in London, England and later on Broadway in New York City. It was overshadowed by other productions for the Tony Awards. I would have liked to have seen this production though. Tim Pigott-Smith should be awarded Knighthood and Prince Charles should be the officiant during the investiture ceremony at Buckingham Palace. Pigot-Smith's performance as Prince Charles is sympathetic, multi-layered and in-depth perhaps the best performance in his lifetime. Pigott-Smith does a terrific job in every scene as the long awaited heir to the British throne. Margot Leicester also does a terrific job as his second wife, Camilla, who supports her husband. Princes William and Harry don't fare well at all. This play has become Shakespearean with Kate as Lady Macbeth; William as Macbeth or one of King Lear's Goneril or Reagan and Harry the spare who wants love and life away from the palace. Charles is very much like King Lear here. Although only in 90 minutes, this film packs a true punch in the British psyche of the events surrounding the loss of the Queen and the monarchy. I know that the events are unlikely to enfold. Charles will be king even for a short time. When the time is right, it will be William and Kate's turn. As for the turmoil in Britain, brexit has a lot to do with it. The monarch's powers are limited and the prime minister only consults with the king or queen. The monarch are just figureheads. If only they could stop brexit, then they would show their true power.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Sounds more like Yoda than Shakespeare
Pretty much unwatchable. What a terrible waste of Tim Piggot-Smith's last role to be in this clunker. The fake Shakespearean dialog was apparently written by someone who has read very little Shakespeare! The acting was stiff except for the king and the PM. And breaking the 4th wall did nothing to upgrade this piece of fluff that turned out to be more of a giant plop of molten lead.
19 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Intriguing.
ssharon-172155 June 2019
I thoroughly enjoyed watching this film. Fine acting, writing, sets & costumes. Political intrigue within the royal family. Does the monarch have a voice all if parliament wants to pass a bill which, the monarch believes, will be harmful to democracy and lead to corruption. We also see a Lady MacBeth character well. At times, the characters speak as if in a Shakespearean play, but it all was easily understandable. No wasted moments or scenes.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Unwatchable
ScreenwriterVA14 May 2017
This could have been an interesting premise, but the stultifying pseudo- Shakespearean dialogue is just plain awful. At first I thought the author was taking lines from Shakespeare's plays and fitting them into the plot. Then, I realized it wasn't.

I'm a fan of Shakespeare, but this was just plain bad. I had to turn it off.
23 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Don't be put off by the bad reviews.
thpmorrisey30 May 2018
Almost didn't watch this based on the reviews on this page but so glad I did, it's an excellent piece of Shakespearean drama. The performances are excellent, Piggot-Smith is the standout, and it's satisfyingly short and efficient in its storytelling. As far as I can tell many of the criticisms either come from offended monarchists or people who didn't like the blank verse dialogue and unrealistic plot. Although I can see why these would be issues for some people, I think they are inherent to it's pho-Shakespearean nature, it's not pretending to be an accurate and earnest take on the monarchy, it merely uses them it as setting and the Royals as very loosely based caricatures. Go in expecting Shakespeare in a modern context, not a realistic drama about the monarchy.
12 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
What a piece of utter garbage!
wendygrape25 March 2019
I'm sure the royal family does not speak like in Elizabethan times! What is with the ghost of Diana? And I see this piece of garbage won some awards?? What just because Diana was mentioned?? Absolutely and astonishingly stupid! The plot is preposterous and the acting is stiff! As the dialogue might say, "Be gone thusly!"
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
iambic pentameter
mariani30913 June 2017
FINALLY, capturing on camera THE GENIUS WORK of the British stage. We are so fortunate to have preserved Pigott-Smith and cast for generations to come. This is writing, acting, costumes, lighting and direction at a brilliant level that demands at least three viewings, maybe four. There are turns in the plot which are unpredictable. There are issues regarding race and sex and class and politics which illuminate. The sightings of Diana just right. nice work!
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Pretentious Yawnfest that will only impress complete nincompoops
peesea6 June 2017
Totally wrong-footed republican attack. If you are going to portray the monarchy in such a light, there are better ways to undermine it...Like factually.

The name is enough for anyone with a clue not to bother.

Charles was on the record as saying he will take the name George VII should his mother not outlive him. Yes, that's right, it's not an automatic naming system... Which is probably good as the king who fought Hitler would've been King Bertie the 1st. That he took the name Charles was only decided in the last year of HM Queen Elizabeth's reign,

If they can't be bothered to even get the basics correct, why should we bother to watch? Absolutely pointless drivel.

If you believe in alternative facts, which over 40% of Americans apparently do now, you may find this riveting. Only issue is that people who watch fox news are going to have trouble following the pseudo Shakespearean language. I'm guessing it's not going to be a box office spectacular.

Why did scores of people think this was a useful way to spend their time? Seriously, I'd appreciate some insight on why people bother creating such trash. You couldn't boast/use it on a CV/show it to friends or family. Why bother?
15 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed