King Charles III

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?

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.

A great idea and a great presentation. The use of "language style" to separate the classes was a wonderful choice. While the underlying reason for the drama is a bit thin (contrived?), the presentation is well worth it.

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.

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