Beautiful, moving film.

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

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.

This was not a great movie. It tried very, very hard to channel Macbeth and mostly failed. The entire premise of the cause of the constitutional crisis was unbelievable to me, as was the near total isolation of the king. It ended much better than it began, with a surprisingly emotional scene involving signing a form. Kate's turn towards Machiavellianism was also a nice idea but poorly executed, in my mind. I'm hardly a die-hard monarchist, but I felt the entire thing was both ill-conceived from the beginning and flawed in execution. Tim Pigott- Smith's performance was a rare strong point as was the love story of Harry.

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.

This is an unbelievably stunning artistic accomplishment. It is a Shakespearean play not only with Shakespearean language, but Shakespearean construction. It is tense, dramatic and an utterly effective work of dramatic art. People who are concerned about the "truth" of this future projection should remind themselves that Shakespeare himself was concerned with dramatic truth, not historical truth. This production explores the dynamics of human relations, historical tensions and the ultimate questions about power, ambition, morality and all the humanistic dynamics that make for great drama. This is the most impressive production I have seen on television in many, many years. Everyone should see this and recognize it for the astonishing achievement it is.