Good concept, poorly executed.

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

This film got off to a bad start for me by having Camilla explain succession law to her princely stepsons. Since they're in line to inherit the throne it would not have to be explained to them at the queen's funeral. A good film tells a story one can believe and what follows is a script that suspends belief on too many occasions. As a play one can accept the high drama as a fictional account of Charles's future reign; the audience pulled in by an intimate view of the royals and various perfidies. Its attempt to give personality to other royal family members with far-fetched characterizations however made it more farce than drama. As a film it presents as false and cheaply melodramatic.I can praise the sets and some of the performances, but the story line was more laughable than intended.

the movie had potential... then it turned into a nonsense... disguised as a Shakespearean novel... but completely lacking any kind of intelligence...like written by a 12yo school girl.... it was a pain to see...my Heart Broke when the shallow low IQ sons in this "Play" did not received any kind of justice at the end... the 12yo writer did not went all the way...the monarchy at that point in the play should have been abolish and the traitors should have been betrayed. but not even the end makes sense... Don't bother with this guys...I'm saving you the time.

The idea of "what happens if the King won't support what the government wants to do and the King dissolves parliament" is interesting and it was explored well, even if it had overtones of Michael Dobbs' "House of Cards" trilogy and Sue Townsend's "The Queen and I".But my overriding memory is of that cursèd and contrived blank-verse dialogue with syllables omitted: "photographs obtained by theft are daily 'splayed as front page news" and "she has ... op'ed my eyes", and bizarre word order "not just am I defender of the faith" and "write your name in ink, and un-amended let it into law" to make the thing scan. It sounded naff in Shakespeare plays and it sounds even more naff now. We do not speak like that nowadays. For me it got in the way of the story because it drew attention to itself - it was a contrived and attention-seeking gimmick. The producers should have had the courage to get the play re-written in more normal, natural rhythms of speech; the idea of using blank verse should have been strangled at birth.The plot was good, but the play was fatally flawed by the pseudo-Shakespearean English.My verdict: 8/10 for the plot, 0/10 for the gimmicky dialogue

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".