King Charles III Reviews

  • Jul 24, 2019

    Worst kind of Shakespearean cliches coming to life in this 21st century drama. King Charles, who is either the new Richard the Third or the only sane person in this story, depends on the writer's mood. Princess Kate is the new Lady Macbeth, trying to groom her husband into treachery by being the evil mastermind. Diana is a ghost returning from the past to haunt her husband and son, apparently because she is also evil? Young Prince Harry is our most modern character, being buddies with republicans, socialists and minorities, until the very end of the movie, in which he suddenly change his mind in 180 degree with literally no explanation. Maybe his mother talk to him as well? Then there is British protestors with Guy Fawkes masks, who were apparently much more interested in removing a king who tries to preserve their freedom of press, instead of the government that trying to curtail it. Of course we never informed of the actual content of this law, so maybe the king is just overreacting it? And how come the prime minister and the head of opposition are fictional characters, when the royal family members are all based on real people? Apparently it would be inappropriate to use real politicians, but same is not true for royal family. Simply disgusting.

    Worst kind of Shakespearean cliches coming to life in this 21st century drama. King Charles, who is either the new Richard the Third or the only sane person in this story, depends on the writer's mood. Princess Kate is the new Lady Macbeth, trying to groom her husband into treachery by being the evil mastermind. Diana is a ghost returning from the past to haunt her husband and son, apparently because she is also evil? Young Prince Harry is our most modern character, being buddies with republicans, socialists and minorities, until the very end of the movie, in which he suddenly change his mind in 180 degree with literally no explanation. Maybe his mother talk to him as well? Then there is British protestors with Guy Fawkes masks, who were apparently much more interested in removing a king who tries to preserve their freedom of press, instead of the government that trying to curtail it. Of course we never informed of the actual content of this law, so maybe the king is just overreacting it? And how come the prime minister and the head of opposition are fictional characters, when the royal family members are all based on real people? Apparently it would be inappropriate to use real politicians, but same is not true for royal family. Simply disgusting.

  • Mar 30, 2019

    After watching Prince Charles at 70, I think this piece misses the essential Charles. I understand it is trying to view the monarchy through the lense of Shakespeare, but without the real life activities and what he stands for, and has stood for for 40 years. Doesn't work for me.

    After watching Prince Charles at 70, I think this piece misses the essential Charles. I understand it is trying to view the monarchy through the lense of Shakespeare, but without the real life activities and what he stands for, and has stood for for 40 years. Doesn't work for me.

  • Mar 27, 2019

    This KING CHARLES, III is pretty fantastic. PBS - Masterpiece Theatre. The dialogue is written to sound as if it has one foot in 2019 and the other in 1219. Like a lost Shakespearean History. But done so subtly that it must have been a good twenty minutes into it until my ears suddenly perked up and I thoughtâ" Hang on. Have they been speaking in iambic pentameter all this time? It feels slightly spooky, (in a GOOD way), replete with palace intrigue, diaphanous spirit-prophets wandering the royal halls, sibling rivalries on full display, hung in frames of gilded, succession-envy curly-cues, class warfare, race relations - you name it. In short, dayyummm. Lots to chew on.

    This KING CHARLES, III is pretty fantastic. PBS - Masterpiece Theatre. The dialogue is written to sound as if it has one foot in 2019 and the other in 1219. Like a lost Shakespearean History. But done so subtly that it must have been a good twenty minutes into it until my ears suddenly perked up and I thoughtâ" Hang on. Have they been speaking in iambic pentameter all this time? It feels slightly spooky, (in a GOOD way), replete with palace intrigue, diaphanous spirit-prophets wandering the royal halls, sibling rivalries on full display, hung in frames of gilded, succession-envy curly-cues, class warfare, race relations - you name it. In short, dayyummm. Lots to chew on.

  • Mar 26, 2019

    It was a horrible imitation of a Shakespearean tragedy with political propaganda as its purpose.

    It was a horrible imitation of a Shakespearean tragedy with political propaganda as its purpose.

  • Mar 25, 2019

    It was actually very interesting. I thought it well done I guess Iâ(TM)m just shocked at how little taste is Displayed. Writing a story where the first scene is carrying A casket of someone who is still alive is pretty odd Using the dead mother of two people who are alive as A Shakespeareian ghost is well tacky. I also have Difficulty squaring the Kate Middleton character She seemed more harpy B. Which I think would be Taken as a compliment even though it is not

    It was actually very interesting. I thought it well done I guess Iâ(TM)m just shocked at how little taste is Displayed. Writing a story where the first scene is carrying A casket of someone who is still alive is pretty odd Using the dead mother of two people who are alive as A Shakespeareian ghost is well tacky. I also have Difficulty squaring the Kate Middleton character She seemed more harpy B. Which I think would be Taken as a compliment even though it is not

  • Mar 24, 2019

    This is a little fictional piece about what will happen when Queen E dies. I liked it fine for the first 50 minutes, then it got weird, and the ending was totally totally stupid. They actually had Charles abdicate the thrown because he didn't want to be alone. Beyond stupid.

    This is a little fictional piece about what will happen when Queen E dies. I liked it fine for the first 50 minutes, then it got weird, and the ending was totally totally stupid. They actually had Charles abdicate the thrown because he didn't want to be alone. Beyond stupid.

  • Mar 24, 2019

    Very weak writing and the royal family "Caricature" The entire movie plays like a joke and removed from realty. Dialog slips into shakespearean language. The monologues delivered to the camera are distracting. A poor version of The Crown.

    Very weak writing and the royal family "Caricature" The entire movie plays like a joke and removed from realty. Dialog slips into shakespearean language. The monologues delivered to the camera are distracting. A poor version of The Crown.

  • Mar 24, 2019

    Awful. Just plain awful.

    Awful. Just plain awful.

  • Sep 07, 2017

    Smart, beautiful, sad and thrilling. Not a single sadistic murder.

    Smart, beautiful, sad and thrilling. Not a single sadistic murder.

  • Christian C Super Reviewer
    Jul 05, 2017

    Extraordinary and riveting. "King Charles III" has excellent writing, very fine costumes, adept direction, wonderful acting, superb and haunting music...and drama! This show is edifying for both monarchists and republicans (that's small "r" republicans!), as well as legal philosophers generally. It's certainly worth your while if you're at all interested in British history or government. Highly recommended.

    Extraordinary and riveting. "King Charles III" has excellent writing, very fine costumes, adept direction, wonderful acting, superb and haunting music...and drama! This show is edifying for both monarchists and republicans (that's small "r" republicans!), as well as legal philosophers generally. It's certainly worth your while if you're at all interested in British history or government. Highly recommended.