ShangLuda Admirable film.

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

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

Marva-nova Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Richard von Lust 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.

mariani309 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!

peesea 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 is 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.If they can't be bothered to even get the basics correct, why should we bother to watch? Unless you believe in alternative facts. Which over 40% of Americans apparently do now and this is written for such people. Only issue is that people who watch fox news are going to have trouble following the pseudo Shakespearean language. Obviously not going to be a box office spectacular.

chrispowers1976 Although this play had an excellent cast I found it predictable; mainly because it draws extensively, if not totally, on two British dramas from the 1990s.To Play The King was the second part of the original House of Cards trilogy, broadcast in 1993 and featured a future king, played by Michael Kitchen doing an impeccable Prince Charles impersonation, at odds with the Prime Minister and lead character of the series.The Student Prince was broadcast around 1997/8 and told the story of the bodyguard assigned to protect the prince/ future king who had gone to study at university, (clearly based on William). In the end the prince ends the succession and becomes a 'commoner' in the new republic, (similar to Harry's story line in this play).The BBC's decision to film this play, which in my opinion is better suited to the stage, suggests to me a desire to attract an American audience and boost viewing figures on their BBC America channel.