VALUTAZIONE IMDb
6,3/10
1899
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaPrince Charles' fictional accession to the throne following the Queen's death. When he refuses to sign a controversial bill into law, political chaos ensues: a constitutional crisis, street ... Leggi tuttoPrince Charles' fictional accession to the throne following the Queen's death. When he refuses to sign a controversial bill into law, political chaos ensues: a constitutional crisis, street riots and a tank in front of Buckingham Palace.Prince Charles' fictional accession to the throne following the Queen's death. When he refuses to sign a controversial bill into law, political chaos ensues: a constitutional crisis, street riots and a tank in front of Buckingham Palace.
- Nominato ai 2 BAFTA Award
- 1 vittoria e 5 candidature totali
Chris Abe
- Press Photographer
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Recensioni in evidenza
While it is shocking to see living people turned into characters that behave in unexpected ways, it is a pure and glorious tragedy that any Greek or Elizabethan playwright would recognize. Betrayal and unmasked ambitions abound. There is even a ghost!
I don't give a rating because I only lasted 3 minutes into it. After hearing Camilla explain to Kate that Charles is king immediately after the queen's death instead of at coronation, and that the UK doesn't have a constitution, I knew this was written so that characters say things to each other that they already know, for the sake of the audience. Bad writing at its worst.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Lo sapevi?
- QuizAfter performing in the original play in Almeida Theatre, Tim Pigott-Smith and Oliver Chris reprised their roles of King Charles III and Prince William of Wales, respectively, for the small screen.
- BlooperThe prop Instrument of Abdication shown has been copy and pasted from that of King Edward VIII. This means the phrase about renouncing the throne also for his descendants has been left in, meaning William could not succeed Charles.
- CitazioniTutte le opzioni contengono spoiler
- ConnessioniFeatured in Good Morning Britain: Episodio datato 11 maggio 2017 (2017)
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Sito ufficiale
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- Kral Charles III
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 1h 28min(88 min)
- Colore
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti