Plantiana Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

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

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

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!

bshaef I could not believe how terrible this was. The acting was totally awful and every last character was fake news as far as I'm concerned. I guess even PBS is allowed a clunker or two and this is one of theirs for 2017. I watched for 25 minutes and was so put off by the stilted dialog and accents that I turned over to Dancing with the Stars.

sabrinamichaels1 This was horrible, yet I couldn't turn it off. I just laughed and I did it often. It wasn't the blank prose that annoyed me. It was (Spoiler alert) the most ridiculous premise. The author didn't do any actual research on the monarchy. I'm an American and I know that the whole thing was crap. Kate wanting to rule was so ridiculous. She will be Queen consort not a co-ruler. The King entering the house of commons, ugh yeah no that is illegal. They never discussed his constitutional role and he has no real advisers. The PM speaks to him like a child. The list goes on and on. The actor who plays the King was great and I liked when he broke the fourth wall. I hated it when the Duchess did. Good actors, but the movie is horrible.

martinu-2 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