To Kill a King

2003 "...It takes a traitor and a hero"
To Kill a King
6.2| 1h42m| en| More Info
Released: 16 May 2003 Released
Producted By: Natural Nylon Entertainment
Country: United Kingdom
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

A recounting of the relationship between General Fairfax and Oliver Cromwell, as they try to cope with the consequences of deposing King Charles I.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

Natural Nylon Entertainment

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Cheese Hoven The events surrounding the trial and execution of Charles I are among the most compelling in English history. It is unfortunate, therefore, that the film treats these events as a mere backdrop to a personality clash between Cromwell and Fairfax, centering unconvincingly on Fairfax's wife. Cromwell, given here rather more flair by Tim Roth than he possessed in history, is seen to be motivated more by hidden sexual desire than religious fervour or a sense of injustice.While this is ahistorical, it could have made an interesting film. However, the script, by Jenny Mayhew, never rises above the level of daytime soap opera, with the characters constantly emoting about their feelings or shallow artificial conflicts created between them. As if the conflict which ripped England apart at that time was not sufficient!One scene in particular sums it all up. Charles I is being tried by parliament. This extraordinary event is not interesting to the writer. What interests her is when Fairfax arrives and, without anyone else intervening, takes the hand of his wife and leaves! And this is deemed more important than the trial of a king.
angie-235 On first viewing I was not really satisfied with this film. Who could deal with such a vast subject in one film? It was clever to not tackle the whole war but concentrate on a shorter time frame. I have no knowledge of any of the actors except James Bolam. I would not have cast Rupert Everett on looks , height etc but how little that matters . He is really excellent , he uses his eyes to great effect .The King's continued belief that he will be rescued , the British people really do love him are obvious at first . It is the pain and fear in his eyes that really seals it for me .His walk to the block ( being fondled and clawed at by the commoners is obviously repellent and terrifying). There is something about the whole scene that really reflects King Charles's inner faith that this is his second wedding day ,this time to Jesus . Tim Roth plays Cromwell with a touch too many Hitler like stances but he is so much better than Richard Harris. I think many historians do think Cromwell had mental illness. The Govt. by his New Model Army reminds me of The Taliban .I would have been on the side of Parliament but like many English people welcomed back the monarchy after his rule. I have little knowledge of Fairfax but the relationship between the two is worth reading about if this film is anything to go by. The sets are fantastic ,the actual Hampton Court was worth it . I am sure that even Civil War buffs should acknowledge it's intelligence . I only wish the creators could have made a series. Things worth looking out for are the severe uniforms worn at the King's trial ,note a love of buttons ( Cromwell truly was a dictator worthy of Pinochet). The King's absolute lack of understanding the ranting man who made no sense to his perception of his place in the World.The bewilderment of Cromwell that anyone should see things other than his way. If you weren't sure on first viewing give it a second and third chance. I don't see any flirting between Charles 1st and Lady Fairfax b.t.w just a lonely man desperate for company of his class and a woman in awe of the most important man in the country in her eyes.
blue-117 I read a review of the movie to the effect that it wasn't historically accurate and it had a comment (the writer must have known it was coming...) that some would argue that it was only a film (thus artistic license was sure to be taken). What that viewer failed to see was that this film was spot on where it truly mattered - that both sides (Charles I and Cromwell) were equally and totally convinced of their 'mandate from God'.The result for Charles was that his inability to concede any power cost him his life, the cost for Cromwell was that his 'Republic' lasted only two years after his death (although some of his decisions are still felt now especially in Ulster.) So, if what you need is for Cromwell to have a broad West Country accent, don't go...if you enjoy films that have some intellectual depth to them, then I'd recommend it.
Bloody_Peasant I was quite excited to see this being a fan of historical films and particularly interested in the Tudor and Stuart periods. The front of the video is presented in exactly the same style as Elizabeth which I thoroughly enjoyed. Elizabeth is relatively well researched and despite some poetic license depicts the early reign well. So this coupled with the acting prowess of Rupert Everett and Tim Roth all boded well. But what a pile of poopie. Over simplified, dreadfully inaccurate, - the list goes on = one of the most interesting periods of English History turned in to a bad Soap Opera. A significant part of the story is Fairfaxes refusal to sign Charles's death warrant. Well ladies and gentlemen in fact he was one of the first to sign. Suffice it to say the lines at the end "And England never again became a republic" (lol) sums up this little piece of filmery.