To Kill a King (2003)

Who payed the critics

Boring

Best movie of this year hands down!

It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

To Kill A King, is a fine underrated historical drama. The story of Oliver Cromwell's complex friendship with General Fairfax, set against the backdrop of the war against King Charles I, is an engaging and dramatic one. With vivid and memorable characterizations, excellent production design, the film evokes a time of change and reform, and also of chaos and brutality. While not quite the epic of Lawrence of Arabia or Alexander, the film still has much sweep while maintaining a cerebral chamber drama feel. The costumes are top notch, the locations and sets authentic, and with crisp cinematography and competent editing, an intelligent and passionate script comes to life and engages us in this story of English civil war in the age of discovery and reform. Tim Roth is absolutely terrific as Oliver Cromwell. Not only does he physically convey the man, he brings the sufficient gravitas and seething rage that brings the character to life on the screen. Equally well cast are Dougray Scott as Fairfax, and especially Rupert Everett, who steals the show as King Charles I. My only complaints about the film is that it is too short - I was left wanting to know more about the events that led to the King's defeat and Cromwell's rise to political power. We are thrown smack dab in the middle of the story, and as someone who is familiar with the background, I was able to pick up and go with it. But for someone ignorant about English history, the script may have been quite confusing at first. But I will say that it is usually a good sign if a film leaves you hungry for more of the story, not for lack of it, but for feeding the viewer's imagination of how grand the context was, and being so successfully immersed in it, like To Kill a King does, you simply want more knowledge of the drama. A little-seen, underrated but excellently performed and well crafted historical film

The English Civil War is over and King Charles is held within his chambers as Sir Thomas Fairfax and Oliver Cromwell continue their reform of the country. With parliament bribed into returning Charles to the throne, Cromwell and Fairfax use their remaining troops to seize control and remove the king from power. As the political changes sweep the nation, personal issues and political tensions between Fairfax and Cromwell threaten to derail the movement.I didn't really watch this film to learn about history or have accuracy and really, it is just as well because, as others have said, this really isn't the place to come to for that. The plot focuses on Cromwell and Fairfax and as such, dramatic license comes into play to make this relationship central rather than the wider history of the period. To me this was a bit of a problem because I didn't know (don't know) a great deal about this part of my history and I found myself wanting the film to educate me. However partially because the delivery style made me assume it wasn't all accurate and partially because the film itself wasn't that interested. For what it wants to do though, the film held my interest as the drama unfolded. It does rather come over as history-lite but the characters worked reasonably well while Barker's direction suits the period feel.The cast are worthy enough even if they aren't brilliant. Scott and Roth worked pretty well together even if neither really got to grips with their characters beyond the superficial level. The support cast is solid with a good turn from Everett as well as Williams, Bolam and a few others. Overall this is a fairly good film that is held together thanks to the central relationship of Cromwell and Fairfax. Could have benefited from a better structure historical-wise rather than throwing in so much behind the characters (that many viewers will not have a contextual knowledge of).

In 1645, after the revolutionary movement of the puritans against the King of England Charles I of Stuart (Rupert Everett), with the leadership of the best friends General Oliver Cromwell (Tim Roth) and General Thomas Fairfax (Dougray Scott), the king is judged and condemned to death by decapitation. General Oliver Cromwell wishes to implement the republic in England, but his monarchist friend Fairfax does not agree, and they break their friendship. Cromwell becomes a dictator, with the title of Lord Protector of the Commonwealth, until 1658, when he is very sick and dies. When I was a student, I had classes about this period of England history, but unfortunately not enough to make any judgement of the historical accuracy of this movie. As far as I remember, the period of the dictatorship of Cromwell was very violent, and it was omitted in the story. As a film, it is a beautiful story of the friendship and relationship of two leaders with different political objectives. The cast and direction are excellent, and the reconstitution of the period is wonderful. I have appreciated and recommend this movie without analyzing the accuracy of the events. If the viewer knows this period of history well, he will have the opportunity to verify its accuracy, otherwise he will a chance to enjoy a good movie. My vote is seven.Title (Brazil): 'Morte ao Rei' ('To Kill a King')

SPOILERSThe problem I had when watching this film is that ultimately I feel a bit naieve. I've been an enourmous history fan for years. If it wasn't for weak grades at A-Levels I could have ended up doing it at University, as it happens though this one time period is one of the few periods I'm very sketchy on. I have no idea what happened during the English Civil War, I just know that I've always been quite royalist and the idea of Oliver Cromwell declaring himself Lord High Protector has always seemed a bit power hungry and wrong to me. As a result, it's hard to really comment on this film."To Kill A King" begins at the end of the Civil War itself with the introduction straight away of Sir Thomas Fairfax (Dougray Scott). Fairfax is the enigmatic leader of the Parliamentarians and alongside him is his puritanical deputy and best friend Oliver Cromwell (Tim Roth). The film covers the two's relationship and traces all the way upto the reintroduction of the Monarchy.Like I said, it's kind of difficult to appreciate this film. As far as period drama's go, it's engrossing and the costumes and set are impressive. Ultimately most people would state that this is enough. The problem though is that when I watch Historical Drama films, I need my historical accuracy. I hated "The Patriot", not just because it was a rubbish film, but especially because Gibson portrayed the English so inaccurately and critically, and whilst "Braveheart" was a million times more entertaining, it was still questionable about certain key events.This film is slated a lot for being Historically inaccurate, if this is the case then yeah I have reason to hold a grudge. The problem is however that like I've said, I don't know what we consider to be "the truth". Should my desire for historical accuracy affect a film? I'd like to say no, but ultimately I just can't help it. This film is an engrossing, intelligent film with a fine cast and amazing cinematography, without a personal knowledge of the history though, I can't really judge it. If you don't care about historical accuracy, watch this film, if you do care, please watch it just so you can tell me how accurate it is.