|
| To Kill a King [Region 2] | ![To Kill a King [Region 2]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51iTagV-fUL._SL500_.jpg)
| Director: Mike Barker
Actors: Tim Roth, Dougray Scott, Olivia Williams, James Bolam, Corin Redgrave
Category: DVD
Buy New: $25.99
New (3) from $25.99
Avg. Customer Rating:  48 reviews
Sales Rank: 153298
Format: Pal
Languages: English (Subtitled), English (Original Language)
Discs: 1
Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.2
Dimensions (in): 7.1 x 5.4 x 0.6
EAN: 5014138039776
ASIN: B0001FYQNQ
Theatrical Release Date: 2003
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Customer Reviews:
 emotionally-moving perfection April 29, 2008
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
This is an extraordinary and emotionally-moving historical drama, one of the best films I've seen in recent years, a beautiful symphony of actors, direction, cinematography, script, costumes, music, editing and direction. There isn't a false note anywhere. Not many films can boast that. The cast is uniformly close to perfection, particularly Dougray Scott(playing Sir Thomas Fairfax) and the beautiful Olivia Williams (as his wife Lady Anne.) Their realistic emotional interplay, with their characters almost painfully at odds at times, is breathtaking to behold, helped by a very literate script.
The film concentrates on the bond--almost a mutual love--bewteen Fairfax and Oliver Cromwell, and the interplay of Lady Anne to this bond. Never do the historical aspects of the film overshadow the emotional aspects. That's a difficult balancing act, and only a few great directors (notably David Lean) have been able to pull it off successfully. I would add this film to that list. It deserves to be seen by a wide audience.
My only small gripe is that the DVD doesn't have any subtitles to choose from; there are times when the dialogue is difficult to understand--at least from this American viewer's point of view. British audiences would probably have no problem with it.
 Okay Drama Looks Great April 20, 2008
1 out of 2 found this review helpful
Don't be fooled by the fact that this didn't get released in theaters and has an anemic trailor -- it's an impressively lavish production. Scott's a bit of a cipher as Fairfax, but Roth is quite good as Cromwell. (He looks a lot like Danny Bonaduce here, do you notce?)
Movies about war, what are they for? April 17, 2008
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
"To Kill a King" takes some of the finest acting I've seen lately and sets it adrift in a movie filled with pointless expository dialogue, incomprehensible political maneuvering, and a plot that was - incredibly - nonexistent. How can you take one of the most dramatic events in English - nay, European - nay, World! History, and turn it into a movie about....
What was this movie about? Seriously, I still have no idea. Um, war is hell? No, that's not it. Down with the king? Close, but still not there. The mysterious bonds that form between two men thrown together in adverse circumstances who, once their common cause is achieved, suddenly find themselves inexplicably at odds, staring at each other in confusion across a vast ideological chasm? Ooohhh, right, that must be it.
Now, here's a hint: if you're going to make a movie about two friends who turn against each other, there are two things you should probably make a point of showing: 1) Why they're friends in the first place, and 2) Why they're not friends anymore. "To Kill a King" does neither. We're told, not shown, how close Thomas Fairfax and Oliver Cromwell have become while leading the Civil War against King Charles I. Later, we see plenty of Cromwell glowering angrily behind Fairfax's back, but we never manage to quite figure out what got his panties into such a bunch. The two men are shoved into uncomfortable archetypes: the noble and naive Fairfax, the bitter, Machiavellian, megalomaniacal Cromwell. It's hard to believe these two ever agreed on what color uniforms to wear, much less on how to overthrow a government.
None of this is the fault of the two lead actors. Dougray Scott as Fairfax and Tim Roth as Cromwell are brilliant, even within the limits of their awkward dialogue. Olivia Williams does a fine job looking distressed for most of the movie, and Rupert Everett turns in his best "Stuart King" impersonation as Charles I. I wish they'd all been given more to do; I wish more had been made of the actual historical events this movie is supposedly based on; I wish I actually cared more.
There was one moment, early in the movie, that opened a too-brief door on what "To Kill a King" could have been. Fairfax, furious over the duplicitous dealings of Parliament, bellows that he will gather his troops again and fight another war to bring justice. We see just a flash of Cromwell's usually dour face as it lights up in a grin - not a malicious or smug grin, but a boyish expression of pure delight at the thought of fighting again with his best friend at his side. (Kudos to Roth for this amazing scene.) In those few seconds I had a glimpse of the love that must have once existed between these two men. Even a few more such moments would have gone a long way towards redeeming this movie.
 Too short a film for too big a subject March 27, 2008
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
"To Kill a King" - well, I've been waiting for a couple of years for a region 1 release. Initial reviews were all very mild, if not mean. The film itself is not cheap or badly shot. It is as good as any other history film about ("Elizabeth: The Golden Age" for example.)
The simple reason for the criticism is that the audience waiting for this film wanted something a bit more realistic and historically accurate. This is a subject that fascinates me (having read Antonia Frasier's "Cromwell" and "Charles II" plus "The Trial of Charles I: A Documentary History"). Sadly, there is too much going on to satisfy in almost all directions. We don't get to see much of the trial of Charles I, we don't get to see any of the Civil War, Pride's Purge is fairly swiftly done, and then we get a massive time lapse of Cromwell's rise and fall all in an hour and a half. Too much is happening and not enough time to allow the audience to care.
To say this is a bad movie, however, is just wrong. I suggest that the producers didn't quite understand the audience for this subject as most costume dramas are aimed at a female audience. However, there truly isn't anything feminine in this story (Fairfax's wife's time on screen is a little overdone.) All this could have been fixed with a longer runtime and a bit slower pace.
Since we aren't likely to see another film on this subject again in the near future, this is worth a look.
 A mediocre look at the story of two central figures of the English Civil War March 23, 2008
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
A dramatic rendition of the story of Oliver Cromwell and his friend Sir Thomas Fairfax, in the lead up to the deposal of King Charles I in the 17th Century. To Kill a King stars Tim Roth, Rupert Everett and Dougray Scott.
Americans have a limited view of their own history, and so it would not surprise me if a poll of Americans would reveal that the majority of Americans have no idea that England has had several civil wars. As for me, even before reading the history, I first was introduced to the Roundheads and Cavaliers in a Choose Your Own Adventure book, of all things.
So I know a little bit about the story of Cromwell going into this dramatic rendition of the events that lead up to the death of Charles I and the establishment of the brief English Republic. The movie centers around Sir Thomas Fairfax (Dougray Scott) General of the Puritan army and friend to Cromwell. Roth plays Cromwell, the heart and soul of the Puritans.
Everett plays Charles I, the king whose self-confidence and excesses threaten to remove the crown from his head...and his head from his body.
I was somewhat disappointed. The movie has a strong Royalist bias, for one thing.
Cromwell is painted early and often as a psychopath. (The choice of Roth to play him was not lost on me). Early on, he nearly kills a man senselessly and needlessly. This characterization continues throughout the movie. The movie, too, depicts the trial of Charles in a short and perfunctory manner, which dilutes the performance of Everett in the role. He's simply not given a lot to work with here, as the movie focuses on Fairfax and Cromwell. And the center of the movie, Fairfax, is portrayed by Scott in only an average performance.
Even as there were so few female performances in the movie, I thought Olivia Williams did all right as Lady Fairfax.
The direction of the movie, I thought, was poor to middling. Especially when the movie does anything other than characters talking or conversing in a room, the cinematography reveals itself to be underdone at best. (One scene of Fairfax rushing through his house is particularly bad but its only one of the more egregious examples).
The movie does gets points in my book for tackling subjects and characters which don't get much cinematic depiction. Still, this movie doesn't rise much above the level of an average made-for-tv movie.
|
|
|
Wildlife, nature and the Environment
Sponsored Links
Learn how to get your own Amazon Book shop | |
