|
| 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: 153312
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:
 Overall, a pretty decent movie March 3, 2008
The movie begins after the Battle of Naseby in June 1645 and continues from that point on, highlighting several key moments of the Civil War. The movie is, as other people have noted, not an account of military history so much as political. Although ostensibly about the relationship between Cromwell and Fairfax, the movie is so much more in that it's a detailed look at the politics of the period. It's a complicated era to understand, and the director and producers did a good job of bringing it to life.
In terms of acting, Tim Roth as Oliver Cromwell does best, though of course no one can touch Richard Harris. Dougray Scott as Fairfax does less well. Rupert Everett's (as Charles I)"divine right of kings" spiel turns him into Johnny One-Note pretty quickly. And Olivia Williams as Fairfax's wife gets lost in the shuffle. Although I knew next to nothing about the English Civil war, I learned a few things from this movie.
Negative: bonus features are almost nothing. A few trailers and a "behind the scenes."
Nice film of an facinating era March 3, 2008
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
Great cast and interesting story about an era of history that is often overlooked.
I've enjoyed Dougray Scott since seeing him in Ever After, this film is a whole different role for him despite yet again being in a historical "fantasy" film.
And with the excellent Tim Roth as Cromwell and Rupert Everett as Charles I, reprising the monarch he played in Stage Beauty if I recall correctly, it's great period piece and worth watching. I personally really enjoy this era of English history and would like to see more movies made in this time period.
 Mildly entertaining, but historically misplaced. March 3, 2008
I'm going to go against what I normally say in a movie review here in that puritans who will no doubt lambaste this film for it's historical inaccuracies and poetic narrative, probably deserve to be heard (in this case). I am all for entertainment, I don't usually care if aspects are distorted in historical based drama, and I appreciate the need for brevity on screen to keep the audience entertained as well as informed.
All that said, it's hard to understand how to describe this picture.
There is little in the way of action or sex, or high drama for that matter, and the subject material (The English Civil War) is hardly a global moneybag rich for storytelling in the way that say Braveheart, or The Patriot translated onto the screen.
Casting is also a BIG problem, mainly by association. Tim Roth, who is a fine actor, has of late played some pretty psychotic and off color roles, and one feels he just doesn't bring enough to the role of Cromwell. History (even from contemporary sources) tells us that Cromwell was devoted family man, who loved music and jokes, also a tolerant tactician who actually suppressed tyrant Presbyterians whilst he searched for a constitutional settlement with the king. Here he is portrayed as an almost sullen "Socialist" or marauding Olly North type character with little or no depth. Rupert Everett exudes charm as Charles, and obviously researched the finer points of a king remembered as hardly a "dandy" but certainly a well spoken epicurean.
Dougray Scott is the best thing about the movie without doubt, his portrayal as Fairfax is gritty, determined and very believable (even if his on screen relationship is historically way off).
All in all the movie is not very bad, it's just not very good either, and sort of meanders it's way through the 1hr 40 min run time without any real satisfaction for the viewer.
It's a shame, when you consider such an accomplished cast. I would have thought they would have carried this off with more zeal. Hollywood is often criticized for skewed views of history in favor of "in your face" entertainment. Here we seem to have gotten the former, sadly without the latter. 3 stars for a stellar cast, 2 for the content.
A Lesson In Character March 3, 2008
More than anything, the impression I was left with was the uncompromising positions of two headstrong characters: Cromwell and Charles. Both had good arguments in their support but, each driven by separate and equally fanatical religious ideologies, they could brook no compromise. Rupert Everett ably played King Charles to the letter, though Roth's Cromwell seemed much smaller than its original. Though not the best film from an historical point of view, philosophically engaging.
Sinister little weasel accomplishes regicide March 3, 2008
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
At the opening of TO KILL A KING, English monarch Charles I (Rupert Everett) is under house arrest and the Parliamentary anti-royalist forces embodied in the New Model Army commanded by Lord General Sir Thomas Fairfax (Dougray Scott) and his deputy, General Oliver Cromwell (Tim Roth), are triumphant. But then Charles attempts a political comeback with a few well-placed bribes and Cromwell resorts to having the monarch's lopped off, a solution to the problem that his friend and erstwhile commander, Fairfax, opposes. It doesn't help that the latter's wife, Lady Anne (Olivia Williams), is not only a royalist but the King's platonic friend. Fairfax and Cromwell have a falling out.
I found TO KILL A KING vaguely disappointing on a couple of levels. As an entertainment vehicle, I expect a sumptuous and historical costume epic to have an heroic protagonist for whom to cheer. What would El Cid, Ben-Hur, Elizabeth, Braveheart and A Man for All Seasons be without such? In any case, TO KILL A KING comes up short in this regard. The viewer of royalist sympathies has only the petulant and whining Charles, albeit well done by Everett. Fairfax, the most obvious candidate for the honor and sympathetically portrayed by Scott as an admirable and good man, is ineffective at opposing Cromwell at best and wooly in his relationship with his sovereign at worst. Cromwell, of course, is the villain of the piece.
As usual, Hollywood plays fast and loose with history in order to maximize the story. The basic facts are there, of course. Fairfax commanded the New Model Army; Cromwell, his deputy, eventually became Lord Protector; Charles lost his head on the block. But Fairfax's role was even more ambiguous in the affair than portrayed. Indeed, the film would have the viewer infer that Cromwell's elevation to Lord Protector and his estrangement from Fairfax happened just a couple of days after the King's execution. Yet, the former occurred in December 1653, and the latter in January 1649; Thomas remained active in the Parliamentarian regime until 1850. And the events surrounding Cromwell's investiture, as portrayed on the Big Screen, were pure fantasies hallucinated by the screenwriters.
As an irrelevant aside, the period costumes, which I assume were accurately portrayed, made everyone look positively silly. Imagine Dubya in a flat, broad-brimmed black hat and a lace collar and you'll get the picture.
I'm awarding a generous four stars solely for the performance of Tim Roth. He can play the role of Sinister Little Weasel better than any actor of whom I'm aware. (Remember Roth's Archibald Cunningham in Rob Roy?)
I see that TO KILL A KING was released in 2003. Did I miss something? It must've been in the theaters for all of a day.
|
|
|
Wildlife, nature and the Environment
Sponsored Links
Learn how to get your own Amazon Book shop | |
