Highly Overrated But Still Good

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

The movie is made so realistic it has a lot of that WoW feeling at the right moments and never tooo over the top. the suspense is done so well and the emotion is felt. Very well put together with the music and all.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

We Americans are pretty bad at knowing our own history let alone that of other countries. As a retired World History teacher, I know that very, very few of us know about the English Civil War of the 17th century. Who fought on each side and what they were fighting over is not something most Americans would know. I know--but considering my job, that's no surprise! So, unless you are really up on English history as well as the lives of Oliver Cromwell and Charles I, you might just want to read up on it before you watch "To Kill a King". Also, you might want to read a few different sources, as most British authors I've read seem to think killing the king was a bad thing--whereas non-Brits probably are more willing to concede that this was pretty cool (particularly American or Marxist historians--who, for once, would agree with each other).So, I'll give you a bit of background. This story is about the latter portion of the Civil War. Many years have passed and the armies of the Parliament and the King's have fought many battles against each other. Each time the King's forces have been vanquished, he makes promises to make reforms. And, once the armies went home, the King simply ignored these reforms--and the war began anew. The main problem, as I see it, is that the King believed he was an absolute monarch and the Parliament was standing firm on their traditional rights--such as the right to tax (which the King repeatedly ignored). Now, with few remaining friends of his own, the King takes a 'divide and conquer' strategy. In other words, divide the members of Parliament by promising various rewards and bribes. He also escaped custody and threatened to raise yet another army to begin the war again. Now, in light of all this, the leaders of the insurrection now see a need to end it...by killing their king. The army's leader, Fairfax, is reticent--and the man who is one of the powerhouses in Parliament, Cromwell, sees the execution as inevitable. While the film is about this divide and conquer scheme and the eventual trial of the King, it is difficult to understand all that led up to this--a weakness in the film that might have been dealt with by using a prologue or stretching out the film a bit longer.For history teachers and folks in the know, "To Kill a King" is good stuff--well acted and produced (even if the army of the Parliament only seems to have been made up of about 50 guys in this film!). Otherwise, it does seem to be lacking context which would make it easier to follow--as well as very low energy despite the theme.

1645 is a crucial year but what happened is not clear in this film that concentrates more on personal issues and intimate details than on historical facts.The rivalry between Fairfax and Cromwell is purely circumstantial. It is not the very problem at the heart of the period. Cromwell is the one who reformed the army to lead them to victory. Cromwell is the one who had the eloquence and religious depth to inspire that newly reformed army to victory a first time against the king, and a second time against the king, and several more times against the Irish, the Scots and Spain. The second civil war is not clear in the film at all, apart from gritty details about hangings, killings and battlefield deaths.The debate around parliament and the king is essential and reduced here to a clash between personalities, a clash between the authority of the military and that of the political branch of government. It also reduces Cromwell to pure violence, anger, fits of aggressiveness, etc. But that is not the debate. The debate is in the very nature of the king. In 1649 it is feudalism that dies on the scaffold, and not only the king. It is not the question of blue or red blood, but the question of who or what appoints the king, is it god or is it parliament, or even is it the people? That third alternative is absolutely absent, as if the film ignored the formula "the government of the people, by the people and for the people", at the end of another civil war.This period then changed Europe, true enough, but also the world, and the end of the film with a jump from "Cromwell's revolution" to the "French Revolution" is absurd. It ignores the Glorious Revolution and the dismissal of the King by parliament, the establishment of rules for the choice or designation of successors on the throne by Parliament then, and the Declaration of Independence in America that explains how the people is fully justified to dismiss a king when the relations between this king and his people have distended and even gotten ruptured. For the first time ever in the feudal world that included the colonies in America a king, Charles I, was dismissed by his people and the representatives of this people.The film is not clear at all on another detail: the fact that there must have been only a few tens of thousands of electors in England at the time to elect the members of parliament. Only the propertied free people who had real estate or a business (that could include as property serfs and other permanently or temporarily indentured human beings along with cattle and economic equipment) and paid taxes for these possessions or businesses could vote. The House of Lords had been disbanded and the House of Commons only represented the propertied and business-endowed tax paying at least well-off people, the bourgeoisie in another word. The film thus does not have to mention that seven members of Cromwell's family were at one time members of parliament.It also can speak of the people as an abstract concept. The bourgeoisie was essentially a mercantile bourgeoisie and they possessed the fleet of the country and employed all the sailors. The crown had no fleet per se. Parliament, or rather the House of Commons, or what was left of it after various purges, was in the hands of the merchants and under the pressure of their fleet and sailors, and both were armed to defend themselves on the sea they were starting to conquer from the sails of Spain. This armament could easily be turned around.That makes history easy then. There was no legal basis to dismiss the king, and what's more execute him in the whole world, I mean Christian world of course, and parliament "abused" their power in that case, and yet they wrote the world's history because after them there was a simple jurisprudence: a people has the right to dismiss their king if that king is no longer governing in the interest of that people. In a country of common law, that is an important argument. In 1215 at the time of Magna Carta, the barons and the church had imposed to the king a few measures but never did they question his authority that came from god almighty anyway. And we all know that since T.S. Eliot used the argument in his "Murder in the Cathedral".The result is a very dubious Cromwell and a very haphazard approach of history, and a very long and high jump from 1649 to 1660 and the Restoration. But it is from 1649 to 1660 that the most important events occurred in Ireland, in Scotland and on the Seas against Spain, all for the sole profit of the merchants and the overseas maritime companies that were starting to emerge.But it is always interesting to see something about this period which is still taboo in England. No surprise that the BBC is mostly absent from this field of historical study.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

I'll keep it short and sweet, as many have already made accurate criticism of this film, and in general I agree.The film is a travesty, portraying Cromwell, inaccurately, as a 2-dimensional bully. This is compounded by terrible acting (as usual) by Tim Roth. The man just can not act! Here he spurts out each line like a child in a school play, relieved that he has managed to get yet another memorised line out of the way.Rupert Everett as Charles 1 was unconvincing, playing the part as a brute with no class. Charles was a Scot but there was not even the faintest hint of a Scottish accent here, and only the clumsiest inclusion of badly performed stutters. He had clearly not done his homework. I guess Alec Guinness set a standard for this part (in 'Cromwell') which may be impossible to surpass. But the difference is that Guinness was a good actor.Dougray Scott played Fairfax better, but it just got tiresome.As for the script, it was dire and lazy. Easy money. Don't expect any history lessons.I walked away from it half way through. Life's too short to waste it on this junk.This film demonstrates two things: Tim Roth can't act and Mike Barker (Director) can't direct. Just goes to show, it's down to who you know, not what you can do.

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.