User reviews

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.

It's amazing that, three decades after Antonia Fraser's great biography of Cromwell ("Cromwell: Our Chief of Men", 1973; out in a new edition, 2002), the old clichés and inaccuracies about him - ultimately derived from the post-Restoration character assassination satirized in "1066 and All That" - are still being as enthusiastically retailed as they are in this film.

That the dominant image of Cromwell is going to be of Ollie the psychopath is telegraphed in advance by the casting of Tim Roth to play him. Why people think this man can act has always been a mystery to me, but ever since "Reservoir Dogs" he has become so identified with the image of a psychopath that his mere presence is a sign that irrational violence is coming up soon. Right at the beginning of the film we are smacked over the head with this characterization when, before we have heard Cromwell speak a word, we see him barely being restrained from murdering a defenceless man. Later he organizes the torture and then murder of a prisoner, randomly shoots a street vendor in the leg, and ordains a painful execution for a would-be assassin in a fit of uncontrolled rage.

On the other hand, he loves his old mate Fairfax, spends hours writing up a proper constitutional settlement to give ordinary people the right to a fair trial, and shows an almost Woody-Allenesque unconfidence in his abilities as a military commander (comically, since even his enemies conceded his military genius). All these positive character traits are presumably thrown into the mix in order to give the semblance of roundedness, depth, or complexity to the characterization. The trouble is that the combination makes this Cromwell not complex, but simply incoherent. One cannot suspend disbelief in him. That's why, in this case, to say "it's a movie, not history" is not an answer to the criticism. It's precisely because it doesn't make sense as history that it doesn't work as a movie either.

The film is also notable for perpetuating the great Royalist lie that Charles I's death warrant was signed by the regicides before the verdict had been announced - indeed, before the trial had even begun. The document was certainly drawn up in advance (the defendant's guilt being as much a matter of public record as Goering's at Nuremberg), but there is no evidence that it was *signed* beforehand; on such a serious matter it's extremely unlikely the regicides would have opened themselves to the accusation of not observing the proper legal process (see the excellent page about the death warrant that I give the address for in the message boards). From the point of view of film-making, though, the most striking thing is how it totally squandered the dramatic opportunity of the trial itself - which took three days, incidentally, not, as it's presented here, three minutes, with people shouting "guilty" before any evidence has even been presented. As an opportunity to probe Charles's psychology, as he was presented with evidence of the damage his actions had caused, it was completely wasted.

Rupert Everett plays Charles brilliantly, and in the context of a better film it's a performance that would surely have drawn more of the plaudits that it deserves. His mixture of regal dignity, seductiveness, arrogance, and overweening self-belief make a compelling portrait (being true to life, these contradictions, unlike those assigned to Cromwell, actually make a coherent whole). Throughout all his conversations with his captors, his fundamental inability to accord their grievances the slightest legitimacy clearly illustrates how frustrating and ultimately fruitless the attempt to negotiate with him must have been, and why the conflict could only end with his death. Dougray Scott also brings gravitas and pathos to his role of Fairfax, and he sustains the tension of his conflicting loyalties well - even if that tension is historically bogus. As actors, he and Everett deserve to have been in a better film.

While Americans work the comparatively narrow seam of their history so intensively, it's a great shame that the Brits don't make more of some of the incomparably dramatic moments in their own. An even greater shame that, when they occasionally get the chance, it's fluffed with a script of such silliness and banality as this.

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')

Although it presents endless possibilities for costume, action, and worthy 'English' performances, the English Civil War is not a fertile inspiration for films. It has, of course, featured as wallpaper in the 'bodice ripping' genre -'The Scarlet Blade' and 'The Moonraker'come to mind. It also provided the context for the excellent 'Witchfinder General', and the little known and undervalued 'Winstanley'. But there is only one film that comes anywhere near depicting the great and complex panoramic sweep of this period - 'Cromwell'.

I have to tell you that there still is.....for 'To Kill a King' corresponds to that animal most associated with the Puritans across the Atlantic. In short, it's a turkey. Oh, it could have amounted to something, for the ingredients are there if you look hard enough. But it would have helped if the scriptwriters and the director took time out to...well...read a history book.

Now, at this very moment, no doubt, dozens of people will immediately jump out of the woodwork and say 'but it's meant to be entertainment, not a historical documentary!' True enough, and as the credits say at the end, certain events have been altered for dramatic effect. I've no argument with that. If it had kept some sense of proportion, as in 'Michael Collins' (or 'Cromwell' for that matter) I would rest easy. But this film throws out the baby with the bathwater.

The whole of the civil war is reduced to a backdrop for an angst-ridden relationship. There is absolutely no-one else (apart from a pantomine villain) on the whole parliamentarian side, save Cromwell and Fairfax. It's like a seventeenth century version of Cameron's 'Titanic' without the special effects. The mutinous army? The Leveller 'agitators'? The Independent leaders? Not a sign of them! No, Cromwell and Fairfax call all the shots, have the king arrrested etc. etc.

Ah, you say, but that clears the ground for some fine characterisation and acting. Well....not really. You see, the characters of Cromwell and Charles I are absolutely fascinating, and we know so much about them from contemporary sources. In fact, much more interesting than what we get on the screen. The man who desperately wanted a constitutional settlement with the king; who was tolerant of divergent views; and ended up using the army to curb the tyrannical tendencies of the Presbyterian faction of Parliament (an amazing irony, if ever there was one), is depicted as a kind of seventeenth century Trotskyite, the kind of person trying to sell you 'Socialist Worker', complete with the glazed eyes. The man who was devoted to his family, liked music, and loved practical jokes, is played as a humourlous monomaniac. In short, Tim Roth's Cromwell verges on charicature.(At one point, I thought that he had turned into Clint Eastwood's 'Man With No Name', but it could have been the hat.)

Dougray Scott, as Fairfax, is the best thing in it - at least he seems half way believable (though not as a Yorkshireman). Charles I is something else. The real one was refined, courteous, and chaste. Presumably, Rupert Everett must have realised this, as it is evident that he put some time in watching the superb performance by Alec Guiness. (You can almost hear him thinking...'oh..it's about time that I stuttered again!') However this Charles is without charm - slapping his guard, sneering, and flirting with Fairfax's wife.... And then there is Denzil Holles. James Bolan does not appear that enthusiatic - in fact, he almost telephones his lines in.

On a positive note, the film has some moments that are unintentially hilarious. Charles accompanies Mrs. Fairfax on the virginals(?) as she gives a rendering of 'It was a Lover and His Lass'. Cromwell bursts in and starts heaving the furniture around just as they get to the 'hey nonny noes'. We later cut to the Tower of London for some curiously linked vignettes. After a torture session, one of Cromwell's guards hacks off a head for his master's delectation. Charles's Death Warrant is being signed before the trial by this evil lot. All this is done to the accompaniment of a choir of black gowned puritans chanting....no, not a jingle for Quaker Oats, but some strange dirge that is meant to symbolise ascetic intolerance. Yes, folks, nearly all the parliamentarians are sponsored by the breakfast food. Not only is this costume inaccurate, but it's slipshod and boring. After a reconciliation invoving some male bonding, Cromwell suggests Fairfax join him in invading Scotland in the same tone that a mate might propose calling for a curry after the pub shuts.

What else? Did you know that Cromwell pistolled street vendors of Charles I memorabilia? That he wasn't really a General until the war was over?

I'm not really sure who, exactly,this film is aimed at. It won't have the resonance of hokum like 'Braveheart' or 'The Patriot', for the text exposition at the start curves across the screen like battlesmoke. It doesn't have much in the way of action or sex. There aren't any fine dramatic performances. So what on earth were they trying to do?

The film centers about Olivier Cromwell (Tim Roth) and Thomas Fairfaix (Dougray Scott). This interesting picture results to be a recounting of the relationship between General Fairfax and Oliver Cromwell, as they try to cope with the consequences of deposing King Charles I . As Cromwell took over Parliament and taking on king Charles I (Rupert Everett). Then were created two factions : the Roundheads (Cromwell's congressmen) and Cavaliers or Royalists (King's nobility) , both sides had generals of considerable skill and undaunted courage as Thomas Farfaix . Cromwell defeated royal army in battles of Moor , Preston and Naseby (1645). Later on , in 1653 , he was named Lord protector of "Commomwealth" Republic . He imposed a dictatorship ruled by puritans and vanquished the Irish and Scottish army . He also fights against Holland and Spain . Cromwell developed a law of navigation for the British navy . He early died by fevers's illness . Richard Cromwell succeeded his father as President but he was rapidly dismissed .

A general of the Republic army and professional soldier named Thomas Farfaix commands the troops as Parliamentary commander-in-chief . His misunderstanding with Cromwell originates his desertion . Duration Republic was since 1648 to 1660 . Charles II went back to British kingdom and the regicides (those who had condemned Charles I to death) were arrested and hanged , drawn and quartered at Charing Cross . The Cromwell's body was disinterred , and his remains were hung from a scaffold.

The main cast formed by Tim Roth , Dougray Scott , Rupert Everett and Olivia Williams as Lady Farfaix give excellent performances in this historic tale . The movie is very atmospheric with a first rate set design and splendid scenarios . Good direction by Mike Barber , colorful cinematography and evocative musical score . The motion picture will appeal to history's buffs. Rating : 6,5 / 10 . Better than average .

To Kill a King is directed by Mike Barker and written by Jenny Mayhew. It stars Tim Roth, Dougray Scott, Olivia Williams, James Bolam and Rupert Everett. Music is by Richard G Mitchell and cinematography by Eigil Bryld.

It's the end of the English Civil War and with King Charles 1st (Everett) held prisoner by the Parliamentarians, Sir Thomas Fairfax (Scott) and Oliver Cromwell (Roth), friends and colleagues, fall out over the best plan of action for the New England.

A severely troubled production and budgetary constraints left To Kill a King with a mountain to climb just to get acknowledged as a historical epic of worth. Add in the dubious take on this part of English history that so irked the historians, and you would be forgiven for thinking that the film is something of a stinker. Not so actually. For although it's clearly far from flawless, it's a literary piece of work that chooses character dynamics over blood and thunder. Suffice to say that those searching for a battle strewn epic should look elsewhere, but if you have a bent for observations on key personalities involved in war politics during times of upheaval in a period setting? Then this delivers the goods. Well performed by the principal players as well. 7/10

My reaction to this movie was similar to my reaction to "Elizabeth: The Golden Age." A lot of attention was paid to casting and period costuming and location. However, budget constrictions apparently were such that the story could not be told on a greater scale. For example, the movie begins with the mopping up after Cromwell's army has defeated the royalist forces. But unless you are well versed in English history, you don't know why or how they were fighting. (Like the Roman Legions, Cromwell's--or Fairfax's--army had a distinct organizational, tactical and weapon advantage over their opponents.) Gradually the differences in philosophy of governing is portrayed and we begin to get some idea of why everyone hated Charles I, although we really don't see much from a commoner's perspective. The reason for the close relationship of Lady Fairfax to the King and to Cromwell is never made clear (at least not to me). If you have to tell this story with limited locations, then it's better done as a mini-series, where the historical reasons for the conflict can better be elaborated. If you're going to make a movie, at least show us some battle scenes and better explain the motives for everyone's actions.

Many English people know something about the civil war of the 17th century; but the politics of the period between the end of the war and the execution of the king are little known. It's to the credit of 'To Kill a King' that it explores this interval, and it's quite interesting, but the film also has some flaws. Tim Roth plays an insecure Cromwell, but surprisingly, he fails to equip his character with sufficient charisma to convince; with Fairfax and the King himself, the other two leading players in this drama, also softly spoken, there's a certain absence of passion throughout. Moreover, the too-extensive score distances the viewer from the immediacy of the story, and the screenplay samples the events of the period without giving the impression that they are unfolding in real time. It's also a shame that the drama centres on personal politics only; the religious, economic and wider ideological divisions that underpinned the conflict are barely addressed. I still enjoyed the film, but see Channel 4's dramatisation of the life of Elisabeth I to see how the politics of another era can really be brought to life.

What's Good:

The set and costume design.

What's Bad:

Quite frankly, almost everything else. This is a catalogue of historical errors. In fact, almost everything is incorrect. Some people will no doubt bleat that it's a film and it doesn't matter. This is our history, ladies and gentlemen. If you want to tell a story, then make it all up, but don't mess with historical fact. Tim Roth's portrayal of Cromwell is laughably inaccurate. Cromwell was nothing like this. And he was also a general, and a very good one at that, something the filmmakers seem to have conveniently forgotten. The performances are mediocre at best. Even the usually reliable Roth turns in a thoroughly average performance. Rupert Everett (as Charles I) is the best, but even he hardly shines. The script is slow, dull and poorly written.

Conclusion:

When will filmmakers realise that real history is invariably more interesting than their warped version of it? This is one of the worst historical dramas I've seen in a long time. I was glad to get out. Take my advice and don't even go in.

As an eager over historic events all around, this picture mesmerizing about the contentious puritan leader Oliver Cromwell (Tim Roth), who enforce on British Island tree long years of a bloody civil war engaged by an aristocracy member Lord Thomas Fairfax (Dougray Scott) against the corrupt King Charles I (Rupert Everett), this picture focuses when the war is over and the royalist were finally defeated on battlefield, back in London Lord Fairfax & Cromwell gathered the Parliamentarians of the House of Commons to deliberate about the stringent settlement called the "Head of Proposals" which proposed a kind of softened parliamentary monarchy, promptly rejected by the King Charles I, Lord Fairfax intervenes in order to saves him, Cromwell has been changed since the end of war, acting with brutality and revenge against the panic-stricken aristocracy, Fairfax realizing that Cromwell wasn't willing to negotiate and disbanded the head of Commons, then Fairfax withdrew and refuses assign the document to compel and judge the King to living on the countryside with his gorgeous wife Lady Anne (Olivia Williams), meanwhile in London Cromwell takes the king to a debasing trial, later executed by the axe the King had his head cut, Cromwell self-called Lord Protector, this engrossing movie the throw light on this bleak historic occasion when the England for short period was ruled by a commoner and being a republic, who should conceive it nowadays!!!

Thanks for reading.

Resume:

First watch: 2021 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 7.5

I love seventeenth century English history - not because I would like to have lived there (no way!) but because it is endlessly fascinating. So any film made about the period has my mouth watering.

I looked forward to this but oh its so bad, Soooooo bad.

The historical inaccuracies are legion - really. Its actually quite hard to find anything that's even slightly accurate. As history its so poor you'd think it was made in Hollywood. Not is it factually wrong, with people doing and saying things they did not say in places that they never were, but sharp-shooting with smooth-bore 17th century pistols? Laughable! And that's before we even get onto the politics and religion!

It might be possible to relax and consider a fairy story or as entertainment - but its pretty rubbish at that as well. Mumbling characters, dull script...

Avoid, avoid, avoid.

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

English Civil War events were not very familiar to me, and there are not too many films about it (I remember seeing panoramic Cromwell (1970) some decades ago). The times were hectic, ideas were exuberant, but real life and people's absorption of them was rather shabby. To Kill a King focuses on the relationship between MP / Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell and Sir/General Thomas Fairfax in the post-war period from 1648 until the former's death, in 1658.

Although Tim Roth is a fine actor and Dougray Scott seems good actor as well, I felt no profound contradiction or complexity between them; well, their approaches and motives were reasoned, but their depiction was somewhat perfunctory, via uneven course of events, mostly taking place indoors (many exterior or nature scenes provide more faithfulness). Rupert Everett as King Charles I was too reserved as well, female characters and performance were quite uninviting. I felt myself constantly watching a historical half-documentary that could have been helpful before respective exam :) Thus, more thank okay film, but no conceptional work for me... Of I have been spoiled by powerful war and costume dramas...

Well I am quite well read on this period of history.And unfortunately I don't feel this film portrays the period well at all,Tim Roth,as good as he is is other roles,was,in my opinion totally miscast as Oliver Cromwell..history shows Cromwell to be a strong minded,gruff,honest,happily married Huntingdon Farm owner who rose through the ranks of the army to become commander in chief,and who trained his army to be the best in Europe.Tim's portrayal comes across as a greedy,power mad weasel.I'm afraid if it is a history lesson you are looking for then watch 'Cromwell' starring Richard Harris (an excellent portrayal)..but if you choose to watch this film,then take the history aspect with a pinch of salt.I can't really imagine a statue of Mr Roths version of Cromwell being erected outside parliament and being heralded a great Englishman.

What seemed to be billed and potentially a good film was for me not only disappointing but inaccurate both in it's historical content but in the tone it set. In general terms it was an enjoyable romp and it portrayed Fairfax reasonably well but Cromwell was sidelined to almost be the butler of Fairfax until he stood aside and Cromwell somehow stood in for him which is completely untrue. A lot of the important events were telescoped into amazingly small time frames almost to get them out of the way to give us an unshaven Fairfax looking gloomy. The Puritans were also treated as ignorant fanatics, particularly Ireton which made me think back to the BBC children's serials of yesteryear where Cavalier = Good, long hair, flashy uniform and Puritan = Bad, poor complexion, bad haircut and BLACK clothes which again a real parody of the actual events. I suppose if you know nothing about the English Civil War and the Commonwealth and Protectorate and like your history served up as soap opera then ok otherwise avoid.

This tells the story of Lord Fairfax and Oliver Cromwell, two rebel leaders during the English Civil war in the 1640s. The rose up against the King, who claimed to rule by divine appointment. However, once the battles were fought, the politics began, and Fairfax finds himself torn between his loyalty to his friend Cromwell, his love for his royalist sympathising wife, and his fear for his own life and that of his unborn child. The film is less than perfectly balanced between the many themes which it addresses, but is an interesting comment on a period of history not much covered on film in recent years.

My heart bleeds for almost everyone involved in this film. They obviously tried VERY hard but the low budget shows in every frame. There is an epic movie to be made about the English Civil War ("Cromwell", with Burton and Guinness is by far the best so far), but to do the subject justice you need decent funding. Battle scenes involving 10 actors shot in close up and "can't be bothered" extras are just embarrassing. The other big problem is the casting of the enormous Rupert Everett as the tiny King Charles I. Everett is a good actor and does his best, but his casting is completely inappropriate. Just about everyone in this enterprise deserved to be praised, but it's still a rotten film. 10/10 for effort, but 4/10 for the finished product.

If you like history (I do) then you'll probably enjoy this at least, but if you don't then I wouldn't be in a rush to see this. It's an atypical limited budget historical drama. With Tim Roth in "I'm playing a psychopath" role. Dougray Scott trying to be brooding and troubled, Olivia Williams being very one-dimensional and Rupert Everett being pretty good as Charles I.

It's ok, the tensions Lord and Lady Fairfax have to deal with are interesting but not realised properly. It's ok for a rainy afternoon with nothing better to do, it is entertaining but you do need to be interested in the history.

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.

Stunning - - absolutely stunning visually. If for no other reason to see the film BUT -- the sound is awful. You can't understand everyone. It's hollow! You would think with all the producers on this film - that they would be conscious of everything. They were so sensitive to the perfect costuming and sets. But the sound? Yikes! It spoiled it for me...

Was it because it was in Dolby 5.1 -- and we didn't watch it in Dolby 5.1 ???

There also was not enough explanation as to what was going on. Otherwise it would be PERFECT for school children to see. It would have taken so little effort to explain things..

I can only assume this contributed to the films unpopularity. I never heard of it. I took a chance on it seeing it on the library shelf... and was immediately impressed with the costuming and sets. But try to understand it? I put it back on the shelf... and forgot it...

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.

Apparently the filmmakers didn't even have time for the Cliff's Notes version of the English Civil War. Last time I checked, Oliver Cromwell was regarded even by his enemies as one of the foremost military minds in history. The New Model Army was his baby. And a biggot? The man welcomed the Jewish faith and open practice thereof back to England, for God's sake. As for comparing these events to the French Revolution/Reign of Terror, the FACT of the matter is that it was essentially the American Revolution...just a little ahead of it's time. (Something, no doubt, the Brits simply cannot contemplate.) Sad, silly, revisionist stuff.

For producers and screenwriters, trying to make a historically accurate film, especially one dealing with a faraway and complex period, is a thankless and often pointless task. History, having no clear beginning and no clear end, is almost impossible to squeeze into the conventional story structures demanded of cinema-going audiences - at least as they are perceived by film financiers. And the result is always a mass of over-simplifications, compressions, chronological mayhem and mis-characterization. Even if the end result is a good story, which in this case it sadly is not, the value of the piece as 'history' is as good as useless. This is the case with 'To Kill a King'. As an aide to history it is without value, because the events and conflicts it portrays were almost certainly nothing like the film-makers would have us believe. And as pure entertainment it's unpardonably slow. It gets ties up in arcane issues that we have no special reason to be concerned about any more, and rarely flames into life. Some of the performances are lively (Everett as King Charles is the high point), but most are one-dimensional, include that of both Fairfaxes (Dougray Scott and Olivia Williams). Overall, unless Civil War costumes fascinate you, this film offers little return on the cost of a cinema ticket.

One of the pivotal events of European history, the English Civil War, is treated with an indifference to reality that surpasses insouciance. The frustrated viewer may be forgiven for concluding either that neither producer nor screenwriter had read anything relevant beyond a short encyclopaedia article or two (though, doubtless, both looked at many an illustration of the time: costumes and sets are largely accurate) or that both deliberately chose to reinforce the stereotypes to which the ignorant subscribe (Parliamentarians were dull, bigotted fools; Royalists were noble and brave; etc., etc., etc.). A thorough waste of time.