Genres

Visitors Review

2012-05-20 11:45:21

To Kill an Idea

My copy of "To Kill a King" is flawed in that the language isn't distinct and I lost some of the drama of the film and this film is more about language than about sets and costumes. The film revolves around three major players, Oliver Cromwell, his friend, Sir Thomas Fairfax, and the King, Charles Stewart. The setting is immediately after the victory of the Parliamentary forces, led by Cromwell and General Fairfax, against the Royalist forces. The King is defeated but still the King. He refuses to compromise on important aspects of what he regards as his God-Given Authority--such as the authority to render arbitrary judgments. This, of course, sets him distinctly at odds with Cromwell. Parliament is bribed and cajoled to favor the King's position and Cromwell dissolves Parliament at the point of a gun.By this time, Cromwell's old friend and buddy, Thomas, is getting uneasy. He has, after all, fought for the primacy of Parliament. Cromwell, realizing that his revolution is not complete until there is no King, holds a drumhead trial in which the King is convicted and condemned to die on the block. Now, Thomas is really uneasy and his squeamishness starts to affect his friendship with Cromwell.The King is executed. Cromwell raises his hands, reddened with a King's own blood, and proclaims to the crowd, "See. His blood is red just like ours. You are your own masters now."But England has been a monarchy for one thousand years and more. The people are uncomfortable with concepts like 'freedom' and 'republic'. They're even more uncomfortable with regicide. Cromwell, despite his elevation to 'Lord Protector' is the most hated man in England. Thomas, despite increasing dismay, sticks by the King but not for long. The friendship breaks like a rotten stick. Cromwell dies--some say by malaria--and the new English Republic dies along with him with the return of Charles II. Charles strings the bones of Cromwell up for public display. Thus with regicides.I think this is a very good movie. I just wish I could have heard it better.Ron Braithwaite author of novels--"Skull Rack" and "Hummingbird God"--on the Spanish Conquest of Mexico

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU 2012-05-19 19:10:31

This period is a lot more than that

1645 is a crucial year but what happened is not clear in this film thatconcentrates more on personal issues and intimate details than onhistorical facts.The rivalry between Fairfax and Cromwell is purely circumstantial. Itis not the very problem at the heart of the period. Cromwell is the onewho reformed the army to lead them to victory. Cromwell is the one whohad the eloquence and religious depth to inspire that newly reformedarmy to victory a first time against the king, and a second timeagainst the king, and several more times against the Irish, the Scotsand Spain. The second civil war is not clear in the film at all, apartfrom gritty details about hangings, killings and battlefield deaths.The debate around parliament and the king is essential and reduced hereto a clash between personalities, a clash between the authority of themilitary and that of the political branch of government. It alsoreduces Cromwell to pure violence, anger, fits of aggressiveness, etc.But that is not the debate. The debate is in the very nature of theking. In 1649 it is feudalism that dies on the scaffold, and not onlythe king. It is not the question of blue or red blood, but the questionof who or what appoints the king, is it god or is it parliament, oreven is it the people? That third alternative is absolutely absent, asif the film ignored the formula "the government of the people, by thepeople and for the people", at the end of another civil war.This period then changed Europe, true enough, but also the world, andthe end of the film with a jump from "Cromwell's revolution" to the"French Revolution" is absurd. It ignores the Glorious Revolution andthe dismissal of the King by parliament, the establishment of rules forthe choice or designation of successors on the throne by Parliamentthen, and the Declaration of Independence in America that explains howthe people is fully justified to dismiss a king when the relationsbetween this king and his people have distended and even gottenruptured. For the first time ever in the feudal world that included thecolonies in America a king, Charles I, was dismissed by his people andthe representatives of this people.The film is not clear at all on another detail: the fact that theremust have been only a few tens of thousands of electors in England atthe time to elect the members of parliament. Only the propertied freepeople who had real estate or a business (that could include asproperty serfs and other permanently or temporarily indentured humanbeings along with cattle and economic equipment) and paid taxes forthese possessions or businesses could vote. The House of Lords had beendisbanded and the House of Commons only represented the propertied andbusiness-endowed tax paying at least well-off people, the bourgeoisiein another word. The film thus does not have to mention that sevenmembers of Cromwell's family were at one time members of parliament.It also can speak of the people as an abstract concept. The bourgeoisiewas essentially a mercantile bourgeoisie and they possessed the fleetof the country and employed all the sailors. The crown had no fleet perse. Parliament, or rather the House of Commons, or what was left of itafter various purges, was in the hands of the merchants and under thepressure of their fleet and sailors, and both were armed to defendthemselves on the sea they were starting to conquer from the sails ofSpain. This armament could easily be turned around.That makes history easy then. There was no legal basis to dismiss theking, and what's more execute him in the whole world, I mean Christianworld of course, and parliament "abused" their power in that case, andyet they wrote the world's history because after them there was asimple jurisprudence: a people has the right to dismiss their king ifthat king is no longer governing in the interest of that people. In acountry of common law, that is an important argument. In 1215 at thetime of Magna Carta, the barons and the church had imposed to the kinga few measures but never did they question his authority that came fromgod almighty anyway. And we all know that since T.S. Eliot used theargument in his "Murder in the Cathedral".The result is a very dubious Cromwell and a very haphazard approach ofhistory, and a very long and high jump from 1649 to 1660 and theRestoration. But it is from 1649 to 1660 that the most important eventsoccurred in Ireland, in Scotland and on the Seas against Spain, all forthe sole profit of the merchants and the overseas maritime companiesthat were starting to emerge.But it is always interesting to see something about this period whichis still taboo in England. No surprise that the BBC is mostly absentfrom this field of historical study.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

2012-05-10 16:03:06

Cromwell-Fairfax relationship shallow and muddled...

Customer review from the Amazon Vine™ Program (What's this?) To Kill a King is a grandiose movie, a splurge of costumes and sets. In mid-17th century England, the infamous Oliver Cromwell deposes King Charles I and orchestrates the King's execution. He becomes the Lord Protector, and after his death a few years later, the monarchy is restored, and Cromwell's body is hanged. But that's not what To Kill a King is about.During the rebellion, Cromwell's general was Thomas Fairfax. As the war against the king came to an end, Fairfax became estranged from Cromwell, even attempting an assassination. The bond between these two men, however, kept Cromwell from retaliating.What?And there is one of the big problems with this tale. There was no explanation for the depth of the relationship between Cromwell and Fairfax. In addition, there was no explanation for Cromwell's relationship with the victorious Puritans, anything about the history of either man, and really nothing about the allegations of crimes against the King.It gets worse.Everything is clean in London... the streets have no trash during this civil war, there are no smallpox scars, no beggars, and, as far as I could tell, no dirt. The floors in all the buildings were immaculate, and the clothes clean and the boots polished.In reality, diseases like malaria and TB are rampant, London is a huge, dirty, and polluted city, and the result of a civil war are displaced people everywhere. A high infant mortality is normal. This seemed like a movie designed to win the Best Costume Design at the Academy Awards. The costumes were magnificent. Unfortunately, this movie could never be nominated in any other category. And costumes alone cannot carry this story.

2012-05-10 06:48:02

Not Your Standard Costume Drama

I had halfway expected a standard costume drama with plenty of bloody action and steamy sex scenes - you know, the usual Hollywood crapola job for such historical topics - but not at all. It was a well acted, well scripted first class film mainly about the relationship between Cromwell and general Fairfax. Of course, the film has to suffer some from the fact that the historical context is too large for just a 102 min film: one does sense there was a more going on and one might miss having a little more explicit background but I found the characterizations and plot satisfying. Maybe not a great film but a very enjoyable one done with class.

2012-05-08 23:17:21

Darkly handsome and absorbing historical film

This review is from: To Kill A King [Blu-ray] (Blu-ray) A friend, whose taste I respect, recommended "To Kill a King". As I generally favor such historical film fare, I was quick to order a copy. Some internet research suggested that reaction to the film by viewers and critics was split, with a lot of comments about the fictionalized moments in the script. I wish I knew a bit more about the precise facts of the Reformation Period in England in order to correctly determine the truth of such events as the saving of Cromwell's life by his friend, Fairfax which is so much in dispute here. All the same, I was pleased to find this picture to be a mature, thoughtful and absorbing piece. The stark, atmospheric lighting and cinematography, literate dialogue, convincing performances by the cast, etc...... all contributed to a thoroughly engrossing and satisfying film. A viewing of the very interesting, if imperfect, earlier movie, "Cromwell", starring Richard Harris in the lead role, makes it very clear that this newer dramatization approaches the character of Oliver Cromwell with a radically altered bias. From what I have read and heard in the past, this leader of The Roundheads was controversial from the moment he emerged on history's stage, and remains the subject of many arguments about his heroism, or lack thereof, and his contribution to the way England was governed. Most seem to concur that he was a stern and rigid fellow, who believed unwaveringly in his own moral perspective, and could be ruthless and brutal with those he opposed. "To Kill a King" is the kind of intelligent adult drama that is too scarce these days and it stimulates a great deal of interest in its subject and the questions raised by that enormous upheaval in British history.

2012-05-08 00:47:59

engrossing film....

Customer review from the Amazon Vine™ Program (What's this?) The year is 1645 King Charles is overthrown. Two old friends rejoice the hard-fought victory, Lord General Thomas Fairfax and Deputy General Oliver Cromwell. It is apparent soon after the king is dethroned that though they both are rejoicing what this will mean for the people they have separate ideas of what should occur next. Cromwell, played by Tim Roth is outspoken, arrogant and passionate in his beliefs. He immediately orders a death warrant for King Charles (played wonderfully by Rupert Everett). Fairfax is the charismatic one, he wants justice at all costs but is the only one that refuses to sign the warrant as no man should be executed without a trial. Through the turn of events after the King is overthrown you see how the friendship between the two deteriorates and how they are both torn with realizing that after gaining so much they have also lost much as men and as friends.I do not know how historically accurate this film is, but it is based on a true story that I have not had much exposure to and I found the time period and the struggle between the two leads to be very engrossing. Cinematography was excellent, both in it's starkness of the war dead and it's grandeur of the palace of King Charles. The costumes and period detail was also well done in my opinion. As an action/adventure I found that this was a very entertaining film, but would say it is probably more enjoyed as a character study of the two men whose story became a legend. I very much enjoyed the film and would recommend it to others.

jmhowitt 2012-05-05 20:30:32

Historically inaccurate and in tone inaccurate.

What seemed to be billed and potentially a good film was for me not onlydisappointing but inaccurate both in it's historical content but in thetoneit set.In general terms it was an enjoyable romp and it portrayed Fairfaxreasonably well but Cromwell was sidelined to almost be the butler ofFairfax until he stood aside and Cromwell somehow stood in for him whichiscompletely untrue. A lot of the important events were telescoped intoamazingly small time frames almost to get them out of the way to give usanunshaven Fairfax looking gloomy. The Puritans were also treated asignorantfanatics, particularly Ireton which made me think back to the BBCchildren'sserials of yesteryear where Cavalier = Good, long hair, flashy uniform andPuritan = Bad, poor complexion, bad haircut and BLACK clothes which againareal parody of the actual events.I suppose if you know nothing about the English Civil War and theCommonwealth and Protectorate and like your history served up as soapoperathen ok otherwise avoid.

Jonathan Dore 2012-05-05 13:58:09

Read Antonia Fraser instead

It's amazing that, three decades after Antonia Fraser's great biographyof Cromwell ("Cromwell: Our Chief of Men", 1973; just out in a newedition, 2002), the old clichés and inaccuracies about him - ultimatelyderived from the post-Restoration character assassination satirized in"1066 and All That" - are still being as enthusiastically retailed asthey are in this film.That the dominant image of Cromwell is going to be of Ollie thepsychopath is telegraphed in advance by the casting of Tim Roth to playhim. 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 theimage of a psychopath that his mere presence is a sign that irrationalviolence is coming up soon. Right at the beginning of the film we aresmacked over the head with this characterization when, before we haveheard Cromwell speak a word, we see him barely being restrained frommurdering a defenceless man. Later he organizes the torture and thenmurder of a prisoner, randomly shoots a street vendor in the leg, andordains a painful execution for a would-be assassin in a fit ofuncontrolled rage.On the other hand, he loves his old mate Fairfax, spends hours writingup a proper constitutional settlement to give ordinary people the rightto a fair trial, and shows an almost Woody-Allenesque unconfidence inhis abilities as a military commander (comically, since even hisenemies conceded his military genius). All these positive charactertraits are presumably thrown into the mix in order to give thesemblance 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 tothe criticism. It's precisely because it doesn't make sense as historythat it doesn't work as a movie either.The film is also notable for perpetuating the great Royalist lie thatCharles I's death warrant was signed by the regicides before theverdict had been announced - indeed, before the trial had even begun.The document was certainly drawn up in advance (the defendant's guiltbeing as much a matter of public record as Goering's at Nuremberg), butthere is no evidence that it was *signed* beforehand; on such a seriousmatter it's extremely unlikely the regicides would have openedthemselves to the accusation of not observing the proper legal process(see the excellent page about the death warrant that I give the addressfor in the message boards). From the point of view of film-making,though, the most striking thing is how it totally squandered thedramatic opportunity of the trial itself - which took three days,incidentally, not, as it's presented here, three minutes, with peopleshouting "guilty" before any evidence has even been presented. As anopportunity to probe Charles's psychology, as he was presented withevidence of the damage his actions had caused, it was completelywasted.Rupert Everett plays Charles brilliantly, and in the context of abetter film it's a performance that would surely have drawn more of theplaudits 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 toCromwell, actually make a coherent whole). Throughout all hisconversations with his captors, his fundamental inability to accordtheir grievances the slightest legitimacy clearly illustrates howfrustrating and ultimately fruitless the attempt to negotiate with himmust 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 ifthat tension is historically bogus. As actors, he and Everett deserveto have been in a better film. While Americans work the comparativelynarrow seam of their history so intensively, it's a great shame whenthe Brits don't make more of some of the incomparably dramatic momentsin their own. An even greater shame that, when they occasionally getthe chance, it's fluffed with a script of such silliness and banalityas this.

2012-05-03 03:11:11

Roth at his finest

Customer review from the Amazon Vine™ Program (What's this?) The breakdown of the movie is not really needed in a review like this because the editorial does it justice. Basically you have a piece that is reflecting on a specific era in time and that reflection is well done. It earns the label drama, however, and it really wants to be epic in nature. That said, I would certainly say that were it not for Tim Roth I probably would have looked passed this movie because all in all, it was exactly what I expected. It had the set-up, the expected dress, the storyline - all of the things I anticipated just by reading about the movie. The one thing I did not expect was the not-so-run-of-the-mill acting that found its way into the movie. I was honestly surprised by that - not because I didn't expect a great performance from Roth but because many of these movies start to blur together in my mind after a while.With regard to a recommendation or not, it depends on how much the description appeals to you. If you want a piece set in a specific timeframe, have a love for these types of movies, and have some inkling of what you are getting into then I would say to try it out. I personally thought this was renting fodder and this isn't really a movie I would have considered if I were just browsing, but I'm not certain I would want it in a collection even if I really found all the descriptors exactly what I needed. Knowing what I know now I would probably rent it and see what I think about it before buying - it made for a good watch and was enjoyable but that alone does not make it an easy sale. For fans of Tim Roth this would be a great pick-up since Roth at the top of his game, and the genre might be appealing enough for people to go out and pick this up. All in all, I gave it a 3 because I liked it but didn't like it enough to say that it had the rewatchability I crave.

paul2001sw-1 2012-05-02 08:31:45

Some interest, but underwhelming

Many English people know something about the civil war of the 17thcentury; but the politics of the period between the end of the war andthe execution of the king are little known. It's to the credit of 'ToKill a King' that it explores this interval, and it's quiteinteresting, but the film also has some flaws. Tim Roth plays aninsecure Cromwell, but surprisingly, he fails to equip his characterwith sufficient charisma to convince; with Fairfax and the Kinghimself, the other two leading players in this drama, also softlyspoken, there's a certain absence of passion throughout. Moreover, thetoo-extensive score distances the viewer from the immediacy of thestory, and the screenplay samples the events of the period withoutgiving the impression that they are unfolding in real time. It's also ashame that the drama centres on personal politics only; the religious,economic and wider ideological divisions that underpinned the conflictare barely addressed. I still enjoyed the film, but see Channel 4'sdramatisation of the life of Elisabeth I to see how the politics ofanother era can really be brought to life.

2012-05-01 13:30:38

emotionally-moving perfection

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.

2012-05-01 04:45:19

A Parable on Theocracy

Customer review from the Amazon Vine™ Program (What's this?) To Kill a King might be seen as a warning to the west. 300 years before the shah of iran was toppled and replaced with a republic founded on strict religious intolerance, England went through a simnilar chaos. General Thomas Fairfax,{ well played by the Welsh actor Dougray Scott} having defeated the royal troops of Charles 1[Rupert Evertt} with his loyal Oliver Cromwell{the brilliant Tim Roth}, now set out to establish a republic in England. Court intrigue, barons large landowners, the king and Fairfaxs' wife{Olivia Williams, in a virtual non-role} all try to derail the plans of Cromwell. The Round hats are not shown in their intolerance,though it is hinted at. The real battle is beween Fairfax and Cromwell for the consciencee,if not soul, of England. The production values are quite high, typical of an english made costume drama.The beard test[ do the beards look real or do they look like Monty Phython or SNL}is passed , as are the wigs and costumes. There is little action as such[the opening scene is after a battle, with naked corpses being piled up] and most of the action, such as it is, tales place indoors. Only Fairfax is fleshed out, where we believe him to be real.In all, a good,not great movie, a period piece, well worth it for the great Tim Roth and very very Good Dougray Scott.

2012-04-29 10:15:01

Cromwell & Fairfax: Together Again!

Customer review from the Amazon Vine™ Program (What's this?) British history has long been responsible for the making of varying degrees of drama since well before Shakespeare (whose "histories" were, admittedly, much more concerned with drama (and the politics of his time) than history.)When these dramas are at their best, as in "A Man for All Seasons", "Beckett", or the sublime "The Lion in Winter" (written by an American-James Goldman) they are transcendent. When they are not quite up to snuff, they still transcend virtually any drama about American history of a similar period. Understandable to a degree since there was little "royal" intrigue (and even fewer beheadings) in our own early days. Indeed, except for "1776" and, maybe, "Amistad", few American history films are watchable. But I digress. "To Kill a King" falls below the best of Brit/hist dramas, but still has much to recommend it as more than just a history lesson. The performances are all fine with Rupert Everett a standout in the type of role he never gets in American films; the writing, if not much beyond serviceable, is never turgid or dull and keeps the various political complexities clear , and Mike Barker's direction moves things along at the right pace and maintains our interest throughout. In short, while even those who have no interest in Henry II, indeed even those who don't know who he was, would be enthralled by "Lion". Only those who know, and care, about Oliver Cromwell and his times will be interested in "To Kill a King". BUT they will not be disappointed.

2012-04-29 03:19:52

3.5 star drama. Tim Roth is excellent!

Customer review from the Amazon Vine™ Program (What's this?) I have been watching a lot of historical dramas lately, and was glad to be able to receive an advance copy of To Kill a King to review. Although it wasn't excellent, it was good and definitely held my interest.Both Tim Roth and Dougray Scott were excellent as Cromwell and Fairfax, respectively. Rupert Everett also did a very good job as King Charles. The cinematography was beautiful and the film was able to depict both the grandeur and the grittiness of the era.This is really a character study of Cromwell and Fairfax and the movie does a good job of showing the interaction of the two as well as the politics during the time of the English Civil War.

Marina 2012-04-28 18:19:35

Enjoyable History Lesson

I'm not very familiar with this period and this particular story but onething I can say is that the film was very enjoyable. The story isfascinating to begin but the acting truly adds to the experience.Outstanding! Dougray Scott's portrayal of General Thomas Fairfax, a mantornbetween the love of his wife and that of his the country, is amazing towatch. To add to the pile, Tim Roth is worthy of an oscar nomination forhisrole as Oliver Cromwell, an army man that allows power and greed to sendhisdreams and beliefs and actions askew. I think there are some Oscar worthyperformances here. Well worth watching.

angie-235 2012-04-28 03:58:29

Intelligent film.

On first viewing I was not really satisfied with this film. Who coulddeal with such a vast subject in one film? It was clever to not tacklethe whole war but concentrate on a shorter time frame. I have noknowledge of any of the actors except James Bolam. I would not havecast Rupert Everett on looks , height etc but how little that matters .He is really excellent , he uses his eyes to great effect .The King'scontinued belief that he will be rescued , the British people really dolove him are obvious at first . It is the pain and fear in his eyesthat really seals it for me .His walk to the block ( being fondled andclawed at by the commoners is obviously repellent and terrifying).There is something about the whole scene that really reflects KingCharles's inner faith that this is his second wedding day ,this time toJesus . Tim Roth plays Cromwell with a touch too many Hitler likestances but he is so much better than Richard Harris. I think manyhistorians do think Cromwell had mental illness. The Govt. by his NewModel Army reminds me of The Taliban .I would have been on the side ofParliament but like many English people welcomed back the monarchyafter his rule. I have little knowledge of Fairfax but the relationshipbetween the two is worth reading about if this film is anything to goby. The sets are fantastic ,the actual Hampton Court was worth it . Iam sure that even Civil War buffs should acknowledge it's intelligence. I only wish the creators could have made a series. Things worthlooking out for are the severe uniforms worn at the King's trial ,notea love of buttons ( Cromwell truly was a dictator worthy of Pinochet).The King's absolute lack of understanding the ranting man who made nosense to his perception of his place in the World.The bewilderment ofCromwell that anyone should see things other than his way. If youweren't sure on first viewing give it a second and third chance. Idon't see any flirting between Charles 1st and Lady Fairfax b.t.w justa lonely man desperate for company of his class and a woman in awe ofthe most important man in the country in her eyes.

Istvan Kolnhofer 2012-04-26 12:36:47

A fine film

To Kill A King, is a fine underrated historical drama. The story ofOliver Cromwell's complex friendship with General Fairfax, set againstthe backdrop of the war against King Charles I, is an engaging anddramatic one. With vivid and memorable characterizations, excellentproduction design, the film evokes a time of change and reform, andalso of chaos and brutality. While not quite the epic of Lawrence ofArabia or Alexander, the film still has much sweep while maintaining acerebral chamber drama feel. The costumes are top notch, the locationsand sets authentic, and with crisp cinematography and competentediting, an intelligent and passionate script comes to life and engagesus in this story of English civil war in the age of discovery andreform. Tim Roth is absolutely terrific as Oliver Cromwell. Not onlydoes he physically convey the man, he brings the sufficient gravitasand seething rage that brings the character to life on the screen.Equally well cast are Dougray Scott as Fairfax, and especially RupertEverett, who steals the show as King Charles I. My only complaintsabout the film is that it is too short - I was left wanting to knowmore about the events that led to the King's defeat and Cromwell's riseto 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 pickup and go with it. But for someone ignorant about English history, thescript may have been quite confusing at first. But I will say that itis usually a good sign if a film leaves you hungry for more of thestory, not for lack of it, but for feeding the viewer's imagination ofhow 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 craftedhistorical film

2012-04-25 19:15:32

A Surprisingly Good Movie

I read so many negative reviews about the movie; I wasn't going to buy it. When I found the Blu-Ray edition selling for $9.96 at Wal-Mart, I couldn't pass it up. I definitely recommend Blu-Ray. I would have given it 5 stars but the dialogue is a little muddled.The movie explores the development of our notions about "Authority" and "Legitimacy". The movie suggests that the current thinking was that the authority to rule comes from God and not the people. The Divine Right of Kings was an integral part of religious views. To challenge the notion of Divine Right would be to challenge the core religious beliefs of society. In the movie, Sir Thomas Fairfax and his wife Lady Anne believe in the Divine Right of Kings. Thomas, however, believes that the King should be removed from power where as his wife (and all her family) did not. The general thinking in England sided with Thomas. Oliver Cromwell believed that the authority to rule came from the people, and, wanted to see the monarchy eliminated. He believed that the Divine Right of Kings was just an excuse to control, oppress and dominate.The movie primarily focuses on Sir Thomas Fairfax and his efforts to maintain his relationships to both his wife and to Cromwell despite their differences. Cromwell's treatment of the King and the King's eventual trial and beheading, completely severs the relationship between Fairfax and Cromwell.The representation of the period as will as the Cinematography is excellent. This is a drama and not an action movie. Remember, the historical events and their outcomes are already well known.As an American, of course "Authority" and "Legitimacy" come from the people: how could it be any other way? But then, there was a time when Europe thought the contrary.

sekjr 2012-04-24 02:09:10

Stunning visually

Stunning - - absolutely stunning visually. If for no other reason tosee 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 - thatthey would be conscious of everything. They were so sensitive to theperfect costuming and sets. But the sound? Yikes! It spoiled it forme...Was it because it was in Dolby 5.1 -- and we didn't watch it in Dolby5.1 ???There also was not enough explanation as to what was going on.Otherwise it would be PERFECT for school children to see. It would havetaken so little effort to explain things..I can only assume this contributed to the films unpopularity. I neverheard 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 tounderstand it? I put it back on the shelf... and forgot it...

2012-04-23 13:42:03

Democracy, Liberty, Egalitarianism, Compromise

Customer review from the Amazon Vine™ Program (What's this?) "The issues at stake - democracy, liberty, egalitarianism, compromise, pragmatism - are as important today as they were then. To Kill a King is a decent and honourable film that, unfashionably in contemporary cinema, shows some interest in ideas and how they function in public life. Unlike most films today, it would have benefited by being a good half-hour longer." Phillip FrenchThe friendship between General Sir Thomas Fairfax, as played by Dougray Scott and Oliver Cromwell (Tim Roth) is a high point of this film. They are brought together in the years just before the end of the English Civil War in 1645. Cromwell has allowed this power to overwhelm him and when the new Charter is not accepted by King Charles I, played valiantly by Rupert Everett, he decides to bring the King to trial and executes him. This causes a great chasm between Cromwell and General Sir Fairfax. Fairfax is an honorable man and wants the good of the people before fame and allegiance to the Court. General Sir Fairfax is married to a wealthy woman, beautiful high-born Lady Anne (Olivia Williams). Because of their close relationship, it has been wondered at times if Cromwell had a homoerotic love for General Sir Fairfax. The most intriguing character in my mind is Lord General Fairfax and he came to be beloved by his countrymen during a time of great upheaval. With the collapse of the Royalist cause came a confused period of negotiations between the Parliament and the king, between the king and the Scots, and between the Presbyterians and the Independents in and out of Parliament. In these negotiations the New Model Army soon began to take a most active part. The lord general was placed in the unpleasant position of intermediary between his own officers and Parliament. It was at this time that Lord General Fairfax came into his own and his prominence was supreme. This film has a history in keeping with the turbulence of this era- the film was twice bankrupt and film and crew were not paid at times. Sets were left as they were and the film moved on when money was available. It is a good sign that this film was released at all. "To Kill a King looks very good, with a fine, if simple, rendering of period sets and costumes. The script does a good job of keeping all the elements together, though much of it is exposition, bits of history for the uninformed." Henry FastRecommended. prisrob 02-28-08