Product Details

• Actors: Artist Not Provided
• Format: Color, Dolby, DVD, NTSC
• Language: English
• Region: Region 1 (U.S. and Canada only. Read more about DVD formats.)
  
• Aspect Ratio: 1.33:1
• Number of discs: 1
• Rating: NR (Not Rated)
• Studio: Kultur Video
• DVD Release Date: September 26, 2006
• Run Time: 50 minutes
• Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
• ASIN: B000HDRAV2
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #125,827 in Movies & TV (See Bestsellers in Movies & TV)

Editorial Reviews

Product Description

No one has ever doubted King Charles’ deeply held religious beliefs, his love for his family or his many qualities as King. But his duplicity and procrastination contributed greatly to the bloodshed of the English Civil Wars and to his own eventual downfall. How could a man so good be so bad a king?

‘King Charles I’ features reconstructions and re-enactments, dramatized ‘eye-witness’ accounts, superb period imagery and commentary and analyses to tell the dramatic story of England’s most tragic monarch.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

4.0 out of 5 stars A bit dull, but a good overview, April 23, 2009

By	Bruce Brocka (Quad Cities) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

Not exactly operating at a Ken Burns level here, this documentary is nonetheless highly informative (it seems like a British High Schooler movie that made it to DVD), and quite accurate, though I found the 100 years in the future soundtrack of J.S. Bach somewhat distracting (Monteverdi would be more appropos), but this is a minor quibble.

The movie has one format: a rather monotone narrator voices over civil war re-enactors, interspersed with the occasional image from the era. It works, but makes it a bit dry. The re-enactors looked like they were having a fine time, as they always seem to in British documentaries. I'd agree with the other reviewer that the American Creative anachronism folks could take a clue from these sorts of documentaries, and expand to early modern or Roman era gear.

Bottom line - if you want a comprehensive overview of this fascinating period, take a look. If you have time for only one DVD on this period, then by all means watch Cromwell starring the Richard Harris.

4.0 out of 5 stars Powerfully Informative!, May 17, 2008

By	Jeffery Mingo (Homewood, IL USA) - See all my reviews (TOP 500 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)

I'm dating myself with this reference. Remember when Theo Huxtable thought he could listen to an LP of "MacBeth" rather than reading Shakespeare's work on "The Cosby Show"? It didn't work because he couldn't understand the 17th-century English being spoken. However, I think this documentary could help high school students who are about to be tested on this period in English history.

This was not an easily divisible schism where Yoda and the Emperor are diametric opposites. This work spoke of divisions between Protestants and Catholics, but it was really a division between Catholics, Anglicans, and Puritans. It was the Continent vs. England vs. Scotland. It reminded me that absolute monarchy did not exist in Britain as it may have in France. For people who have become fascinated by Marie Antoinette due to S. Coppola's film, they may enjoy this work as it shows what happens when royalty loses the support of its people. It shows how powerful people can be incredibly naive. (Why hadn't King Charles read Machiavelli's "The Prince"?)

Just as Marie Antoinette was a flawed figure, so was this King. The work emphasizes that not only did he make huge mistakes, but he also suffered from being indecisive. Then it goes further and explains how he was a liar. He bargained with Parliament, but would write letters to his wife admitting that he had no intention of working jointly with them. We do have rampant identity theft now, but it was hard to watch this and not think any person who hand a letter to a carrier for someone else in another country sure is stupid if he thinks no one can read the letter or intercept it.

There are paintings here, but otherwise this is entirely done from reenactments. I've noticed that many creative anachronism groups on American college campus only dress in clothes from the Renaissance and Medieval times. People like that may love this documentary as it is filled with gigantic hats, puffy pants, and long, curly hair for days. Still, the actor playing King Charles has the phoniest mustache and goatee ever recorded. In the same way that the Simpsons family always wears the same outfit, the actor here never changes outfits. Yes, it would be difficult for documentary makers to find the budget to give actors more than one outfit. Still, I'm quite sure that royalty had all kinds of clothes in their wardrobe. The monotony of this king's dress did stand out. Also, they show his executor making a chop, the narrator said it just took one blow to kill him, and yet there was no fake blood on the ax.

I hate to be Americo-centric, but this left me with unanswered questions. Admittedly, this was a British production meant for a British audience. But as an American viewer, I kept wondering, "And how did these facts influence America?" Americans wouldn't fight with Britain until more than a century later. This work shows Britain having a civil war centuries before the US had one. It was implied that Puritans were the most dissatisfied denomination, so maybe that's why US history books say they were willing to travel to North America. Still, "the New World" is never brought up and as an American I found that conspicuous.