Customer Reviews

To Kill a King

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(23)
3 star:		(27)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

To Kill a King (aka Cromwell and Fairfax) came as quite a surprise - the film's troubled production is a local legend in the UK, the reviews were lukewarm and the film was further scuppered by a dreadful ad campaign and trailer. Then there was the fact that director Mike Barker's feature debut, the insultingly stupid The James Gang, was one of the very worst films I've ever had the misfortune to see. And that's ignoring Rupert Everett's efforts at promoting the movie in the States by describing it as boring rubbish and his performance being the only worthwhile thing in it.

The omens weren't good, to put it mildly, but it actually turned out to be a surprisingly entertaining and ambitious retelling of the troubled relationship between Lord Fairfax and his deputy Oliver Cromwell in the aftermath of the English Civil War. I can't vouch for its historical accuracy (widely criticized in the UK), but as drama it works very well, despite the fact that Roth's Cromwell isn't at the top of his game while Scott lacks the voice for the rabble-rousing speeches (although he's much better here than his usual lacklustre screen performances).

It's well-directed and hides the budget problems that saw the picture shut down for a few weeks while they scrambled for money to finish the picture quite admirably. It has a sense of scale both in story and treatment and, though it loses momentum slightly after the king's death, it deserved to find the audience it was denied in cinemas. Certainly a notch above the usual staid British historical picture, it's well worth a look.

"To Kill a King" - well, I've been waiting for a couple of years for a region 1 release. Initial reviews were all very mild, if not mean. The film itself is not cheap or badly shot. It is as good as any other history film about ("Elizabeth: The Golden Age" for example.)

The simple reason for the criticism is that the audience waiting for this film wanted something a bit more realistic and historically accurate. This is a subject that fascinates me (having read Antonia Frasier's "Cromwell" and "Charles II" plus "The Trial of Charles I: A Documentary History"). Sadly, there is too much going on to satisfy in almost all directions. We don't get to see much of the trial of Charles I, we don't get to see any of the Civil War, Pride's Purge is fairly swiftly done, and then we get a massive time lapse of Cromwell's rise and fall all in an hour and a half. Too much is happening and not enough time to allow the audience to care.

To say this is a bad movie, however, is just wrong. I suggest that the producers didn't quite understand the audience for this subject as most costume dramas are aimed at a female audience. However, there truly isn't anything feminine in this story (Fairfax's wife's time on screen is a little overdone.) All this could have been fixed with a longer runtime and a bit slower pace.

Since we aren't likely to see another film on this subject again in the near future, this is worth a look.

And tell sad stories of the death of kings.

Richard II, Act iii. Sc. 2.

Oliver Cromwell and Thomas Fairfax led the Puritan revolt against Charles I that resulted in what as known as the Civil Wars. In the mind of Cromwell and his supporters, Charles I led a series of bloody civil wars against the Parliamentary forces that challenged Charles I's right to absolute rule. These civil wars caused the death of approximately 10% of Britain's adult males. It was a bloody time. Eventually, Cromwell and his supporters determined that the only way to end the civil wars was to put Charles I to trial. The trial and subsequent execution of Charles I was a watershed event that left England a republic (albeit only temporarily) and created the legal theory that tyranny was not a right of rulers but a crime against the ruled. The trial destroyed forever the right of kings to act with impunity from justice and the principles established at this trial still exist today and were evident at trials from Nuremberg to Yugoslavia.

"To Kill a King" sets out to tell the story of the trial and execution of King Charles I at the hands of Oliver Cromwell and his republican/Puritan army. However, the film's centerpiece is not, sad to say, the trial of Charles I but, rather, the complex and emotional relationship between Oliver Cromwell and his closest ally, Lord General Thomas Fairfax. The result is a film that, while interesting in its own right, misses the opportunity to explore one of history's most important events.

Director Mike Barker (and his cinematographer) does a commendable job in evoking the horror of the Civil Wars. The opening scene in particular, a scene shot at the end of a battle, gives the viewer a good idea of the devastation and havoc the war had on the English people. Tim Roth, as Oliver Cromwell and Dougray Scott play off against each other very well. Best of friends and comrades at arms Cromwell and Fairfax together secure victory after victory for their armies. As the film opens Fairfax, a great and popular general, was squarely in the republican camp. However, as the puritan revolution took hold Fairfax and his wife (played by Olivia Williams) begin to recoil at the excesses that most revolutions eventually fall prey to. The heart of the film involves the gulf that grows between the two friends as the revolution begins to devour its own. Rupert Everett does an excellent job portraying Charles I. He conveys the host of personality quirks of the king, at once foppish and naïve yet also cunning and far from unintelligent, as he tries desperately to find a way out of his rather comfortable house arrest. The trial itself is well done, if played out a bit superficially. The final `estrangement' between Cromwell and Fairfax is probably the strongest part of the film.

All in all this film is worth watching. However, it is worth watching not because it provides any great insights into the Civil War(s) and the trial of Charles I. Rather, it is a decent drama about two friends and their turbulent relationship. The War and Charles I are merely backdrop, even if the backdrop is well thought out and historically accurate.

This is a good film to put in your queue and provides good entertainment if you are in the mood for a lively period piece. The DVD had no `extras' worth mentioning.

Anyone interested in an excellent book on the trial and execution of Charles I would likely enjoy The Tyrannicide Brief: The Story of the Man Who Sent Charles I to the Scaffold .
L. Fleisig

Great as a movie (5 stars), horrible as history (1.5 stars).

Indisputably, "The Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell" remains a controversial figure in UK history. For those only mildly interested in Cromwell's place in British history, one only needs to know that it is hard to find a neutral (or unimpassioned) opinion. He either presided over a tumultuous period which did in fact move England much further forward than was able to be earlier seen, or he was a dictator in the line of Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, Stalin, the Taliban, or even the (seems impossible to find except in the left-leaning pubs) Right-Wing Fundamentalist Christian zealot fanatics.

"To Kill a King" is an unabashed anti-Cromwell tirade and by extension, Christianity. Tim Roth is superb, but plays Cromwell as a fanatic, knavish gnome. As portrayed, Cromwell is an intolerant and brutal zealot who desires nothing more than to make his form of Christianity (Puritanism) the religion of the nation. But this view is in direct contradiction to ALL history. Cromwell's Puritanism has been given an extremely bad rap and the situation in England was far more complicated than depicted. The English common folk may not all have wanted King Charles deposed, but an extraordinarily high percentage stood back in aghast at the hypocrisy of their so-called pious and Christian king (and his court). In the end, Cromwell did represent the overall expectations of the English common folk. In keeping with his desire to remain with the people, we must also remember that Cromwell was offered the crown and refused, hoping that a republic of freely elected legislators would develop. In the end, if Cromwell was horrible, than so too were our founding Mayflower Pilgrims (and early New England). They were of the same view - both wanted desperately to escape the religious intolerance Charles and his Church of England supported. Speaking of the Pilgrims, there is good evidence to suggest that Cromwell was preparing to emigrate to New England with his family when the political upheavals began. But he was drawn into the struggle due to a sense of duty to shire and as we know from history was never able to withdraw.

Lord Thomas Fairfax (Dougray Scott - superb) and his wife, the Lady Anne (played really quite well by Olivia Williams) come across as the voices of reason, and our opinion of Fairfax is clearly that of the Lady Anne (regardless of the end-of-movie Fairfax voice-overs). Anne desires to keep her place (and the place of her children) in society intact and it is through that prism we see Cromwell. She is nobility, Cromwell is a country gentleman. As such, she could never see him for anything but a vulgar pretender. The movie does not play her as a saint, but through the use of a few clever gimmicks (the highlighting of a miscarriage for instance), the viewer finds oneself slowly taking the script's anti-Cromwell position. Good drama, horrible history, good editorial. One final point. There is little historical evidence (which is to say, none) that Fairfax attempted to kill Cromwell or even that their falling out was so severe.

As I alluded to above, the movie has to play it this way in order to frame Cromwell as a religious fanatic and brutal oppressor. Even the closing screens keep up the anti-Cromwell tirade. For the movie's writer and the director, the English Civil Wars were really "Cromwell's Revolution" (a description favored by Marxist historians). But once again, good drama, bad history. The Commonwealth and then the Protectorate suffered from many maladies - no treasury, enemies within and without, inexperienced leaders, a renewed Royal threat from Scotland and in the end, no tradition of Republic. England did return to a monarchy, but the Civil Wars did indeed move England several significant steps forward. Much of what Cromwell (and Fairfax) strove to put in place (most importantly, rule by the King with the consent of the People (Parliament)) did stick. While it is true that England has never again become a Republic (as the closing screen trumpets), the ability of the British monarch to rule absolutely ended at Charles' execution. Since the Commonwealth/Protectorate, ruling power in England has moved inexorably to Parliament so that now the British monarch is essentially decorative. So while Englishmen may still proudly call themselves "subjects of the Crown," they know in their hearts that England is pretty much a Republic (and very much the type of Republic Cromwell hoped for before the King so badly played his final cards forcing Cromwell (and many others) to believe that the King had to face trial and then execution as a traitor). As an aside, I would be remiss if I failed to mention Rupert Everett's take on Charles I - wonderful and every bit as good (perhaps better) as Sir Alec Guinness in the 1967 film "Cromwell" (starring Richard Harris in the title role).

Though Cromwell's "Irish Question" is not mentioned in any regard in the movie, a quick comment must be made in that I believe it helps further frame the discussion. For many whose Irish forbears suffered greatly under English rule (as mine did), Cromwell remains today a hated figure (even if only because parents and grand-parents have said so). However, as with everything else during that time, the issue was far more complicated than stating Cromwell beat down the Irish to satisfy personal (specifically, religious) desires. While Cromwell's treatment of the Irish was harsh, it was far less harsh than what was handed out to the Irish by most of the English monarchs. For instance (if I remember correctly), it was Henry VIII who deforested Ireland as a means of removing hiding places for the opposition and put into motion a process that eventually resulted in one of the greatest famines in history - the 1840s Potato Famine . And it was the monarchy that continued to string along the Irish until a double-cross by the British government in the teens of the 20th century caused another famous split (de Valera & Michael Collins) and thus birthed the Irish Civil War. So who really was "the monster"?

By the middle of the 17th century, Charles' English monarchy was devilishly duplicitous and the common people paid for it. Few of the nobles desired to see that (even those who remained in Parliament and did not side with the King). Fairfax, to his credit, did and sided with the Parliamentary Roundheads and stood for real reform and Parliamentary rule. But he (and his wife) were still, in the end, nobility. As the movie is framed from Fairfax's wife Anne's perspective, Cromwell could be nothing more than a vulgar commoner and nothing less than a devilish monster. The movie expects us to stand back in horror at the evils done in the name of religion run-amuck (specifically, Christianity) and absolute dictatorship. I guess that means the writer and director expect the viewer to side with the privileged rich? Wow! I wouldn't have thought a movie which adopts the Marxist view on Cromwell and that period would do that. But then again, much of what passes for "Marxist history" got it and continues to get it wrong. I guess so do its adherents.

Well, enough said (or written). In the end, my view of the movie remains neatly summarized by this review's title - "Really Nicely-Filmed Movie. Great Acting. Horrible History."

Excellent production values and some good acting make "To Kill a King" an entertaining film for those who like quasi historical dramas. This one centers on Oliver Cromwell and his friend Sir Thomas Fairfax, triangulated by Thomas' strong and willful wife Anne, played beautifully by Olivia Williams. It is Scottish actor Dougray Scott's virile portrayal of Thomas Fairfax that dominates the film, while Tim Roth's Cromwell is a dour, menacing fellow; not the kind of chap one would care to have a cuppa tea with. Depending on what historian you are reading (Like Hume or Carlyle), or what country you're in (England or Ireland), Cromwell is either thought of as a hero or a villain, and one sees the villainous side of him in this film. In the smaller part of King Charles I, convinced as many were that his rule had been ordained by God, Rupert Everett gives yet another stellar performance.

Well directed by Mike Barker, the score by Richard Mitchell greatly enhances the film, and the extras are a minimal "Behind the Scenes" featurette; I would have liked a commentary track on this one, to help piece the historical facts (and inconsistencies) together, as the film covers over 12 years of mid 17th century events. Aside from the wartime and prison violence and some gore (close-ups of bloody wounds), and very brief nudity through a veil, it's quite tame and there's nothing that should offend sensitive audiences, and for those that aren't familiar with this tumultuous period in English history "To Kill a King" may interest them enough to make further investigation of it.

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.

"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 French

The 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 Fast

Recommended. prisrob 02-28-08

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.

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.

To Kill a King is mesmerizing. It is an epic tale, brilliantly captured cinematographically and presented in a way that all sides of the issue, from Oliver Cromwell to Thomas Fairfax and King Charles, are understood without any of the major players being demonized. What really makes this such an engrossing movie, however, are the performances of Tim Roth (Cromwell), Charles 1 (Rupert Everett) and Fairfax (Dougray Scott). Told from Fairfax's narrative, the movie shows the strengths and weaknesses of each person without condemnation. Scott is especially effective as the man torn in three by his best friend, his wife, and his king but who yields in the end to no one but his own moral code.