Movie discovery

Explore stories across every screen

Biographyवर्ष2003अवधि1h 42mIMDb6.2

To Kill a King

Biographyड्रामाइतिहास

A recounting of the relationship between General Fairfax and Oliver Cromwell, as they try to cope with the consequences of deposing King Charles I.

अभी देखें

ट्रेलर

कलाकार

Mike Barker

Director

Tim Roth

Oliver Cromwell

Dougray Scott

Sir Thomas Fairfax

Olivia Williams

Lady Anne Fairfax

James Bolam

Denzil Holles

Corin Redgrave

Lord de Vere

Finbar Lynch

Cousin Henry

Julian Rhind-Tutt

James

Adrian Scarborough

Sergeant Joyce

Jeremy Swift

Earl of Whitby

Rupert Everett

King Charles I

Steven Webb

Boy at Naseby

JN

Jake Nightingale

Colonel Pride

Leonard Woodcock

Young Royalist prisoner

Thomas Arnold

Messenger at Naseby

Sam Spruell

King's guard

Julian Rivett

Little

Richard Bremmer

Abraham

Melissa Knatchbull

Lady Margaret

JM

Jenny Mayhew

Writer

टिप्पणियाँ

10 टिप्पणियाँ

❤️Soulless ❤️Feb 19, 2024

source: To Kill a King

Sommité RøyalFeb 19, 2024

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

Houda BondokFeb 19, 2024

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.

Loisa AndalioFeb 19, 2024

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

Hussein ChourFeb 19, 2024

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.

call me nthambiFeb 19, 2024

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

MelatawittFeb 19, 2024

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.

Nhyiraba Hajia AshlyFeb 19, 2024

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.

𝔟𝔲𝔫𝔫𝔶Feb 19, 2024

On first viewing I was not really satisfied with this film. Who could deal with such a vast subject in one film? It was clever to not tackle the whole war but concentrate on a shorter time frame. I have no knowledge of any of the actors except James Bolam. I would not have cast Rupert Everett on looks , height etc but how little that matters . He is really excellent , he uses his eyes to great effect .The King's continued belief that he will be rescued , the British people really do love him are obvious at first . It is the pain and fear in his eyes that really seals it for me .His walk to the block ( being fondled and clawed at by the commoners is obviously repellent and terrifying). There is something about the whole scene that really reflects King Charles's inner faith that this is his second wedding day ,this time to Jesus . Tim Roth plays Cromwell with a touch too many Hitler like stances but he is so much better than Richard Harris. I think many historians do think Cromwell had mental illness. The Govt. by his New Model Army reminds me of The Taliban .I would have been on the side of Parliament but like many English people welcomed back the monarchy after his rule. I have little knowledge of Fairfax but the relationship between the two is worth reading about if this film is anything to go by. The sets are fantastic ,the actual Hampton Court was worth it . I am sure that even Civil War buffs should acknowledge it's intelligence . I only wish the creators could have made a series. Things worth looking out for are the severe uniforms worn at the King's trial ,note a love of buttons ( Cromwell truly was a dictator worthy of Pinochet). The King's absolute lack of understanding the ranting man who made no sense to his perception of his place in the World.The bewilderment of Cromwell that anyone should see things other than his way. If you weren't sure on first viewing give it a second and third chance. I don't see any flirting between Charles 1st and Lady Fairfax b.t.w just a lonely man desperate for company of his class and a woman in awe of the most important man in the country in her eyes.

Muhammad AmareFeb 19, 2024

STAR RATING:*****Unmissable****Very Good***Okay **You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead*Avoid At All Costs As a kid,I used to love learning all about the Tudors and Stewarts,especially about monarchs such as Henry the Eighth (sorry,I'm terrible at my Roman numerals),Edward the First (the youngest ever monarch) and Charles the first who was beheaded.So when I saw a film trailer promoting a new film about Charles and his conflict with Oliver Cromwell,who became head of the Roundheads,Charles's greatest adversaries,I felt inclined to go and see it as soon as possible. The results were admirable,though not great.It boasts a fine central cast,in the shape of Tim Roth as Cromwell,Dougray Scott as his aide Thomas Fairfax,James Bolam as roguish parliamentary speaker Holles and Rupert Everitt as the ill-fated king himself.They all play their parts with dash and spirit,which can only be a good thing.And there's some fine photography and lavish costume design to add to the recommendations. On the down side however,Mike Barker's direction becomes a little meandering and laboured and there are some fairly huge historical inaccuracies in the telling of the tale. Still,everyone involved looks like they're enjoying starring in it,as indeed any 'actor' probably would,as this sort of period piece is how many such exhibitionists learn the art of fine drama.Just get yourself in the right mood,mosey on out,and I'm sure you might enjoy watching them perform it just as much.Or almost.***

Featured Picks

और entertainment चाहिए? हमारे recommended gaming hub और short-drama destination को explore करें।

Instant Games

Gamixo

Puzzles, cards, sports और quick challenges वाले casual browser games कुछ ही सेकंड में खेलें।

Short Drama

VSKIT Drama

Trending mini-series, romance stories और नए short dramas को fast daily updates के साथ देखें।