To Kill a King (2003)

Wow! Such a good movie.

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

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...

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.

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.

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')