To Kill A King [Blu-ray]
![To Kill A King [Blu-ray]](/images/To-Kill-A-King-Blu-ray-B0010SAGGY-L.jpg)
|
List Price: Our Price: $2.99 You Save: $16.98 (85%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $1.96 (click here) Category: Blu-ray See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of To Kill A King [Blu-ray]
Movie Review: Really Nicely-Filmed Movie. Great Acting. Horrible History.
Summary: 4 Stars
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."
Movie Review: Darkly handsome and absorbing historical film
Summary: 4 Stars
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.Movie Review: wanted more from this film
Summary: 4 Stars
good story, average acting. The story moves a little slow and I had trouble staying interested. overall a good movie, though it nedds a bit more action.Movie Review: The Cromwell Years
Summary: 3 Stars
To Kill a King is somewhat interesting. However, I would hesitate to give a strong recommendation. It provides a "Hollywood" interpretation of the Cromwell years but with many, but somewhat, inaccurate inclusions to make the film more interesting to the viewer.
The film's setting and costumes are good, the story line somewhat drags and the overall depth of the film is lacking. Purchase this film if you have an interest in this period of English history. Otherwise, buy something else.