Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Megamind To all those who have watched it: I hope you enjoyed it as much as I do.

Phillipa Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Francene Odetta It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

Cheese Hoven The events surrounding the trial and execution of Charles I are among the most compelling in English history. It is unfortunate, therefore, that the film treats these events as a mere backdrop to a personality clash between Cromwell and Fairfax, centering unconvincingly on Fairfax's wife. Cromwell, given here rather more flair by Tim Roth than he possessed in history, is seen to be motivated more by hidden sexual desire than religious fervour or a sense of injustice.While this is ahistorical, it could have made an interesting film. However, the script, by Jenny Mayhew, never rises above the level of daytime soap opera, with the characters constantly emoting about their feelings or shallow artificial conflicts created between them. As if the conflict which ripped England apart at that time was not sufficient!One scene in particular sums it all up. Charles I is being tried by parliament. This extraordinary event is not interesting to the writer. What interests her is when Fairfax arrives and, without anyone else intervening, takes the hand of his wife and leaves! And this is deemed more important than the trial of a king.

Istvan Kolnhofer To Kill A King, is a fine underrated historical drama. The story of Oliver Cromwell's complex friendship with General Fairfax, set against the backdrop of the war against King Charles I, is an engaging and dramatic one. With vivid and memorable characterizations, excellent production design, the film evokes a time of change and reform, and also of chaos and brutality. While not quite the epic of Lawrence of Arabia or Alexander, the film still has much sweep while maintaining a cerebral chamber drama feel. The costumes are top notch, the locations and sets authentic, and with crisp cinematography and competent editing, an intelligent and passionate script comes to life and engages us in this story of English civil war in the age of discovery and reform. Tim Roth is absolutely terrific as Oliver Cromwell. Not only does he physically convey the man, he brings the sufficient gravitas and seething rage that brings the character to life on the screen. Equally well cast are Dougray Scott as Fairfax, and especially Rupert Everett, who steals the show as King Charles I. My only complaints about the film is that it is too short - I was left wanting to know more about the events that led to the King's defeat and Cromwell's rise to political power. We are thrown smack dab in the middle of the story, and as someone who is familiar with the background, I was able to pick up and go with it. But for someone ignorant about English history, the script may have been quite confusing at first. But I will say that it is usually a good sign if a film leaves you hungry for more of the story, not for lack of it, but for feeding the viewer's imagination of how grand the context was, and being so successfully immersed in it, like To Kill a King does, you simply want more knowledge of the drama. A little-seen, underrated but excellently performed and well crafted historical film

Jonathan Dore It's amazing that, three decades after Antonia Fraser's great biography of Cromwell ("Cromwell: Our Chief of Men", 1973; out in a new edition, 2002), the old clichés and inaccuracies about him - ultimately derived from the post-Restoration character assassination satirized in "1066 and All That" - are still being as enthusiastically retailed as they are in this film.That the dominant image of Cromwell is going to be of Ollie the psychopath is telegraphed in advance by the casting of Tim Roth to play him. Why people think this man can act has always been a mystery to me, but ever since "Reservoir Dogs" he has become so identified with the image of a psychopath that his mere presence is a sign that irrational violence is coming up soon. Right at the beginning of the film we are smacked over the head with this characterization when, before we have heard Cromwell speak a word, we see him barely being restrained from murdering a defenceless man. Later he organizes the torture and then murder of a prisoner, randomly shoots a street vendor in the leg, and ordains a painful execution for a would-be assassin in a fit of uncontrolled rage.On the other hand, he loves his old mate Fairfax, spends hours writing up a proper constitutional settlement to give ordinary people the right to a fair trial, and shows an almost Woody-Allenesque unconfidence in his abilities as a military commander (comically, since even his enemies conceded his military genius). All these positive character traits are presumably thrown into the mix in order to give the semblance of roundedness, depth, or complexity to the characterization. The trouble is that the combination makes this Cromwell not complex, but simply incoherent. One cannot suspend disbelief in him. That's why, in this case, to say "it's a movie, not history" is not an answer to the criticism. It's precisely because it doesn't make sense as history that it doesn't work as a movie either.The film is also notable for perpetuating the great Royalist lie that Charles I's death warrant was signed by the regicides before the verdict had been announced - indeed, before the trial had even begun. The document was certainly drawn up in advance (the defendant's guilt being as much a matter of public record as Goering's at Nuremberg), but there is no evidence that it was *signed* beforehand; on such a serious matter it's extremely unlikely the regicides would have opened themselves to the accusation of not observing the proper legal process (see the excellent page about the death warrant that I give the address for in the message boards). From the point of view of film-making, though, the most striking thing is how it totally squandered the dramatic opportunity of the trial itself - which took three days, incidentally, not, as it's presented here, three minutes, with people shouting "guilty" before any evidence has even been presented. As an opportunity to probe Charles's psychology, as he was presented with evidence of the damage his actions had caused, it was completely wasted.Rupert Everett plays Charles brilliantly, and in the context of a better film it's a performance that would surely have drawn more of the plaudits that it deserves. His mixture of regal dignity, seductiveness, arrogance, and overweening self-belief make a compelling portrait (being true to life, these contradictions, unlike those assigned to Cromwell, actually make a coherent whole). Throughout all his conversations with his captors, his fundamental inability to accord their grievances the slightest legitimacy clearly illustrates how frustrating and ultimately fruitless the attempt to negotiate with him must have been, and why the conflict could only end with his death. Dougray Scott also brings gravitas and pathos to his role of Fairfax, and he sustains the tension of his conflicting loyalties well - even if that tension is historically bogus. As actors, he and Everett deserve to have been in a better film.While Americans work the comparatively narrow seam of their history so intensively, it's a great shame that the Brits don't make more of some of the incomparably dramatic moments in their own. An even greater shame that, when they occasionally get the chance, it's fluffed with a script of such silliness and banality as this.

r.w.storm 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.