The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part
The Walking Dead
Log in with Facebook
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Already have an account? Log in here
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
We want to hear what you have to say but need to verify your account. Just leave us a message here and we will work on getting you verified.
Please reference “Error Code 2121” when contacting customer service.
No consensus yet.
All Critics (5)
| Fresh (3)
| Rotten (2)
| DVD (1)
To Kill a King is no Man for All Seasons, that poem to destiny and betrayal, but it exudes intelligent energy. What emerges is a dark, noisy history lesson viewed through the filter of a power struggle that spirals out of control.
Scrupulous period accuracy is not expected from this genre. Even so, Jenny Mayhew's screenplay is preposterously reductive. It boils history down to a platonic love affair between Fairfax and Cromwell. The incidents she invents are badly dramatised.
I enjoy English history. I am always looking for a well acted, good story, that has been put together well. I felt that this movie was almost that. It seemed to lack that certain something, though, that made it really good. Not enough drama. Not enough action (definitely not). All in all, however, I found it interesting...
[font=Century Gothic]"To Kill a King" starts in 1645 as the English Civil War between the royalist forces defending King Charles I(Rupert Everett) and rebel forces favoring Parliament is finally winding down with the latter being victorious. Despite that, Oliver Cromwell(Tim Roth) still has to save his comrade in arms Lord Fairfax(Dougray Scott) from an assassin. All that is left to do is to have the king sign a treaty, allowing reforms to kick in. But he is not beaten yet, bribing Holles(James Bolam), the leader of Parliament, to win a vote, thereby angering Cromwell and Fairfax no end...[/font]
[font=Century Gothic]With too much ground to cover with a limited budget, "To Kill a King" is a shallow and dry treatment of an important bit of history that errs by focusing primarily on the relationship between Cromwell and Fairfax(and also a lot on Fairfax and his wife Anne(Olivia Williams)) without giving any insight into whether Cromwell actually believed his rhetoric on reform or was just power mad. What may have worked would have been a focus on one particular moment, say the debate concerning the execution of the king and everything that would imply. As revolutions go, this one went too far(so many unnecessary deaths) and not far enough(no real reforms). Anyway, the reforms that Parliament was calling for would come in effect peacefully in 1688.[/font]
View All Quotes