To Kill a King

The Civil War in England is pretty much a "bore" in terms of historical interest, but still promises some potential in terms of the subject matter. It was authentically adapted on paper, but the film adaptation somehow missed the mark. There are too many dialogues about nothing, and the sluggish sequence of individual scenes is only marginally more interesting than a history lecture in high school. The saving grace comes from the good actors, although the one with the most promising potential disappoints the most. It is a sad disappointment that Tim Roth, who should have been more devilish (considering the character of Oliver Cromwell), falls short. Even the likable but psychologically shallow performance by Dougray Scott cannot compensate for it. However, the boredom and greyness that the director was throwing at us from the first minute (which I excused given the low budget) was unbearable and after an hour I was reaching for the OFF button on the remote control. Regardless, I know from history class how this is going to end (25.01.2006)

"It's a pity that Oliver Cromwell didn't get more space as the main character of the revolution. With him in the foreground, Barker's sympathetic historical costume drama might not have reached the finish line so exhaustedly. Even Rupert Everett, although playing the king (literally) for his life, won't help the weaker ending." (25.01.2006)

A first class historical drama with great performances. If you know a bit of English history, you can't give less than four stars. (29.11.2009)