To Kill a King is directed by Mike Barker and written by Jenny Mayhew. It stars Tim Roth, Dougray Scott, Olivia Williams, James Bolam and Rupert Everett. Music is by Richard G Mitchell and cinematography by Eigil Bryld.It's the end of the English Civil War and with King Charles 1st (Everett) held prisoner by the Parliamentarians, Sir Thomas Fairfax (Scott) and Oliver Cromwell (Roth), friends and colleagues, fall out over the best plan of action for the New England.A severely troubled production and budgetary constraints left To Kill a King with a mountain to climb just to get acknowledged as a historical epic of worth. Add in the dubious take on this part of English history that so irked the historians, and you would be forgiven for thinking that the film is something of a stinker. Not so actually. For although it's clearly far from flawless, it's a literary piece of work that chooses character dynamics over blood and thunder. Suffice to say that those searching for a battle strewn epic should look elsewhere, but if you have a bent for observations on key personalities involved in war politics during times of upheaval in a period setting? Then this delivers the goods. Well performed by the principal players as well. 7/10

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.

SPOILERSThe problem I had when watching this film is that ultimately I feel a bit naieve. I've been an enourmous history fan for years. If it wasn't for weak grades at A-Levels I could have ended up doing it at University, as it happens though this one time period is one of the few periods I'm very sketchy on. I have no idea what happened during the English Civil War, I just know that I've always been quite royalist and the idea of Oliver Cromwell declaring himself Lord High Protector has always seemed a bit power hungry and wrong to me. As a result, it's hard to really comment on this film."To Kill A King" begins at the end of the Civil War itself with the introduction straight away of Sir Thomas Fairfax (Dougray Scott). Fairfax is the enigmatic leader of the Parliamentarians and alongside him is his puritanical deputy and best friend Oliver Cromwell (Tim Roth). The film covers the two's relationship and traces all the way upto the reintroduction of the Monarchy.Like I said, it's kind of difficult to appreciate this film. As far as period drama's go, it's engrossing and the costumes and set are impressive. Ultimately most people would state that this is enough. The problem though is that when I watch Historical Drama films, I need my historical accuracy. I hated "The Patriot", not just because it was a rubbish film, but especially because Gibson portrayed the English so inaccurately and critically, and whilst "Braveheart" was a million times more entertaining, it was still questionable about certain key events.This film is slated a lot for being Historically inaccurate, if this is the case then yeah I have reason to hold a grudge. The problem is however that like I've said, I don't know what we consider to be "the truth". Should my desire for historical accuracy affect a film? I'd like to say no, but ultimately I just can't help it. This film is an engrossing, intelligent film with a fine cast and amazing cinematography, without a personal knowledge of the history though, I can't really judge it. If you don't care about historical accuracy, watch this film, if you do care, please watch it just so you can tell me how accurate it is.

I was quite excited to see this being a fan of historical films and particularly interested in the Tudor and Stuart periods. The front of the video is presented in exactly the same style as Elizabeth which I thoroughly enjoyed. Elizabeth is relatively well researched and despite some poetic license depicts the early reign well. So this coupled with the acting prowess of Rupert Everett and Tim Roth all boded well. But what a pile of poopie. Over simplified, dreadfully inaccurate, - the list goes on = one of the most interesting periods of English History turned in to a bad Soap Opera. A significant part of the story is Fairfaxes refusal to sign Charles's death warrant. Well ladies and gentlemen in fact he was one of the first to sign. Suffice it to say the lines at the end "And England never again became a republic" (lol) sums up this little piece of filmery.