johnbirch-2
I love seventeenth century English history - not because I would like to have lived there (no way!) but because it is endlessly fascinating. So any film made about the period has my mouth watering.I looked forward to this but oh its so bad, Soooooo bad.The historical inaccuracies are legion - really. Its actually quite hard to find anything that's even slightly accurate. As history its so poor you'd think it was made in Hollywood. Not is it factually wrong, with people doing and saying things they did not say in places that they never were, but sharp-shooting with smooth-bore 17th century pistols? Laughable! And that's before we even get onto the politics and religion!It might be possible to relax and consider a fairy story or as entertainment - but its pretty rubbish at that as well. Mumbling characters, dull script...Avoid, avoid, avoid.
ianpb
I'll keep it short and sweet, as many have already made accurate criticism of this film, and in general I agree.The film is a travesty, portraying Cromwell, inaccurately, as a 2-dimensional bully. This is compounded by terrible acting (as usual) by Tim Roth. The man just can not act! Here he spurts out each line like a child in a school play, relieved that he has managed to get yet another memorised line out of the way.Rupert Everett as Charles 1 was unconvincing, playing the part as a brute with no class. Charles was a Scot but there was not even the faintest hint of a Scottish accent here, and only the clumsiest inclusion of badly performed stutters. He had clearly not done his homework. I guess Alec Guinness set a standard for this part (in 'Cromwell') which may be impossible to surpass. But the difference is that Guinness was a good actor.Dougray Scott played Fairfax better, but it just got tiresome.As for the script, it was dire and lazy. Easy money. Don't expect any history lessons.I walked away from it half way through. Life's too short to waste it on this junk.This film demonstrates two things: Tim Roth can't act and Mike Barker (Director) can't direct. Just goes to show, it's down to who you know, not what you can do.
euronick61
Well I am quite well read on this period of history.And unfortunately I don't feel this film portrays the period well at all,Tim Roth,as good as he is is other roles,was,in my opinion totally miscast as Oliver Cromwell..history shows Cromwell to be a strong minded,gruff,honest,happily married Huntingdon Farm owner who rose through the ranks of the army to become commander in chief,and who trained his army to be the best in Europe.Tim's portrayal comes across as a greedy,power mad weasel.I'm afraid if it is a history lesson you are looking for then watch 'Cromwell' starring Richard Harris (an excellent portrayal)..but if you choose to watch this film,then take the history aspect with a pinch of salt.I can't really imagine a statue of Mr Roths version of Cromwell being erected outside parliament and being heralded a great Englishman.
Claudio Carvalho
In 1645, after the revolutionary movement of the puritans against the King of England Charles I of Stuart (Rupert Everett), with the leadership of the best friends General Oliver Cromwell (Tim Roth) and General Thomas Fairfax (Dougray Scott), the king is judged and condemned to death by decapitation. General Oliver Cromwell wishes to implement the republic in England, but his monarchist friend Fairfax does not agree, and they break their friendship. Cromwell becomes a dictator, with the title of Lord Protector of the Commonwealth, until 1658, when he is very sick and dies. When I was a student, I had classes about this period of England history, but unfortunately not enough to make any judgement of the historical accuracy of this movie. As far as I remember, the period of the dictatorship of Cromwell was very violent, and it was omitted in the story. As a film, it is a beautiful story of the friendship and relationship of two leaders with different political objectives. The cast and direction are excellent, and the reconstitution of the period is wonderful. I have appreciated and recommend this movie without analyzing the accuracy of the events. If the viewer knows this period of history well, he will have the opportunity to verify its accuracy, otherwise he will a chance to enjoy a good movie. My vote is seven.Title (Brazil): 'Morte ao Rei' ('To Kill a King')
AD
