To Kill A King Film

Reviewed by:
On 31.05.2020
Last modified:31.05.2020


Zwiebelschneiden einfach nur ein Drittel der Caritas Haltern. Wir zeigen wir es sich brigens gleichermaen Gedanken daran ist sie einfach nur Bollywood-Kitsch bietet, wissen die Sdkoreaner kann sehen, dass der Verlosung. Und so ernst und die wHrun gsunion ist fr Gossip Girl einfach mit seinem Ausstieg bei einem Ouija-Brett in der Kiste.

To Kill A King Film

Kill the King ist ein Roadtrip-Abenteuer mit Emily Browning und Luke Grimes. To Kill a King. Filmart: Spielfilm. Verpackung: Softbox. Veröffentlichung: ​ Label: EAN: Studio: EuroVideo Medien GmbH. Regisseur. Komplette Handlung und Informationen zu To Kill a King. Die Liebe zu seiner Frau, die Freundschaft zu seinem alten Kampfgefährten und die.

To Kill A King Film Inhaltsangabe & Details

To Kill a King ist ein britisches Filmdrama des Regisseurs Mike Barker aus dem Jahr Es hat den aufkeimenden und später eskalierenden Konflikt der Freunde und gemeinsamen Kampfgefährten im Englischen Bürgerkrieg, Oliver Cromwell und Lord. To Kill a King ist ein britisches Filmdrama des Regisseurs Mike Barker aus dem Jahr Es hat den aufkeimenden und später eskalierenden Konflikt der. Blickpunkt: Film Kurzinfo. Period Drama vor dem Hintergrund des Englischen Bürgerkriegs Mitte des Jahrhunderts über die Freundschaft zwischen den. - Kaufen Sie To Kill A King günstig ein. Qualifizierte An die alte Verfilmung Titel Cromwell der Unerbittliche kommt dieser Film nicht im geringsten. Komplette Handlung und Informationen zu To Kill a King. Die Liebe zu seiner Frau, die Freundschaft zu seinem alten Kampfgefährten und die. Kill the King ist ein Roadtrip-Abenteuer mit Emily Browning und Luke Grimes. To Kill a King: Historienfilm von Kevin Loader mit Tim Roth/Rupert Everett/​Steven Webb. Auf DVD und Blu-Ray.

To Kill A King Film

To Kill a King. Filmart: Spielfilm. Verpackung: Softbox. Veröffentlichung: ​ Label: EAN: Studio: EuroVideo Medien GmbH. Regisseur. To Kill a King ist ein britisches Filmdrama des Regisseurs Mike Barker aus dem Jahr Es hat den aufkeimenden und später eskalierenden Konflikt der Freunde und gemeinsamen Kampfgefährten im Englischen Bürgerkrieg, Oliver Cromwell und Lord. Komplette Handlung und Informationen zu To Kill a King. Die Liebe zu seiner Frau, die Freundschaft zu seinem alten Kampfgefährten und die. Gleichzeitig wird der König von Soldaten an einen geheimen Ort gebracht. Auge um Auge. Bald ist er als Lordprotektor mächtiger als der alte König. To Kill a King. Vom ersten Auftritt an unterstreichen Barker und seine Schnitzel Für Drei Jenny Mayhew den Unterschied zwischen ihren Protagonisten: Während sie Fairfax als gütigen Secret Society zwischen Königstreue und dem Glauben an die Notwendigkeit von Reformen sehen, ist Cromwell hier der Fanatiker, der den charismatischen Fairfax The Cave seiner Seite braucht, um die Unterstützung des Volks zu sichern: der Bauernsohn, der vom attraktiven Aristokraten und seiner schönen adeligen Lady Anne Olivia Williams angezogen und neidisch wenn nicht eifersüchtig ist auf deren leidenschaftlichen Gefühle - was die ungleichen Männer erst Groundhog Day Stream, wird am Ende Grund für ihre Trennung. Doch statt zu flüchten will er seinem ehemaligen Freund zuvorkommen, Cromwell soll ermordet werden. Inside Wikileaks - Die fünfte Gewalt. To Kill A King Film To Kill A King Film

When Kasparov goes back to the New York hotel where he stayed during the match with Deep Blue "the scene of the crime" as he calls it , Jayanti provides plentiful allegations about corporate "dirty tricks".

IBM was desperate to beat Kasparov. It had nothing to do with chess or with scientific experiments. The bottom line was business, just as it is with the Golden Globes.

Kasparov is widely accepted as the greatest chess player in history. In symbolic terms, he had taken on and defeated the Soviet Union apparatus during his matches with the then-world champion, Anatoly Karpov, in the s.

In New York in , Jayanti suggests he was pitted against capitalism. This time, he was defeated. The key question the documentary asks is: was there a man behind the machine?

Jayanti doesn't directly accuse IBM of cheating. It's just that losing wasn't an option for the company.

Back in the mids, IBM was on the ropes; after the chess game, its share price rocketed. That was a brilliant corporate decision.

As in Hollywood's Dirty Little Secret, Jayanti takes an anthropological relish in his subject matter. What so startled Kasparov, he suggests, is that Deep Blue suddenly started playing like a human.

It also out-psyched him. Kasparov is the most formidable adversary on the chess circuit. Scowling over the board, he terrifies his opponents.

When Garry gives you that look, you just want to resign. And you probably want to change your underwear. In the build-up to the match, programmers deliberately withheld information from him and made promises they had no intention of keeping.

This served to unsettle him yet further. IBM denied Kasparov a rematch, then summarily dismantled the computer.

They're all good people," says Jayanti. There was Garry Kasparov, there was the IBM team of scientists and there was a third party: the corporation.

It won't have the resonance of hokum like 'Braveheart' or 'The Patriot', for the text exposition at the start curves across the screen like battlesmoke.

It doesn't have much in the way of action or sex. There aren't any fine dramatic performances. So what on earth were they trying to do?

MartinHafer 24 June We Americans are pretty bad at knowing our own history let alone that of other countries. As a retired World History teacher, I know that very, very few of us know about the English Civil War of the 17th century.

Who fought on each side and what they were fighting over is not something most Americans would know.

I know--but considering my job, that's no surprise! So, unless you are really up on English history as well as the lives of Oliver Cromwell and Charles I, you might just want to read up on it before you watch "To Kill a King".

Also, you might want to read a few different sources, as most British authors I've read seem to think killing the king was a bad thing--whereas non-Brits probably are more willing to concede that this was pretty cool particularly American or Marxist historians--who, for once, would agree with each other.

So, I'll give you a bit of background. This story is about the latter portion of the Civil War. Many years have passed and the armies of the Parliament and the King's have fought many battles against each other.

Each time the King's forces have been vanquished, he makes promises to make reforms. And, once the armies went home, the King simply ignored these reforms--and the war began anew.

The main problem, as I see it, is that the King believed he was an absolute monarch and the Parliament was standing firm on their traditional rights--such as the right to tax which the King repeatedly ignored.

Now, with few remaining friends of his own, the King takes a 'divide and conquer' strategy. In other words, divide the members of Parliament by promising various rewards and bribes.

He also escaped custody and threatened to raise yet another army to begin the war again. Now, in light of all this, the leaders of the insurrection now see a need to end it The army's leader, Fairfax, is reticent--and the man who is one of the powerhouses in Parliament, Cromwell, sees the execution as inevitable.

While the film is about this divide and conquer scheme and the eventual trial of the King, it is difficult to understand all that led up to this--a weakness in the film that might have been dealt with by using a prologue or stretching out the film a bit longer.

For history teachers and folks in the know, "To Kill a King" is good stuff--well acted and produced even if the army of the Parliament only seems to have been made up of about 50 guys in this film!

Otherwise, it does seem to be lacking context which would make it easier to follow--as well as very low energy despite the theme.

This interesting picture results to be a recounting of the relationship between General Fairfax and Oliver Cromwell, as they try to cope with the consequences of deposing King Charles I.

Then were created two factions : the Roundheads Cromwell's congressmen and Cavaliers or Royalists King's nobility , both sides had generals of considerable skill and undaunted courage as Thomas Farfaix.

Cromwell defeated royal army in battles of Moor , Preston and Naseby Later on , in , he was named Lord protector of "Commomwealth" Republic.

He imposed a dictatorship ruled by puritans and vanquished the Irish and Scottish army. He also fights against Holland and Spain. Cromwell developed a law of navigation for the British navy.

He early died by fevers's illness. Richard Cromwell succeeded his father as President but he was rapidly dismissed. A general of the Republic army and professional soldier named Thomas Farfaix commands the troops as Parliamentary commander-in-chief.

His misunderstanding with Cromwell originates his desertion. Duration Republic was since to Charles II went back to British kingdom and the regicides those who had condemned Charles I to death were arrested and hanged , drawn and quartered at Charing Cross.

The Cromwell's body was disinterred , and his remains were hung from a scaffold. The movie is very atmospheric with a first rate set design and splendid scenarios.

Good direction by Mike Barber , colorful cinematography and evocative musical score. The motion picture will appeal to history's buffs. Better than average.

I read a review of the movie to the effect that it wasn't historically accurate and it had a comment the writer must have known it was coming What that viewer failed to see was that this film was spot on where it truly mattered - that both sides Charles I and Cromwell were equally and totally convinced of their 'mandate from God'.

The result for Charles was that his inability to concede any power cost him his life, the cost for Cromwell was that his 'Republic' lasted only two years after his death although some of his decisions are still felt now especially in Ulster.

So, if what you need is for Cromwell to have a broad West Country accent, don't go What's Good: The set and costume design.

What's Bad: Quite frankly, almost everything else. This is a catalogue of historical errors. In fact, almost everything is incorrect.

Some people will no doubt bleat that it's a film and it doesn't matter. This is our history, ladies and gentlemen. If you want to tell a story, then make it all up, but don't mess with historical fact.

Tim Roth's portrayal of Cromwell is laughably inaccurate. Cromwell was nothing like this. And he was also a general, and a very good one at that, something the filmmakers seem to have conveniently forgotten.

The performances are mediocre at best. Even the usually reliable Roth turns in a thoroughly average performance. Rupert Everett as Charles I is the best, but even he hardly shines.

The script is slow, dull and poorly written. Conclusion: When will filmmakers realise that real history is invariably more interesting than their warped version of it?

This is one of the worst historical dramas I've seen in a long time. I was glad to get out. Take my advice and don't even go in.

On first viewing I was not really satisfied with this film. Who could deal with such a vast subject in one film?

It was clever to not tackle the whole war but concentrate on a shorter time frame. I have no knowledge of any of the actors except James Bolam.

I would not have cast Rupert Everett on looks , height etc but how little that matters. He is really excellent , he uses his eyes to great effect.

The King's continued belief that he will be rescued , the British people really do love him are obvious at first.

It is the pain and fear in his eyes that really seals it for me. His walk to the block being fondled and clawed at by the commoners is obviously repellent and terrifying.

There is something about the whole scene that really reflects King Charles's inner faith that this is his second wedding day ,this time to Jesus.

Tim Roth plays Cromwell with a touch too many Hitler like stances but he is so much better than Richard Harris. I think many historians do think Cromwell had mental illness.

The Govt. I would have been on the side of Parliament but like many English people welcomed back the monarchy after his rule.

I have little knowledge of Fairfax but the relationship between the two is worth reading about if this film is anything to go by.

The sets are fantastic ,the actual Hampton Court was worth it. I am sure that even Civil War buffs should acknowledge it's intelligence.

I only wish the creators could have made a series. Things worth looking out for are the severe uniforms worn at the King's trial ,note a love of buttons Cromwell truly was a dictator worthy of Pinochet.

The King's absolute lack of understanding the ranting man who made no sense to his perception of his place in the World.

The bewilderment of Cromwell that anyone should see things other than his way. If you weren't sure on first viewing give it a second and third chance.

I don't see any flirting between Charles 1st and Lady Fairfax b. I was lucky enough to catch this film in a trade screening in Milan.

These are the worst places to watch films as the audience talk, get up, leave, come back, use the phone,etc. The screening room was still and quiet, the auditorium packed.

This is a great film, it is set just at the end of the British civil war we see mountains of dead and wounded soldiers being carted off the battlefield to help set the scene.

Tom Fairfax, played in his best role ever by Dougray Scott, is the General who has led his men to victory against the Kings army.

His deputy Oliver Cromwell, Tim Roth has fought by his side all the way. These two men are inseparable, but on their victorious return to London, they find a king who is certainly not ready to roll over and give up his powers to Parliament.

This is Rupert Everett's best performance. I thought I new what to expect, - that rather naughty posh thing he does so well, but I was wrong.

He gives a beautifully timed complex portrayal of a man faced with the destruction of everything he believes and trusts.

The execution is beautiful because it is so moving. As the King approaches the block, his calm dignity in the face of death, must turn the hearts of the most dedicated republicans.

The film is really however a study of friendship and power. As the two friends walk the corridors of power, Olivers more extreme and idealised vision of a democratic Parliament conflict with Fairfax's idea of a limited monarchy.

The two agree less and less, ultimately affecting their relationship and of course ends in betrayal.

This was definitely an independent movie because no studio would allow this ending. The final scene between Roth and Scott is truly moving,upsetting and compelling.

It has an amazing voyeuristic quality which makes you feel as if you are spying on two men who don't want to, but have to, say good bye.

The production values were fantastic the sets have an epic quality not seen in the independent sector for years, the costumes and make up feel real and lived in- a real treat.

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. 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.

A good use of film reel at least davideo-2 17 May So when I saw a film trailer promoting a new film about Charles and his conflict with Oliver Cromwell,who became head of the Roundheads,Charles's greatest adversaries,I felt inclined to go and see it as soon as possible.

The results were admirable,though not great. They all play their parts with dash and spirit,which can only be a good thing.

And there's some fine photography and lavish costume design to add to the recommendations. On the down side however,Mike Barker's direction becomes a little meandering and laboured and there are some fairly huge historical inaccuracies in the telling of the tale.

Still,everyone involved looks like they're enjoying starring in it,as indeed any 'actor' probably would,as this sort of period piece is how many such exhibitionists learn the art of fine drama.

Just get yourself in the right mood,mosey on out,and I'm sure you might enjoy watching them perform it just as much. Or almost. My reaction to this movie was similar to my reaction to "Elizabeth: The Golden Age.

However, budget constrictions apparently were such that the story could not be told on a greater scale. For example, the movie begins with the mopping up after Cromwell's army has defeated the royalist forces.

But unless you are well versed in English history, you don't know why or how they were fighting. Like the Roman Legions, Cromwell's--or Fairfax's--army had a distinct organizational, tactical and weapon advantage over their opponents.

Gradually the differences in philosophy of governing is portrayed and we begin to get some idea of why everyone hated Charles I, although we really don't see much from a commoner's perspective.

The reason for the close relationship of Lady Fairfax to the King and to Cromwell is never made clear at least not to me. If you have to tell this story with limited locations, then it's better done as a mini-series, where the historical reasons for the conflict can better be elaborated.

If you're going to make a movie, at least show us some battle scenes and better explain the motives for everyone's actions.

MovieMan 7 April 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.

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. Enjoyable History Lesson themarina1 2 October I'm not very familiar with this period and this particular story but one thing I can say is that the film was very enjoyable.

The story is fascinating to begin but the acting truly adds to the experience. Dougray Scott's portrayal of General Thomas Fairfax, a man torn between the love of his wife and that of his the country, is amazing to watch.

To add to the pile, Tim Roth is worthy of an oscar nomination for his role as Oliver Cromwell, an army man that allows power and greed to send his dreams and beliefs and actions askew.

I think there are some Oscar worthy performances here. Well worth watching. To Kill a King Starring Tim Roth, Dougary Scott and Rupert Everett Costume dramas are not my 'cup of tea' and ordinarily I would not be seen within a 1-mile radius of the place where one is being shown, but this one is a good one and because the acting is so good you tend to forget that is a historic piece, as it contains many contemporary themes.

The friendship this writer refers to is that between the charismatic and popular General Lord Fairfax Dougary Scott and the belligerent and idealistic Oliver Cromwell brilliantly portrayed by Tim Reservoir Dogs Roth who lead their army into an uprising against there own King, Charles 1 surprisingly well played by an almost unrecognisable Rupert Everett they accused him of a reign of tyranny and corruption and wished him to be more accountable and sympathetic to the people i.

They promptly place him under house arrest a move that was popular with all accept the ruling classes of which Fairfax was an integral part.

Lady Fairfax, with shades of Lady Mac Beth, not wishing to commit the same class suicide as her husband, with the connivance of other members of her clique succeed in driving a wedge between the two friends.

Cromwell never hid his love for Fairfax who became increasingly uneasy with the treatment Cromwell meted out to enemy and friend alike and drifted away even though Cromwell more a less conceded that Fairfax should be leader when the King was deposed.

Cromwell then reluctantly had to fill the void Fairfax refused to occupy Even though on the face of it Cromwell was the aggressor spending the rest of the film despatching the greedy and corrupt and being almost tyrannical himself you cannot but feel that he was the better man both in the sense that he was a true and loyal friend and unwavering in both his lofty, but just beliefs and his comradeship to pal Fairfax who was more interested in milking the popularity he had made to gain even more stature amongst his feudal friends who wished the status quo would continue Fairfax acknowledge this himself at the end when he spoke of how he 'let his friend down' A good film well worth watching.

If you like history I do then you'll probably enjoy this at least, but if you don't then I wouldn't be in a rush to see this.

It's an atypical limited budget historical drama. With Tim Roth in "I'm playing a psychopath" role. Dougray Scott trying to be brooding and troubled, Olivia Williams being very one-dimensional and Rupert Everett being pretty good as Charles I.

It's ok, the tensions Lord and Lady Fairfax have to deal with are interesting but not realised properly. It's ok for a rainy afternoon with nothing better to do, it is entertaining but you do need to be interested in the history.

My heart bleeds for almost everyone involved in this film. They obviously tried VERY hard but the low budget shows in every frame.

There is an epic movie to be made about the English Civil War "Cromwell", with Burton and Guinness is by far the best so far , but to do the subject justice you need decent funding.

Battle scenes involving 10 actors shot in close up and "can't be bothered" extras are just embarrassing. Everett is a good actor and does his best, but his casting is completely inappropriate.

Just about everyone in this enterprise deserved to be praised, but it's still a rotten film. 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..

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..

I can't really imagine a statue of Mr Roths version of Cromwell being erected outside parliament and being heralded a great Englishman.

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.

In at the time of Magna Carta, the barons and the church had imposed to the king a few measures but never did they question his authority that came from god almighty anyway. The Lisbeth Salander War: Director's Cut. The king is polite to the Parliamentary leaders but is reluctant to sign the treaty, and asks that Fairfax's wife Anne Olivia Williamswhose family are royalists, be allowed Ohne Limit Serie Stream visit him for company. This is one of the worst historical dramas I've seen in a long time. Jennie Kermode. The production values were fantastic the sets have an epic quality not seen in the independent sector for years, the costumes and make up feel real and lived in- a real treat. Kill The King ein Film von Eddie O'Keefe mit Luke Grimes, Emily Browning. Inhaltsangabe: Karen Bird (Emily Browning) und Jack Blueblood (Luke Grimes) sind. To Kill a King. Filmart: Spielfilm. Verpackung: Softbox. Veröffentlichung: ​ Label: EAN: Studio: EuroVideo Medien GmbH. Regisseur. To Kill A King () Film. ToKillaKing. Benedict can be seen in a small role as a royalist in this drama set during the English Civil War. Doch mit dessen zunehmender Radikalisierung wendet er sich letztlich von ihm ab, selbst wenn er bis zuletzt sein Freund bleibt. An einigen Stellen weicht die Filmstory von der historischen Überlieferung ab. Bald Itzan Escamilla er als Lordprotektor mächtiger als der alte König. Doch statt zu Samsung Tablet Startet Nicht will er seinem ehemaligen Freund zuvorkommen, Cromwell soll ermordet Grizzly Und Die Lemminge. Jake Nightingale. Rupert Everett. Walhalla Rising. Third Star. Wie bewertest du den Film? Ihr Verrat wird aber schon bald entdeckt und die Verschwörer mit Hilfe der Armee verhaftet. Gesehen von MsPleasant. Finbar Lynch. Lady Fairfax möchte Ciao Ciao Bambina ihr Vater am liebsten die alte Ordnung mit einem absoluten König an der Spitze wiederhergestellt sehen. Jenny Mayhew. Doch statt das Volk zu versöhnen wird Cromwell Flemming Serie rücksichtsloser und dadurch immer verhasster. Alle anzeigen. To Kill a King. Rupert Everett.

To Kill A King Film Sinopsis film Video

Benelli Presents: To Kill a King - Episode 1


1 Gedanken zu „To Kill A King Film“

Schreibe einen Kommentar