An intelligent historical movie that was sadly a box office failure. Its leads, Scott and Roth, don`t look much like Fairfax and Cromwell but act very well. If you really want to see King Charles I on screen look no further than Sir Alec Guinness`s performance in :Cromwell", a fine tuned portrayal that is uncannily accurate.
Too right, they don't much look like Fairfax and certainly not like Cromwell. One cannot understand or separate Cromwell from his Biblical convictions.
Having just watched this, its a bag of crap historically...the trial took 10 days and Charles was only present for the charges being read out...Cromwell did not give a speech outside the Banqueting House and was not elected Protector until 1653...there was no assassination attempt at his investiture etc. etc.
@@MrBrutal33 You are right this was crap. Its a sad waste because the sets, production values etc were good & Tim Roth is a great actor IMO. I am also not sure Cromwell was as homicidal as this movie makes out although our Irish friends may disagree LOL.
Protestants..puis révolutionnaire..puis républicains.. 😢 Dieu puisse il avoir pitié de leur âme 🙏❤️🕊️⛪🇨🇵🌹 gloire as Dieu au plus haut des cieux !❤ Je prie pour que la sainte Vierge Marie vous vienne en aide ! 😊❤🙏🇨🇵⛪🕊️❤️
So your God is better than their's a argument as backward and old as time. And what about the guillotine and Napoleon. The 🇫🇷 should not lecture anyone. 😅😂😅
Purely entertainment but I love history! 84 yrs old and I want to see our country in a better place. I believe a County is a Republic like Rome. England should never let the Royals back after Charles 1 was gone.the Republic of England sounds good.😮
🇬🇧 I Like this film it gives an accurate😢 historical account of the events that actually to place in historey between Oliver Cromwell And King Charles great performances and direction great movie
Film dobrze zrealizowany. A tak na marginesie: król Karol I nie był wysokim mężczyzną, jak aktor go grający. W rzeczywistości król miał 163 cm. wzrostu i był najniższym królem w dziejach Anglii i Szkocji. To gwoli faktu historycznego. My, Polacy też mieliśmy małego króla, zwał się Władysław Łokietek z dynastii Piastów. Był jeszcze niższy. Też jedyny w swoim rodzaju.
Charles I , file a FOIA request with the House of Parliament, do not answer any questions, do not consent to a search of your person or the royal Treasury, appeal your case to higher court!
It's a simple concept. All Englishmen are subject to English law. If the King is an Englishman he is therefore subject to English law. If he is not subject to the law, he cannot have any legal claim to kingship.
Then how did we get Charles the II. Cromwell was a tyrant. The parliament righted it's wrong with the restoration. Then re fouled it with the "inglorious" revolution. Charles the first was King by God's will. Regicide was committed to satisfy the fears of certain financial interests.
Why is Elizabeth I even mentioned in the logline? This film concerns people and events which occurred more than 50 years after her death! Otherwise an excellent film.
ME ENCANTAN LAS PELICULAS CON HISTORIA,DONDE SE REFLEJA LA CONSTANTE LUCHA POR LA LIVERTAD DE LOS PUEBLOS,DE REYES QUE SE CREIAN DIVINOS Y ERAN SIMPLES LADRONES Y ESCLAVIZADORES DEL SOBERANO.PERO INGLATERRA AMA A SUS DIOSES REYES,DE TODAS MANERAS ,HOY SIMBOLOS .PERO CON MAS DEMOCRACIA.
As history this is conjecture apart from the basic facts of Charles I execution, the Protectorate and the existence of the principal characters. This would not matter so much had the dialogue been crisp and meaningful, but it wasn't. Cromwell has all the charisma of a schoolmaster who's lost control of his class. Anne Fairfax (about which next to nothing is known, but beautiful she wasn't!) had no direct contact with Charles I beyond being removed from the gallery at his trial for shouting 'It's a lie!". Olivia Williams, the actress who plays her would have been more suited to a Jane-Austen novel (she played Jane Fairfax, no relative, in Emma!). Fairfax, historically, was instrumental in restoring the monarchy under Charles II, the executed king's son, after the death of Cromwell. The horrors of war and human nature come in for the usual handwringing sentimentality. In trying to be history, romance, drama and a contemporary commentary on human nature the film completely loses its way. It has been rightfully condemned to the dustbin.
Let's not talk what Cromwell did in Ireland against the majority Catholic population the greatest land confiscation since Norman invasion leaving a legacy of bitterness for generations! Leave comments no censorship.
You're right, let's not talk about it. The royalist troops ravaged my city in 1644 and murdered and violated the townspeople, but I don't keep whining about it 500 years later!
Lets not talk about portadown either...or the murky river Bann, we're i go to remember my lovely Ann... Who was defiled at the end of rebel spears...and buried in the sand..then one day on the Horizon did i see, a 100 or more ships coming to my land... And Cromwell lord protector of the realm, smiled and put a sword into my hand.... Off we marched to......
for my country thailand or former siam, the king and always controlled their subjects or lords...because the king himself was always former lord who had the great wealth and men power...
Yes I can, from a purely historical perspective, no one dragged Jesus to the cross but the Romans. It Roman law he was convicted for-sedition. Sedition was the only crime for which crucifixion could be used under Roman law. Do you really think Rome would let their subjugated peoples carry out Roman matters of law? It’s BS is what I’m saying. He was found guilty of sedition and crucified, end of story. In fact this is the one thing about Jesus that we actually have a historic record for. Other than that he is whatever anyone wants to imagine him to be.
I love all the actors in this film, but the casting is all wrong. Tim Roth is a fantastic actor, but he looks nothing like Cromwell. Now, someone I always thought would be just perfect for that role, since, unlike Roth, he actually bears a striking resemblance to the man, is none other than David Thewliss. And Rupert Everett is another wonderful actor with immense talent, but he isn’t right at all for the role of His Majesty King Charles I. Although, it is interesting to note that his maternal ancestors were royalists.
I hate to say this but I think the Brits need to revisit their past and look up this time in history? To see what Starmen is doing in the name of Parliament today betrays all of England, and he needs to be removed?
Whether a film is "good" or "bad" is subjective. However I'm about half way through not knowing if I'll finish. It doesn't have to be historically accurate, could even be porn, but I suggest it should be more accurate. Neither mention of the Catholic v. Protestant schism which was a main motivator. E.g. Charles 1 Catholic wife and her influence, not mentioned at all. Nor European context like 100 Years War. Nor fact that Cromwell as a great soldier. Who really knew how to train and organise, especially Cavalry. Treated his men well. Which was "revolutionary", way ahead of his time. 10,000 cavalry might be very expensive to recreate. Yet if portrayed, and with the real honest schisms might help reveal some of the origins of freedoms enjoyed these days in UK, and to some extent in USA and erstwhile British Empire. (Which illegal boat migrants know all about, appear to clamour for, and are thus rewarded?). Perhaps BBC, M&S, etc., should do a remake and cast Charles 1 and or Oliver as black?
Olivia Williams is a very good actress ....she is underemployed as far as I am concerned .....and being quite tall for a woman she should have been cast in more historical figure's roles...as for Rup.Everet sir Alec Guiness was a far better Charles I
Why the "Charles I - Elizabeth I" in the title ? Elizabeth I died 22 years BEFORE Charles 1 became King. Tim Roth does not make a realistic Cromwell. He isn't helped in that role by the weak, shallow dialogue scripted for him.
James King of Scots (Scotland) took over England in 1603 when Elizabeth 1st died in the same year, the Son of King James 6th of Scots was Charles 1st and his father died in 1625 his son died in 1649 ie 46 years before Elizabeth 1st died!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sim aconteceu no sec xvii durante a guerra civil inglesa entre as forças parlamentares lideradas por Oliver Cormwell e monarquicas de Carlos I que acabou por ser executado.
🎶Off we marched to drogheda, to Aston's guarded town. Together we stormed it with Cromwell at the helm, He screamed you butchers remember portadown... Im Cromwell lord protector of the realm,
Excellent film naturally there would be "artistic licence " for entertainment purposes. Charles l was top arrogant and deliberately provoked civil war thinking that the people wouldn't talk up arks against him ,however instead of executing him and making him a martyr he should have been deposed and his son put on the throne despite civil wars and its turmoil the monarchy was restored basically because Cromwell simply replaced one dictatorship with another and the people had enough
Love the Royal monarchy. Cromwell was not loved for long!The Puritans sailed off to America, and bang 🎉 The Restoration and no threat to RF since! ( O except Prince Andy, and Megs n Harry and Diana and .....
Any film with Tim Roth is worth watching.
J'adore Tim Roth, ,merci pour le film.
I almost didn't watch as it is subtitled "in French" and my rheumy old eyes get sore with subtitles. Thank dog it is in English and most enjoyable.
You can switch off the subtitles using the Settings.
An intelligent historical movie that was sadly a box office failure. Its leads, Scott and Roth, don`t look much like Fairfax and Cromwell but act very well. If you really want to see King Charles I on screen look no further than Sir Alec Guinness`s performance in :Cromwell", a fine tuned portrayal that is uncannily accurate.
Too right, they don't much look like Fairfax and certainly not like Cromwell. One cannot understand or separate Cromwell from his Biblical convictions.
Amen
Merci ,trés bon film historique.
Thank you for this fantastic movie , more historical movies pls
Absolutely excellent historical movie. I'm very happy to learn Fairfax lived to a ripe old age and did much for York.
Bon film. Je suis satisfait, un film bon film sur l'histoire.
Charles 1st has nothing to do with Elizabeth 1st! Two different royal houses and 30 years apart
Having just watched this, its a bag of crap historically...the trial took 10 days and Charles was only present for the charges being read out...Cromwell did not give a speech outside the Banqueting House and was not elected Protector until 1653...there was no assassination attempt at his investiture etc. etc.
@@MrBrutal33 You are right this was crap. Its a sad waste because the sets, production values etc were good & Tim Roth is a great actor IMO. I am also not sure Cromwell was as homicidal as this movie makes out although our Irish friends may disagree LOL.
Yes, the House of Stuart (Scottish) and the House of Tudor (Welsh) then again King James 6th of Scots took over England in 1603!
Excellent. Helps you understand "divine right of kings."
Très belle page d'histoire
merci pour film qui nous aide a mieux comprendre l'histoire ....
I love this movie so much that am watching it for the second time
Thank you 🤩🤩💖
James 6th of Scotland tookover England in 1603 Charles 1 was the son of King James and charles 1st had a son called Charles 2nd❤
Great movie❤❤
très beau film,merci beaucoup
excellent film , merci beaucoup./
Wonderful movie. I enjoyed watching it. The best
Makes me want to watch Rob Roy again
He was a real bastard in that one. I wish it were on TH-cam like this.
Loved the film 👏👏👏
Protestants..puis révolutionnaire..puis républicains.. 😢 Dieu puisse il avoir pitié de leur âme 🙏❤️🕊️⛪🇨🇵🌹 gloire as Dieu au plus haut des cieux !❤ Je prie pour que la sainte Vierge Marie vous vienne en aide ! 😊❤🙏🇨🇵⛪🕊️❤️
Je présume que vous êtes encore de la secte romaine? De là votre agression mariolatrique contre les chrétiens.
So your God is better than their's a argument as backward and old as time. And what about the guillotine and Napoleon. The 🇫🇷 should not lecture anyone. 😅😂😅
Puis Franc-Maçon….
😂🤣😂
Marie !!! ..... Vierge ??? ...😮😮😮 On parle bien de la même ?
🤣🤣🤣 Conneries de religion. -🖕
What a good movie.
Purely entertainment but I love history! 84 yrs old and I want to see our country in a better place.
I believe a County is a Republic like Rome. England should never let the Royals back after Charles 1 was gone.the Republic of England sounds good.😮
The Roman empire was better than the Republic and its not even close.
وما الحياة الدنيا الا متاع الغرور
🇬🇧 I Like this film it gives an accurate😢 historical account of the events that actually to place in historey between Oliver Cromwell And King Charles great performances and direction great movie
What was a great film
Film dobrze zrealizowany. A tak na marginesie: król Karol I nie był wysokim mężczyzną, jak aktor go grający. W rzeczywistości król miał 163 cm. wzrostu i był najniższym królem w dziejach Anglii i Szkocji. To gwoli faktu historycznego. My, Polacy też mieliśmy małego króla, zwał się Władysław Łokietek z dynastii Piastów. Był jeszcze niższy. Też jedyny w swoim rodzaju.
A most powerful introduction. I will see if it agrees with the Great Reformers whose blood paved the way for liberty today.
Verry good filmed ! ! ! those where crazy times
Roi décapité par un homme ambitieux et fourbe !!! Bon film !!!
Merci pour le spoil 😞
Thank you
Charles I , file a FOIA request with the House of Parliament, do not answer any questions, do not consent to a search of your person or the royal Treasury, appeal your case to higher court!
A great movie
sthanks!! ILOVE 😊
Hello 😊
Très bon film historique, je recommande ❤
Tim Roth at young age and Australian actress forgot her name. Interesting film.
Extraordinnaire film😢
It's a simple concept. All Englishmen are subject to English law. If the King is an Englishman he is therefore subject to English law. If he is not subject to the law, he cannot have any legal claim to kingship.
Then how did we get Charles the II. Cromwell was a tyrant. The parliament righted it's wrong with the restoration. Then re fouled it with the "inglorious" revolution. Charles the first was King by God's will. Regicide was committed to satisfy the fears of certain financial interests.
I love the movie.
She is a very beautiful lady
Tres bon film d histoire .
Vă rugăm și traducerea în limba română !!!!
Why is Elizabeth I even mentioned in the logline? This film concerns people and events which occurred more than 50 years after her death! Otherwise an excellent film.
Very Good,a gem
Nice movie❤❤
Finalement les Français ne sont pas les seuls à avoir exécuter leur roi......
What do you mean - we did it before you !
An hour and thirty four minutes?
Where is the rest?
ME ENCANTAN LAS PELICULAS CON HISTORIA,DONDE SE REFLEJA LA CONSTANTE LUCHA POR LA LIVERTAD DE LOS PUEBLOS,DE REYES QUE SE CREIAN DIVINOS Y ERAN SIMPLES LADRONES Y ESCLAVIZADORES DEL SOBERANO.PERO INGLATERRA AMA A SUS DIOSES REYES,DE TODAS MANERAS ,HOY SIMBOLOS .PERO CON MAS DEMOCRACIA.
Bom filme.
As history this is conjecture apart from the basic facts of Charles I execution, the Protectorate and the existence of the principal characters. This would not matter so much had the dialogue been crisp and meaningful, but it wasn't. Cromwell has all the charisma of a schoolmaster who's lost control of his class. Anne Fairfax (about which next to nothing is known, but beautiful she wasn't!) had no direct contact with Charles I beyond being removed from the gallery at his trial for shouting 'It's a lie!". Olivia Williams, the actress who plays her would have been more suited to a Jane-Austen novel (she played Jane Fairfax, no relative, in Emma!). Fairfax, historically, was instrumental in restoring the monarchy under Charles II, the executed king's son, after the death of Cromwell. The horrors of war and human nature come in for the usual handwringing sentimentality. In trying to be history, romance, drama and a contemporary commentary on human nature the film completely loses its way. It has been rightfully condemned to the dustbin.
But you just watched it, do you live in a dustbin ?
Let's not talk what Cromwell did in Ireland against the majority Catholic population the greatest land confiscation since Norman invasion leaving a legacy of bitterness for generations! Leave comments no censorship.
You're right, let's not talk about it. The royalist troops ravaged my city in 1644 and murdered and violated the townspeople, but I don't keep whining about it 500 years later!
@sandrabrowne2350 - It's a bit more complicated than that.
Lets not talk about portadown either...or the murky river Bann, we're i go to remember my lovely Ann... Who was defiled at the end of rebel spears...and buried in the sand..then one day on the Horizon did i see, a 100 or more ships coming to my land... And Cromwell lord protector of the realm, smiled and put a sword into my hand.... Off we marched to......
It looks so good movie😇🤝👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻❤️🫂🙏🏻
for my country thailand or former siam, the king and always controlled their subjects or lords...because the king himself was always former lord who had the great wealth and men power...
This is precisely one of the things that the people were fighting against in the civil wars. British people know that a king's rule has limits.
Nice movie.
can you guys explain to us how they manage to drag Jesus to the Cross then accused the Roman?
Yes I can, from a purely historical perspective, no one dragged Jesus to the cross but the Romans. It Roman law he was convicted for-sedition. Sedition was the only crime for which crucifixion could be used under Roman law. Do you really think Rome would let their subjugated peoples carry out Roman matters of law? It’s BS is what I’m saying. He was found guilty of sedition and crucified, end of story. In fact this is the one thing about Jesus that we actually have a historic record for. Other than that he is whatever anyone wants to imagine him to be.
Good film poor portrayal of Cromwell as a nervous and emotional wimp instead of cold, unemotional, supremely confident
Scott and Tim together?
I'm in.
"Mommy? The playground is closed today! So, can we play on the corpse stack under the tree?"
😂👍 excellent film comme dictateur moi aussi ça me fait penser à quelqu'un MaCrotte☺️🤣
Pauvre guignols de foire 🥳🥳🥳 et dégénéré du bulbe 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Queen Elizabeth I died in 1603, so what has that got to do with the description of the movie, i.e., Charles I Elizabeth I.
why the bad aspect ratio?
🙏🏻thank you🫂👍🏻🤝😇
Great film, To Kill a King (2003)
Cromwell was NOT on the scaffold - looking like a pissed-off little Jew - when Charles was beheaded. This is just such a pastiche.
What has changed I told him I have, If one can not change oneself it is meaningless.
Would whoever posted this kindly have the courtesy to include the cast list.
Google it
How gullible was Anne and the Royalists that a king can do and take anything. England 🏴 is a country of laws and better for it.
Sorry in spanish, please, thank You 😢
Tu el hombre! Viva Cristo Rey!!!
Le film n est pas en français?
God save the King Charles II
I love all the actors in this film, but the casting is all wrong. Tim Roth is a fantastic actor, but he looks nothing like Cromwell. Now, someone I always thought would be just perfect for that role, since, unlike Roth, he actually bears a striking resemblance to the man, is none other than David Thewliss. And Rupert Everett is another wonderful actor with immense talent, but he isn’t right at all for the role of His Majesty King Charles I. Although, it is interesting to note that his maternal ancestors were royalists.
I hate to say this but I think the Brits need to revisit their past and look up this time in history?
To see what Starmen is doing in the name of Parliament today betrays all of England, and he needs to be removed?
correct movie titel: to kill a king (2003). juse the prober titel!!!!
Whether a film is "good" or "bad" is subjective. However I'm about half way through not knowing if I'll finish. It doesn't have to be historically accurate, could even be porn, but I suggest it should be more accurate. Neither mention of the Catholic v. Protestant schism which was a main motivator. E.g. Charles 1 Catholic wife and her influence, not mentioned at all. Nor European context like 100 Years War. Nor fact that Cromwell as a great soldier. Who really knew how to train and organise, especially Cavalry. Treated his men well. Which was "revolutionary", way ahead of his time. 10,000 cavalry might be very expensive to recreate. Yet if portrayed, and with the real honest schisms might help reveal some of the origins of freedoms enjoyed these days in UK, and to some extent in USA and erstwhile British Empire. (Which illegal boat migrants know all about, appear to clamour for, and are thus rewarded?). Perhaps BBC, M&S, etc., should do a remake and cast Charles 1 and or Oliver as black?
Attendre 130 ans que les Anglais pousse les Français a décapiter leurs Roi (nuances)
Olivia Williams is a very good actress ....she is underemployed as far as I am concerned .....and being quite tall for a woman she should have been cast in more historical figure's roles...as for Rup.Everet sir Alec Guiness was a far better Charles I
super film mais beaucoup trop de pub
Vrais pour les pub.
Avant ils avaient pas de pubs
Why the "Charles I - Elizabeth I" in the title ? Elizabeth I died 22 years BEFORE Charles 1 became King.
Tim Roth does not make a realistic Cromwell. He isn't helped in that role by the weak, shallow dialogue scripted for him.
@Baskerville22 - I fully agree with you on the implausible portrayal of Cromwell and the weak script! The 1970 film Cromwell was much better.
James King of Scots (Scotland) took over England in 1603 when Elizabeth 1st died in the same year, the Son of King James 6th of Scots was Charles 1st and his father died in 1625 his son died in 1649 ie 46 years before Elizabeth 1st died!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good film, but let us not delude ourselves we are still being ruled covertly
So much nonsense in this film. It is really irritating. I guess all it has going for it is entertainment. No wonder it was a flop.
It's To Kill a King
Historically this is so bad it's an embarrassment
Alguém sabe me informar se esse filme é baseado em história real ?
Sim aconteceu no sec xvii durante a guerra civil inglesa entre as forças parlamentares lideradas por Oliver Cormwell e monarquicas de Carlos I que acabou por ser executado.
It sure is
Si , es real.
É sim senhor!
bang please make the Madong seok movie, which is titled Ground Zero
Oliver Cromwell was depicted here badly. Umm....N
By the way, I never liked him anyway. King Slayer,( for his own benefit) wasn't he?
liked this a lot and thats from an irsh republican.
🎶Off we marched to drogheda, to Aston's guarded town.
Together we stormed it with Cromwell at the helm,
He screamed you butchers remember portadown...
Im Cromwell lord protector of the realm,
Excellent film naturally there would be "artistic licence " for entertainment purposes. Charles l was top arrogant and deliberately provoked civil war thinking that the people wouldn't talk up arks against him ,however instead of executing him and making him a martyr he should have been deposed and his son put on the throne despite civil wars and its turmoil the monarchy was restored basically because Cromwell simply replaced one dictatorship with another and the people had enough
The victors write the history books. Charles was a decent king. Damn sure better than his father.
Extra
เมื่อไรคนทั้งโลกจะมีแต่ความรักให้กันแม้แตกต่างทางความเชื้อ❤😊🎉
❤
여왕의군대
에픽
❤❤❤❤
Love the Royal monarchy. Cromwell was not loved for long!The Puritans sailed off to America, and bang 🎉 The Restoration and no threat to RF since! ( O except Prince Andy, and Megs n Harry and Diana and .....
Screen ratio issue
now I know you are lying. Word of Mouth is the best.
If only women
😍
Para que carajo en Francés, entonces escribe tu canal en francés
Carefull now as we deal with Trump
user-wk1ij1kvs:
what the fuck are you talking about?1.