King may not make your knight

To Kill A King is a brave attempt at an epic drama that just falls short of the mark.

Set as it is in 1645, we expect lots of battle scenes, gruesome deaths and plenty of blood.

Instead we get handbags at five paces and a few demented extras running around trying to look like an army. Apparently they couldn’t muster up a decent crowd for their fight for liberty and a kingless state.

Back to the plot. It’s the middle of the 17th Century and the English Civil Wars have just ended. King Charles I and his forces have been defeated and Thomas Fairfax (Dougray Scott) and his sidekick Oliver Cromwell are being feted as heroes.

But even though he is under house arrest King Charles I refuses to throw in the towel and manages to get parliament to vote for his return. Fairfax and Cromwell are split over what to do next. Cromwell wants to kill the king, but Fairfax is determined to reach a more diplomatic solution.

Though enjoyable and fast-paced early on To Kill A King begins to drag from the mid-point onwards. I suppose it’s not easy maintaining tension when there’s no simple climax or conclusion, but director Mike Barker does little to rectify the situation.

Dougray Scott does a good job as Fairfax, but he is overshadowed by Roth’s portrayal of Cromwell. Passionate and idealistic to begin with, Cromwell’s ambition soon turn to madness as he is infected by the power-lust he set out to defeat.

Rupert also excels as the arrogant King Charles who believes he can do as he pleases because he has been appointed by God.

Despite these performances To Kill a King falls flat at times with a distinct lack of on-screen action to keep things rolling along. It might have been worth their while raising a few more bob to finish off the job properly.

Drama, 15. 3/5