Fact and fiction - Hollywood movies!
I find it so very frustrating watching Hollywood movies! Whenever I watch a movie based on real life events, I always keep in mind that the truth may be exaggerated greatly, and/or the "truth" may be seen through the movie director/producer's "perceptions". (One very awful example of this is Oliver Stone's "JFK", IMHO! I am such a fan of Kevin Costner, but his decision to portray Jim Garrison in that movie really disappointed me. I realize some really liked the movie, and I respect that though I think it was way too far from the truth.)
"To Kill A King" is a story I am only a bit familiar with. I read the user's comment and review, and I believe the author of those comment's is correct when he/she advises to read the book. But I do wonder, what research is Antonia Fraser's book based on? Is the book considered an accurate writing and portrayal of historical events? 300+ years is a long time ago, but those events that took place at that time shape the world we live in today, still.
I found all of the performances in this movie well done. Though I do not know to what certain degree of accuracy they portray their real life characters, I think the movie is dramatic, the costumes and sets are magnificent, and the music is wonderful! Rupert as King Charles was above and beyond!
I have to wonder, while admiring Oliver Cromwell's ideas that each man should be master of his own destiny, and that he should not have to bow to any other man, how much of his ambitions might have caused him to be overzealous and rule with a heavy hand? I firmly believe in the old saying (and I wonder where this originated?) - something to the effect of 'while absolute power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely' (my apologies if this quote is not exact).
I wonder what became of Oliver's son after he died? It is also interesting that the only family significantly shown in the movie is Oliver's son - did he lose a wife earlier in life? What of his other family?