johnbirch-2 If this were a work of fiction it'd be a pretty good film - colourful, dramatic, reasonably well written, good story. As an entertainment its pretty good.The snag is that it claims not to be fiction but rather history. Its about as much a history lesson as Star Wars.Yes, taking a very, very broad brush view of the film the main events do happen in pretty much the right order and mostly with the right outcome. But when we get down the the trivial little details like who wins some of the battles, and who did what, where, when and above all why its terrible. Really, really terrible.To say that this is a hagiography in favour of Cromwell barely scratches the surface. At times its like a propaganda piece from the former Soviet Union.Other reviewers have mentioned many of the details, but the very idea that Cromwell was in any remote way a democrat or gave a fig for ordinary people is beyond laughable. The man was a positive ayatollah, and the years under his rule were way worse than those under the king he overthrew. That is, after all, why ultimately the monarchy returns barely more than a decade after Charles' execution.Does that matter - it is, after all, just a film? Yes indeed it does. History matters, but for most people who do not get an opportunity to study this pivotal period this will be how they see the period and the main participants. And, frankly, the real history was way more interesting.

JasparLamarCrabb Despite the eponymous title, writer/director Ken Hughes forgot to include a single piece of insight into what made British martyr Oliver Cromwell tick. Instead we have a mediocre battle of wills between Cromwell (Richard Harris) and King George I (a very uneasy looking Alec Guinness). Harris would have us believe that Cromwell spent all his time either yelling at the top of his lungs about how miserable England is or muttering anti-Catholic notions to no one in particular. He doesn't so much as act as he does recite his dialog. Guinness, with goofy looking hair (both on his head and chin) seems to be working in a different film, a satire of a David Lean epic perhaps? Hughes mounts several chilly battle scenes, virtually all via long-shots so there's never any sense of danger or, frankly, excitement. This is film with a lot of pomp and very little circumstance. The supporting cast is large and includes the likes of Robert Morley, Charles Grey, Timothy Dalton and Dorothy Tutin (infusing a lot of life into her few scenes as Guinness's unpleasant wife, Queen Henrietta Maria). Well known ham Patrick Wymark hams it up mightily as the Earl of Strafford.

Jarrod Birch This movie is perfect for people who have not previously learned about Cromwell and the civil wars, as it gives a brief overview of the key battles, arguments and causes of the problems between King and country. The Battle of Naseby, the New Model Army, the execution of the King are shown in an entertaining way, and we are shown the personalities of both Cromwell and the King in depth.However, Harris as Cromwell was disappointing, acting far more dramatically and aggressively than I imagined Cromwell to be, and in scenes where his aggressive puritanism wouldn't really have reared its head. The film's depiction of Cromwell, considering the picture of a hero on the front cover, is mixed up and full of inaccuracies: he is shown as one of the five members who Charles tried to arrest and he forces others to accept and sign his death warrant, both not true.Certain characters are acted out perfectly, like Prince Rupert who is as eccentric and passionate as I expected him to be, but there was a general air of dramatisation about the film that at times got in the way of the true events. Good for people who just want an overview of the period, but too many inaccuracies for it to be a relevant, informative film if you have already learnt about Cromwell.

Neil Welch My English history isn't the greatest, so I take the view that this movie is probably a tolerable overview of the Cromwell era without necessarily being spot on with its facts.Richard Harris is an intense Cromwell and Alec Guiness is an aloof Charles 1 as this tale of accountability, the divine right of kings, parliament's position and, ultimately, civil war proceeds.From a film-goer's perspective, the movie needs a dramatic set piece nearer the end - Charles' execution and its aftermath is a rather low key and understated way to finish off the film. There are some large scale and relatively well staged battle scenes earlier on.Which leads me to ponder the rationale behind this movie. It is rather late in the day for an old-style massed battle action movie (viz. the Hollywood knights in armour movies, El Cid, Charge Of The Light Brigade etc.) and, in any event, despite the battles, this is quite a talkie movie. I suppose it tells an important story which hadn't, at the time, been told in any detail elsewhere.