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.
Lucy Coppinger
Overall, I genuinely liked this film as it was enjoyable to watch and rather entertaining. I would recommend this film to those who are learning or have learnt about Cromwell as it is well put together and gives you a brief overview of the Civil Wars and the key information there is to know, however, this film is for entertainment purposes and doesn't go into great detail. When learning about Cromwell, I saw him to be the sort of character that he is perceived to be in this film and I believe that Richard Harris plays his role of Cromwell extremely well taking on the role of a passionate man who was indeed, hard to understand at times. At times I did feel that this film was rather dramatic however, I felt it was well put together and a very good effort in depicting and emphasising the person that Cromwell was in the 17th century.
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.
Michael Thomson
First of all Cromwell is a decent enough film to make it worthy of the 2 hours 10 mins approx that you will spend watching it, there certainly are worse things you could be doing with your time and much worse films you could be watching, take Bram Stoker's Legend of the Mummy 2, a film very few people will have heard of but count yourselves lucky you have not had to suffer it.Now the film is not that historically accurate at times but if you wanted to be bombarded with information about the time then you would probably be watching a BBC programme with Simon Schama presenting it and lets be honest how many films are truly accurate to history? Braveheart and Titanic aren't but they have a lot in the realm of entertainment and what makes a good film. Cromwell has some but not to the extent of those just mentioned. There are more interesting moments and there are moments where some of you will likely want to just turn it off and possibly put something else on which has a lot more action. There is a lot of talking in this film but a decent couple of battles in the middle of it to break it up.The performances of the film are both good and bad. Alec Guinness gives an excellent portrayal of King Charles I and I truly thought he was the King but lets be honest did we expect anything less from one of the all time greats? Richard Harris (everyones favourite Dumbledore) is a mixed bag in this film. He has moments where he is okay but I found him quite wooden overall and certainly not his best performance. He also seems to shout in most the scenes he is in and apparently he did damage to his voice because of it - Yeah not really surprised if I'm honest.The score of the film was quite good but there were parts where I found some of the music to be a bit out of place with what was happening on screen. The Direction and Cinematography were okay but nothing special.Overall this was quite an enjoyable film at times and gives you a good outline of the events that happened at the time despite its historical inaccuracies.If you enjoyed this review I suggest you read Empire Magazines review of it which I found quite amusing if a little harsh - http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/review.asp?FID=132226
AD
