Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Contentar Best movie of this year hands down!

BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Lachlan Coulson This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

petrelet Roger Ebert said that this movie's history was as good as one could expect, but otherwise it was pretty bad. I revere Ebert, but he was way off about the history part.The movie is very much concerned that you properly appreciate Cromwell. To this end, it fills the sound track with orchestral flourishes and fanfares and strident Protestant chorales from the first moment Cromwell appears to the last. Not content with this, it shamelessly reworks history in order to put Cromwell in places and roles which the historical Cromwell did not occupy, and to show him performing wonders that he did not perform, in the hope that the viewer will not know enough history to notice, or will just figure that such lies are the necessary means of sanctifying Cromwell. For example, it makes Cromwell one of the five members of parliament accused of treason by Strafford, although he was not. It makes Cromwell a participant in the battle of Edgehill, although he wasn't there. Movie-Cromwell commanded the revolutionaries at the critical battle of Naseby, starkly outnumbered by Charles but routing his forces through brilliant strategy and just plain awesomeness. The historical Cromwell was at least present at Naseby, but Fairfax was in command, and his forces had the edge in numbers. At every point Movie-Cromwell is shown to be the sole unaided leader and savior of the Revolution, whereas the real Cromwell was often a subordinate or part of a larger committee. In short, the movie perjures itself from beginning to end.Now, you could say that there are plenty of history films that get the history way wrong, but are at least fun to watch or produce memorable moments and so on. You might even point out that Shakespeare's histories are bad history but memorable art. Well, Hughes is not Shakespeare, and his Cromwell is not Prince Hal either. Sixty percent of what he does throughout the movie presents a variation on the following: (a) Cromwell asserts a conventional and lofty principle ("I will hear no treason against the king!") (b) He immediately runs up against a harsh reality (One of his men has his ears cut off) (c) He declares that God wants him to throw aside the original principle ("God damn this king!").There are lot of movies about people who have started off with good intentions and made themselves dictators, convincing themselves that it's necessary for the greater good because all the others in government are traitors and thieves, and because democracy (or republicanism, to be more precise than the movie ever is) is just inadequate to the needs of the day. You can argue about whether this is an adequate and fair summary of the career of the historical Cromwell (I don't think so), but it is an exact synopsis of Movie-Cromwell's career. As if to convince you that he has really gone over the edge, movie-Cromwell punctuates his seizure of total power with a long ahistorical populist rant about how he will make England a center of learning where every man can earn his bread.As I say, there are a lot of movies about ranting dictators, but there are not so many where a narrator comes along at the end and assures you that the dictator was perfectly justified by history in all his actions and ambitions! But here, after the above-mentioned rant, supposedly taking place in 1653, (SPOILER) the movie comes to an abrupt end - we never see a frame about Cromwell's service as Lord Protector - we only get the voice of an uncredited narrator telling us that during those five years Cromwell made England a great and respected nation!Now on the issue of religion. We know that the English Civil War had a strong religious element. We don't expect Cromwell and his Puritans to be presented as models of tolerance and ecumenicism. Of course they were opposed not just to the Catholics who back the monarchy but to Catholicism itself. But in fact it looks very much as if Hughes himself is opposed to Catholicism, which is exemplified in the film by Charles' French wife, Henrietta Maria, one of his many evil counselors (and who, out of perhaps 100 words spoken in the film by women, has the plurality), and by a conniving Italian archbishop who attempts to extort all sorts of treasonable favors out of Charles in return for his support. All this in a film released in 1970, during the Troubles! I have no independent knowledge of Hughes' sympathies in religion or Irish politics. We are informed that this biopic was a "dream project" for Hughes, the product of ten years of research. We do know that Cromwell was a particular hero to the Orange Order. We can see that Hughes wrote and directed a film dedicated to the particular virtues of Cromwell during the time when Catholics in Northern Island were launching a civil rights movement (1964) and loyalists were responding by creating paramilitary forces (1966). The film is full of fake history - did he compose the lies himself, or just uncritically trust some dodgy source? Hughes actually filmed scenes of Cromwell putting down Catholics in Ireland, which were ultimately cut from the final film as just too inflammatory.And even if one ignores the whole Irish context, the message that national revival can best be handled by a single man who says "I alone can fix it" - no, that was someone else, Movie-Cromwell says "I must do it all alone" - doesn't play well in 2018. To me, anyway.

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.

trimmerb1234 It is strange indeed that there is such a variety of interpretations of the film, quibbles about historical accuracy etc. when the closing narration both makes crystal clear what the film's purpose is and makes claims far more controversial than the film's strongest detractors have noticed. The narration celebrates the change from absolute to a constitutional Monarchy and Cromwell for bringing it about. It says that the 5 years of Cromwell's "reign" brought about an England "feared, respected and powerful". It takes obvious pride in him not just on England's behalf but much more widely as having established the principal of the primacy of parliament over the monarchy. Surprising that reviews quibbling over points of historical accuracy don't mention this narration with its central claim and entirely uncritical celebration of Cromwell.Since 1899 a statue of Cromwell has had a prominent location in the gardens of the British Houses of Parliament, something not without controversy from then until now. The statue's continuing presence can be read as Parliament's loud - and proud - assertion of its primacy.The script and the choice of one of the UK's finest actors, Alec Guinness, gave a gracious and nuanced portrayal of Charles 1. The choice of Richard Harris added to a blunt, forceful and determined Cromwell. The portrayal of a Parliament left to make up its own rules - and Cromwell's dramatic return with the Army to impose his view is memorableIt is a fine and interesting film, also a history lesson but one not everyone would celebrate. It is about politics, not pageantry

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.