terrible... so disappointed.

Purely Joyful Movie!

Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

Although enthusiastic about this film thirteen years ago, I now have reservations. The history is just too dodgy, with people in positions they never held; faked, chaotic or completely omitted battles; and several pointlessly altered incidents and situations. Why was it thought necessary to invent alternative facts in this messy way ? History, it seems, is always being re-written --- by both sides. Consider how Cromwell has been maligned and misrepresented for 400 years by the benighted Catholic Irish. Read "Cromwell: An Honourable Enemy" by Tom Reilly, born and bred in Drogheda. The Parliamentary cavalry should have attacked, boot to boot, in a resolute and tightly packed wedge, with "a steady round trot", as learned from the Swedish army in the 30 years war, not in this flamboyant disorderly manner.That said, I thought the personalities of Cromwell and Charles I were well presented by Harris and Guinness. The other characters were not well played, quite apart from the inaccurate ways they were directed. Prince Rupert was simply ridiculous, and the future Charles II, one of Britain's sleaziest and most treacherous monarchs, was way off piste. Though he was too young here to have got into his dissolute stride. Film is well worth seeing, nevertheless, more than once.

It says something about a movie that 350 years after the events being depicted, I found myself seething with rage at the depiction of some of the characters. Fortunately, there was comic relief aplenty, as terrible dialogue combined with acting bad enough to make me laugh out loud. The depiction of Queen Henrietta Maria was infuriating. She should be held up as an incredible strong woman figure in history, and her list of accomplishments is pretty extraordinary. This movie depicts her as a manipulative shrew. There's a reason they do that. The filmmakers clearly want you to feel a sense of sadness at Charles' death, but they don't want you to feel any sympathy with for his cause. Solution? He was just being pushed around by his evil wife. Now, she's not the only character to be woefully misrepresented. Manchester's depiction is widely criticized, and Prince Rupert is laugh worthy. I don't understand the purpose of depicting Strafford as 20 years older than he was when he died, or depicting him on crutches when as far as I know he was a healthy 48 year old at the time of his death. Charles and Cromwell, themselves, are devoid of character except as representations of tyranny and democracy (something which, in itself, is simplistic). Fairfax is depicted as Cromwell's inferior, and they even attribute a religious speech by a Royalist to Cromwell (why?). They specifically say that Cromwell was outnumbered at his greatest victory, which is false, and even weirder they misidentify what his greatest victory actually was. They cannot claim that the movie is historically accurate when they do stuff like that. You never watch a historical movie expecting a completely accurate representation, but you hope for some level of honesty. This movie felt like propaganda about a war that ended 350 years ago. But not even well done propaganda. Propaganda that made me laugh every 5 minutes because of some ridiculous dialogue or music reminiscent of a Star Trek TOS episode.

It's a bit awkward to see Irishman Richard Harris spitting venom and turning against his king at the idea England hiring on Irish mercenaries and bowing to a Catholic Queen, but he puts in a very fun performance in this little-represented section of history. The film plays its cards too soon with the pacing though, bringing us the most exciting action, scenery, battle scenes and dramatic panache early on and then ending on more of a somber courtroom whimper. Nicely, the film stays apolitical and presents both sides with some sympathy. Alec Guiness really shines as King Charles I, managing to play the role as bumbling and arrogant yet sympathetic as extremely courageous to the end and as an unfortunate product of his time. It's really interesting to see Michael Jayston playing one of the more vehement revolutionaries in this film, especially considering the next year he'd get his big starring role as the very pro-establishment titular character NICHOLAS AND ALEXANDRA, a very similar film about the end of a European Monarchy.CROMWELL is unfairly forgotten these days, especially considering it is quite lavish, somewhat realistic in terms of production design and battle tactics, and features excellent performances by a whole host of familiar British performers like Timothy Dalton, Jack Gwillim, Douglas Wilmer, Charles Gray, Frank Finlay, and a lot of other actors I recognized from "Doctor Who". B-movie stalwart Ian McCulloch is credited though I failed to identify him, maybe as he was so young at the time and, like everyone else in the film, difficult to recognize under wigs and heavy makeup.

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.