pjcook-1 Nearly 50 years on this film needs to be judged by the message it contains. It is very dramatic but it's inaccuracies and omissions strip it of any meaning - for example the total missing out of the escape of Charles and the Second Civil War means that the reason for Cromwell insistence on his death looks like vengeance devoid of necessity. In a day when the tyrants look to seize power in the Western World in the name of the people afain, this film offers no insight. The people having got their electoral victories face the same issues of lacking any clue what should replace what they have torn down. It could say a lot, but manages to say nothing of value. Want middling battle scenes great, otherwise a poor use of an afternoon.

JohnHowardReid A wonderful film which ranks with El Cid as one of the best historical blockbusters ever made. I've mentioned before that imaginative "B" directors often turn out staid and uninspired "A" work. This hasn't happened here. True, some critics feel that the non-battle scenes lack power, but I found them far more interesting and forceful. The inner action of men's minds, the crackle, dart and thrust of their speech, their motives, aspirations, stubborn beliefs and hidden agenda formed for me a richer panorama, a far more fascinating vista than the mere brute clash of iron against steel.The acting is well-night perfect with both Guinness and Harris superbly cast as contrasting king and conqueror. It is these two powerful players, both giving the performances of their lives, who rightly dominate the action. The director's script — following history itself — brilliantly thrusts them center stage and cleverly keeps them there until the inexorable end. It's hard to keep audience interest alive when the outcome of the plot is so well-known, but Hughes manages to work up such sympathy and suspense, we concentrate all our attention on events as they unfold so fascinatingly before our eyes. The sets, the costumes, the rich details and panoply of court and parliamentary life are alone so gripping — and beautiful to behold — that occasionally historical events seem like an intrusion! And that is exactly the right approach for a writer- director to take, crowding our hearts with such an abundance of inspiring and abhorrent images and ideas, there is no time to reflect. In Hughes' hands history is always vigorously alive, never static or blandly familiar, — let alone moribund or dull.

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

ianlouisiana Why is it that to many people even in the UK the American Civil War is so much more interesting than the English one?Surely there could be no grander cause than defending the right of the people to rule the people and ending the Divine Right of Kings?I approached "Cromwell" in the hope that it would do something to redress the balance,but,sadly it failed to do so. Some of the blame could be rested on Cromwell himself,played by Mr R.Harris as a Puritan,both literally and figuratively.A man with the charisma of a breeze block and the temper of a starving hyena,he glowers and rants and raves at regular intervals when he isn't saying "Aaaah!" to denote irony with just the faintest Irish accent which in itself is the ultimate irony considering the real life Cromwell's proclivities. On occasions of particularly high emotions,Mr Harris's voice takes on the timbre of a peevish Dalek though fortunately by the end of the picture he is rapidly overtaken by what appears to be a rather bad case of laryngitis. Sir Alec Guinness gives us a rather camp and waspish King Charles who releases Bon Mots with the regularity of Oscar Wilde on a deadline. "Do you want it good or do you want it Wednesday?" as they say in the scriptwriting business...well,we got it Wednesday. Many reliable second - string British actors turn out and speak their lines as if on the boards with the R.S.C. where no doubt most of them would have been much happier. The lovely Miss D.Tutin has little to say despite her billing;but she does manage to look quite fierce in all the right places.No wonder Sir Alec looked terrified of her. Where is our Sherman,or Lee or Jackson? Can you imagine John Wayne as Cromwell and Ward Bond as his best friend? Where was our Appomatox,our Bull Run? Perhaps the Americans are simply better at building myths than we are. Certainly I can't see the Americans letting anything as dour,colourless and downright dull about their Civil War loose on the public.