Cromwell (1970) User Reviews (112)

What happened to the warts?

[benbrae76 · 8/10 · 31 August 2006]

Being a lay student of these times I was naturally interested in this movie, and to a great extent I found it to be thoroughly enjoyable, but what happened to the Battle of Marston Moor? Was history wrong and the battle never fought? Cromwell was depicted as the over all commander of the New Model Army (i.e the "Roundheads") at the battle of Naseby. He wasn't, Sir Thomas Fairfax was. Cromwell was the commander of the cavalry.

The Civil War was not a conflict over religion, although it played it's part. It was about "the divine right of kings", against the governance of, by and for the people, i.e. Rex v Parliament. Divided loyalties and opinions were split right across the board.

The capital charges of treason brought against the king was, to my mind, not altogether trumped up, and had some validity. However it was of course a "show trial", and to bring it about the laws had to be changed rapidly. There was no edict at the time that allowed anyone to put a monarch on trial. Issac Dorislaus (a Dutch lawyer) came to the rescue of Parliament. He wrote an order that would enable it to set up the court. This order was based on an old Roman law which stated that a military body (in this case the Parliamentary forces) could legally overthrow a tyrant. Naturally Charles I did not agree, either to this law, or that he was a tyrant. He was still the King, still the Head of State, and as such, above the law. He could do as he wished, and was answerable only to God. For him it was an unfortunate way of looking at things.

The casting of this movie was extremely well thought out, but with one exception. Cromwell himself. I'm not criticising Richard Harris in any way. He played the role superbly, but I'm sure he didn't have an Irish accent. Also he had some extremely noticeable warts on his face which Richard Harris did not. Had the make-up artists gone on vacation? To his credit Richard overcame this miscasting, and acquitted the characterisation of the brusque, complex, and religiously enigmatic Oliver Cromwell with great fervour and passion, and I doubt if anyone else could have done it any better.

On the subject of accents, I wonder whether or not the Scottish accent adopted by Alec Guinness was apt. As Charles I left Scotland at the age of 4, and lived in England until his death, surely he would have cultivated an English one? True he had a Scottish tutor, but I'm still left to wonder. Perhaps someone could set me right.

(Just as a byline, I find it curious that Richard Harris, being an Irishman, accepted the part. In the greater part of Ireland the very name of Oliver Cromwell is loathed and reviled, and for good reason, so it says much for Harris's devotion to the acting profession that he actually did.) Being a musician, I was highly amused at seeing (and hearing) bugles played on horseback during a 17th century battle, reminiscent of the US 7th cavalry. Such instruments weren't developed to such an advanced stage until late into the following century (the 18th).

As another reviewer has noted, Cromwell was certainly not one of the "Five Members" who were to be removed from the House and arrested. These were: John Pym, John Hampden, Denzil Holles, Sir Arthur Haselrig and William Strode. A sixth man, Lord Mandeville (the future Earl of Manchester) was also to be taken.

There are quite a few more historical mistakes and omissions on which other reviewers have remarked, and I don't intend to repeat them. But in defence of the producers it must be said that "The English Civil War" was a momentous stage in British, perhaps even world history, and to illustrate it all in a couple of hours is impossible. Much as Shakespeare, when writing "Henry V", managed on a small stage to capture the flavour of Agincourt and events leading up to it, so this production coped well with a similar task on film. Therefore if certain liberties were taken, and artistic licence used, I think they can, in this case, be excused. Should it have encouraged one student to scuttle towards the history books (or now websites), to learn more about the whole period, then I would say it was a job well done.

This Country Will Be Well Governed If I Have To Do It Myself

[bkoganbing · 6/10 · 12 July 2006]

Cromwell was an ambitious undertaking for Director Ken Hughes and his two stars Richard Harris and Alec Guinness. He managed to capture the spirit of that part of the 17th century even if he didn't get all his facts right.

Like the many tellings of the story of Mary Tudor and Mary Stuart which have them in climatic meeting, we have Oliver Cromwell and Mary Stuart's grandson, Charles I meeting not once, but several times. They too never met, but the story demands it.

In point of fact Oliver Cromwell was a minor figure in the war between the Crown and Parliament until the Parliamentary Army lost a series of battles and looked like they were going down for the count. It was at that point that Cromwell emerged as a military leader. It turned out that this previously obscure member of Parliament who had no previous military training had a natural genius for warmaking. He turned that army around and eventually Parliament won.

Cromwell could have been George Washington at this point and retired to the farm, but he used his prestige and not as reluctantly as this film shows to make himself the military dictator of Great Britain with the title of Lord Protector.

The experience of Cromwell's reign scarred the English body politic for generations and to a large degree the American one as well. The whole struggle over which interpretation of Christianity would hold sway was something all of the ancestors of the American founding fathers had to deal with. That's when the idea came to them to have no established religion in America. Cromwell's large standing Ironsides Army enforcing his dictatorship led to a positive mania about no standing armies, no quartering of troops and even the right to bear arms. All this because of a collective memory of the Lord Protector.

Richard Harris is a lean and mean Cromwell who keeps saying he just wants to go back to the farm, but somehow winds up grabbing for more power. Alec Guinness is the perfect conception of that luckless monarch Charles I. Please note the relationship between Guinness and Queen Henrietta Marie played by Dorothy Tutin. Two things should be remembered there. First Henrietta Marie is the sister of Louis XIV of France, a monarch with considerable more power than Charles has. Note how Tutin is constantly berating Guinness for not standing up to the Parliament. He does and see where it gets him. Secondly Charles I is one of the very few English monarchs with no royal paramours. He and the Queen were actually in love and he knew her advice was from the heart if it proved disastrous.

Please note a couple of other good performances, Timothy Dalton as Prince Ruppert of the Rhine, Charles's nephew from Germany who actually was a whole lot smarter than he's shown here. And Robert Morley as the Earl of Manchester, one of Cromwell's rivals in the Parliamentary camp.

Oliver Cromwell died in 1558 quite suddenly and within two years the Stuart Monarchy was restored under Charles II, oldest son of Charles I and Henrietta Marie. The collapse of the Protectorate is a subject that English historians have some raging debates over. It was very much like the collapse of the Soviet Union in our time. The collapse of the Protectorate and the Restoration of the Stuarts was filmed in Douglas Fairbanks Jr.'s The Exile and really needs an up to date treatment.

Cromwell as a film is magnificently photographed and directed and actually won an Oscar for costume design. But the flaws in the story line are too many and don't use this film as Cliff's notes kids.

A breathtaking and overblown historical epic film with great battles , colorful cinematography and evocative score

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 2 June 2004]

Splendid historical flick based on the confrontation which created the only England Republic . The movie deals with take over from Republican government in England . Facing off between Olivier Cromwell and King determined to rid England of a tyrannical rule and an absolutist King : Charles I , it resulted in beheading of the King . There was created two factions : the Roundheads (Cromwell congressmen) and Cavaliers or Royalists (King's nobility) , both sides had generals of considerable skill and undaunted courage as Thomas Farfaix . Cromwell defeated King's army in battles of Moor , Preston and Naseby (1645). Later on , in 1653 , he was named Lord protector of the Republic "Commomwealth" . He imposed a dictatorship ruled by Puritans and vanquished the Irish and Scottish army . Cromwell was a Puritan leader who , according to several historians carried out near genocide in Ireland . He also battled Holland and Spain . Cromwell developed a law of navigation for the British navy . He early died by fever's illness . Richard Cromwell succeeded his father as President but he was rapidly dismissed . Duration Republic was 1648 to 1660 . Charles II went back to British kingdom and the regicides (those who had condemned Charles I to death) were arrested and hanged , drawn and quartered at Charing Cross . The Cromwell's body was disinterred, and his remains were hung from a scaffold.

Spectacular historical melodrama with magnificent acting , wonderful locations , glamorous gowns and attention to period detail . In the movie there are historic events , intense drama, and Richard Harris as well as Alec Guinness give excellent performances , though Harris as a coldly unsympathetic Briton is usually shouting and overacting . Great acting by secondary players : Frank Finlay , Patrick McGee ,Dorothy Tutin, Robert Morley , Geoffrey Keen, Timothy Dalton , Michael Jayston , Douglas Wilmer , Charles Gray , among others . The film is a bit boring for parliament speeches but in the battles (Naseby 1645) is more entertaining , being splendidly staged . The final version of Cromwell at one stage was 180 minutes long, but it was cut down to 141 minutes, deleting a number of featured roles in the process .

The film is appropriately atmospheric and based on real deeds . First-class production design and sets by John Stoll are outstanding , including Oscar winning costume design by Novarese . In fact , close to 5.000 costumes were made , and 17.0000 separate ítems or props found or realized . Heavy make-up was utilized ; in addtion , thousands of wigs from all around the world. Glowing cinematography in Panavision by Geoffrey Unsworth and evocative as well as rousing musical score by Frank Cordell . Good direction by Ken Hughes . The motion picture will appeal to history's buffs . Rating: 7,5/10 , above average .

Good Guiness, Hollering Harris, Bad History

[theowinthrop · 15 May 2004]

It is to be admitted that Oliver Cromwell (a.k.a. THE LORD PROTECTOR, "Old NOLL") was a great figure in British history. But Cromwell was a flawed hero. He did rebel against his liege king, Charles I, and voted for his monarch's execution. He also truncated Parliament, when he found it impeded his own reforms. His treatment of Irish Catholics, while typical of the ruthless massacres of religious opponents in the period of the Thirty Years War (1618 - 1648), is still a stain against his fame. Still, in the period that he was the dominant figure (1644 - 1658) he rebuilt the British army and navy, restored Britain to major power status, and actually did one act of surprising religious toleration - he allowed the Jews to return to England in 1655, a reform that Charles II decided not to undue when he was restored to the throne five years later.

Such a career deserves a careful movie. CROMWELL is not that film. It does do well in showing King Charles I (Alec Guinness) as a untrustworthy individual (though one driven to such actions because of his need to maintain his rights as monarch). It does make one serious howler regarding Charles I and his trial for treason. Charles may have been a liar and betrayer at times - but Sir Edward Hyde (who was a leading supporter of his, and would be a statesman in his son's reign and the father-in-law of the future James II) did not testify at Charles's trial as a witness for the prosecution.

Such glaring errors are frequent in the movie (for example, Prince Rupert was not dismissed so callously by his uncle King Charles - Rupert was a very fine cavalry leader, and would remain a fixture in English society when Charles II was restored). The subtle acting of Guinness is not matched by Harris, who rants and raves throughout the film - even in the closing moments talking about his intentions to create better schools and laws. Charles and Cromwell are two fascinating characters, and both deserve a better film than this as the sole film about the English Civil Wars (except for Vincent Price's THE CONQUEROR WORM) to come out.

a good historical drama, if somewhat simplified & under funded

[Sonatine97 · 7/10 · 20 August 2000]

Oliver Cromwell the real person was not quite the people-loving man betrayed in this decent movie version drama of the English Civil War during the 1600s. In reality he became more the dictator & tyrant than the person he replaced in King Charles I.

However, putting that to one side, the film version of Cromwell's growing involvement in the War is marginally accurate and well done. Richard Harris, as Cromwell, makes a decent effort although I do feel he makes too much of a theatrical job with the role, with far too much posturing, self-smugness, and above all shouting....

I can understand his unhappiness at the Royalists encroachment of the Common People's liberties; and I can understand him fully remonstrating his feelings in the House of Commons, but Harris seems to shout in nearly every scene. So much so that by the end of the movie he is struggling for breath.

Conversely, Alec Guiness's Charles I is far more intelligently done. Underplayed yet convincing & too some extents we feel more sympathetic to his plight. After all he has a rather scheming Cathloic French Queen, the Catholic Church and a lot of other distractions to occupy his mind and usurp his powers.

The battle scenes are convincing but don't carry the same kind of savagery than the more prosaic Braveheart. But the supporting characters do a good job and add a more rounded feel from Harris' turgid performance.

The directing blows hot & cold, sometimes the story drifts & meanders before pulling back into sharp focus; while the choreography is sweeping & rich in content. The musical score, however, seems tacky & amateurish, lacking any depth in conjunction with what's going on in the film.

However, for all its faults and historical inaccuracies, we do get a slightly better insight into a rather grim & dark chapter in England's turbulent history.

Cromwell is a good film but should be taken with a large pinch of salt as far as retelling history is concerned.

***/*****

Beware the strong man on the white horse

[JamesHitchcock · 7/10 · 12 February 2010]

For some reason the English cinema seems to prefer the sixteenth century to the seventeenth. There have been numerous films about the Tudor dynasty, most recently "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" and "The Other Boleyn Girl", but fewer about their Stuart successors, apart from Restoration romps and bodice-rippers like "Forever Amber" or "Stage Beauty", which generally feature a walk-on part for Charles II.

"Cromwell" is one of the few exceptions. As the title suggests, it is based on the life of Oliver Cromwell and concentrates on the 1640s, the decade during which Cromwell rose from a modest Huntingdonshire country squire to commander of the Parliamentary forces during the English Civil War and played a leading role in the deposition and execution of King Charles I. It has less to say about Cromwell's rule as Lord Protector of Great Britain and Ireland in the 1650s.

The film has been criticised for its historical inaccuracies. This sort of thing can normally be put down to a lack of adequate research, and the film does indeed contain a few mistakes of this type. (Cromwell's son Oliver junior was not killed at the Battle of Naseby but died of natural causes, and the Earl of Essex and the Earl of Manchester are shown as sitting in the House of Commons rather than the House of Lords). In most cases, however, inaccuracies which might appear to be careless errors are really deliberate distortions made to fit in with the film's underlying agenda which is to whitewash Cromwell's character and to present him as a hero of democracy.

In the period leading up to the Civil War, Cromwell's prominence in the opposition to Charles I is exaggerated. In a meeting which never took place, he is shown as telling the King that England should be a democracy and he is incorrectly numbered among the five members of Parliament whom Charles attempts to arrest.

During the war itself the film depicts Cromwell as single-handedly transforming the Parliamentary Army, after a disastrous defeat at the Battle of Edgehill, from a disorganised rabble into an effective fighting force and as a military genius whose tactics are responsible for the defeat of a numerically superior Royalist force at the Battle of Naseby. In fact, Edgehill was an indecisive battle rather than an outright Royalist victory- if Charles had won as decisively as he is shown doing here the war would probably have been over very quickly- and at Naseby it was the defeated Royalists, not the victorious Roundheads, who were outnumbered. The film omits the Battle of Marston Moor, arguably a more decisive turning-point than Naseby, possibly because Cromwell was not in overall command of the Parliamentary armies on that occasions. (The commanders in that battle were Sir Thomas Fairfax and Manchester, neither of whom are shown in a good light in the film). To emphasise Cromwell's piety, the famous prayer of the Royalist Sir Jacob Astley at Edgehill is put into his mouth.

The main reason why the film does not concentrate too much on Cromwell's record after 1649 is that that record will not bear too much scrutiny if one regards him as a hero. Although one view of history has traditionally seen the Roundheads as fighting for parliamentary democracy, Cromwell made himself dictator of Britain by force of arms, succeeded where Charles had failed in ruling without Parliament and had himself proclaimed Lord Protector, monarch in all but name. Had his son Richard, who briefly and ineffectually succeeded him, been a man of the same ruthless stamp, Britain might today be a Hereditary Protectorate under the House of Cromwell. The greatest stain on Cromwell's memory, the brutal subjugation of Ireland which cost several hundreds of thousands of lives, is totally ignored. (The film gives the impression that he spent the years in question, 1649-53, living peacefully on his farm in Huntingdon).

As a costume drama the film is not a bad one and succeeds in bringing seventeenth-century England to life. Richard Harris is not particularly good in the title role, especially as he is not always successful in concealing his Irish accent. (Given Cromwell's antipathy to, and persecution of, the Irish, it seemed ironic to have him played by an Irishman). There is, however, an excellent performance from Alec Guinness as Charles I, who is treated more objectively than are his political opponents. There is no attempt to blacken Charles' character, although there are a couple of inaccuracies. Charles did not treat his nephew Prince Rupert as shabbily as he is shown doing here, and his trusted adviser Sir Edward Hyde did not testify against him at his trial. (Had Hyde done so, he would doubtless have been executed at the Restoration instead of becoming Charles II's chief minister). Guinness plays Charles as a man who, beneath his outward dignity and firm belief in the Divine Right of Kings, is nervous, hesitant and self-doubting, something indicated by a stammer. One senses from Guinness' portrayal that although Charles was a bad king he may not have been a bad man.

Some have seen a film which praises a republican rebel as revolutionary, but in fact hagiography of Cromwell is far from something new. The film's politics fall broadly within the Whig tradition, which saw English history in terms of a steady progression towards the triumph of liberty and Protestantism- two concepts which for the Whigs were practically indistinguishable- and the Civil War as a vital step in this process. The film also shows the influence of Thomas Carlyle, who regarded Cromwell as one of the heroes of history and eulogised him in his "Heroes and Hero-Worship". By 1970, however, this approach to history was starting to look outdated and Carlyle's idea of hero-worship hopelessly naive. If the charismatic dictators of the twentieth century have taught us anything, it is to beware of the strong man on the white horse. 7/10

Good, intelligent historical epic.

[MOscarbradley · 7/10 · 10 February 2020]

A seriously solid, if not very imaginative, piece of historical pageantry, (Oscar winning costume design for starters), about the English Civil War and in particular, Oliver Cromwell's role in it. Ironically, in view of Cromwell's association with Ireland, he is played, and very well, by the Irish actor Richard Harris. The King is a very well cast Alec Guinness, (looking just like the many portraits of the time), and a host of acting royalty, (Dorothy Tutin, Robert Morley, Patrick Wymark, Patrick Magee, Frank Finlay, Nigel Stock), provide staunch support. Ultimately it works best as a beautifully photographed history lesson, (Geoffrey Unsworth is the DP). The director, Ken Hughes, who also wrote the verbose screenplay, does little to make it lively, though the battle scenes are spectacular and it's both handsome and intelligent. Worth seeing.

Historically inaccurate, but compelling enough historical epic

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 23 January 2010]

Cromwell is compelling enough as a historical epic, and has several points of interest. The film is very beautifully filmed, with skillful cinematography, beautiful scenery and costumes. Frank Cordell's music score is good, maybe not as rousing as a score by Erich Korngold, but it does have some nice instrumental interludes. The battle sequences are very well staged,the parliamentary scenes are even better and the direction is solid. The acting was very good in general, Richard Harris was perhaps wrong in terms of build for Cromwell, and while he does overact in places he more than makes up for any misgivings in a suitably aggressive and brutish characterisation. Alec Guiness was even better, he was a marvellous actor who very rarely gave a bad performance. Here as Charles I, he generously underplays and fantastically un-yielding. Timothy Dalton is very campy here as Rupert but has some good moments, whether you think it a good or bad thing that's up to you though. However I do have complaints. One, the secondary characters could've been developed more. Two, while I had no problem with the length, I think it can take a lot of stamina to sit through long movies in one sitting, in my case, there were one or two moments where it felt rather long winded. But my main problem was the historical inaccuracies. Other reviewers have pointed them out in sufficient detail, but I will add I was especially perplexed at how this film seemed to portray the Roundheads as the good guys. All in all, has flaws but it is a good film. 8/10 Bethany Cox

fun big-budget epic grossly simplifies history

[Aylmer · 7/10 · 23 February 2016]

It's a bit awkward to see Irishman Richard Harris spitting venom and turning against his English king for 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.

Richard Harris and Alec Guinness

[robhingston · 10/10 · 26 March 2020]

A great piece of British history But as for acting you have Richard Harris! and Alec Guinness! In the same movie! , Come on it doesn't get better than this , if you want a masterclass in superior acting then it's worth watching And learning Even if your not Keen on the film..

Hollywood is standing on the your shoulders of giants

An overall good effort

[prophet684 · 7/10 · 29 October 2012]

Altogether I felt that this film was rather enjoyable, well put together and was very helpful at developing my understanding of Cromwell as a figure and the events that surrounded him. I believe Richard Harris performed his role very well too as a decisive, passionate, and capable Oliver Cromwell; this is how I envisioned him. Though in parts some of the historical content is distorted in order to make it more dramatic for audience satisfaction (such as the inclusion of Cromwell in the arrest of the five MP's) I think despite its flaws it shows an good representation of the key events involving Oliver Cromwell in mid 17th century England.

A Truly Great Movie

[RobertFounder · 10/10 · 8 June 2009]

Good example of what film is capable of, but all to often fails to deliver. This movie is educational, and at least as factual as any history ever is.

All history is biased substantially, and those who disagree with the bias of this movie, only have the advancement of bias of their own in mind.

Cromwell was a great man who was pivotal in the history of the world, and the movie does him deserved credit. Without his victory in this Civil War America and the Constitution might never have happened.

It is hard to imagine anyone doing any better job of depicting this history in film.

Most often it is a just a few Catholics who can't let go of the past, who are offended by his militant and strident defense of Protestantism along with his decision to provide sanctuary in England for Jews fleeing persecution and genocide at the hands of Catholics in Spain.

Not A History Lesson, But A Pretty Good Movie

[sddavis63 · 7/10 · 13 March 2008]

In "Cromwell" the English Civil War of the 17th century is seen as a confrontation between two larger than life personalities: Oliver Cromwell and King Charles I. In reality, of course, it was much more complicated than that, but the movie tries to give us a flavour of both (and, to a large extent, succeeds) focusing of course (as the title implies) on Cromwell.

Richard Harris offers a powerful performance in the title role. Cromwell is depicted here as a complex, sometimes contradictory character, very passionate about his Puritan religious beliefs, torn between his belief that England needs a King, and his desire to be rid of Charles, devoted to the idea of rule by Parliament, yet quite willing to defy Parliament when it goes against his wishes. This, from my understanding of the man, is a largely accurate portrait. Cromwell was a complex, torn personality - although perhaps not as strictly "Puritan" (or perhaps puritanical is a better way to put it) as the film suggests. My understanding, for example, is that Cromwell had no objection to a good party and a helping of ale, but there's really no hint of that side of the man here. On the other side of the equation, Alec Guinness was at least the equal of Harris in the role of Charles I - stubborn and egotistical, convinced that God had chosen him to be king, torn between his coronation oath to defend the Church of England and his loyalty to and love for his Roman Catholic Queen, and firmly standing up for what he believed to be true. I appreciated that the film avoided portraying this in a simplistic good guy/bad guy way. Both Cromwell and Charles are depicted as very sincere in their beliefs and totally convinced that they are doing their best for England, and in fact the portrayal of the two seemed to me to shift as the movie progressed. At the beginning, Cromwell was portrayed as the noble fighter for the people, while Charles was constantly involved in intrigues with Catholic powers to save his crown. By the end, Cromwell refuses to show mercy and denies his own admission that "England must have a king" and eventually seizes power away from parliament, while Charles begins to be seen as a good and faithful family man, loving father and husband, passionately believing that it is he, rather than Cromwell or Parliament, who is the real defender of the liberties of the people of England.

This is a colourful movie, featuring good battle scenes, although in some ways (strange for a movie almost two and a half hours long) it seems rather rushed at times. The early years of the revolution seem to be over in a matter of days in the story, and then great attention is paid to the aftermath of the Revolution, as first Cromwell tries to convince Charles to come to terms, then puts him on trial and finally executes him. It's this uneven pace (combined with some understandable degree of dramatic licence) that is perhaps responsible for some of the rather glaring historical inaccuracies of the movie. That fact alone is a warning: don't treat this as a history lesson. Having said that, of course, it's fair to acknowledge that the real purpose of the movie seems to be to give life to two personalities who have entered the history books, and in that it succeeds. Cromwell and Charles do come to life in this, and the portrayals of their complex personalities and their complex relationship with one another makes this a movie worth watching. The movie ends with Cromwell dismissing Parliament as a prelude to his elevation to the office of Lord Protector, and there's nothing here about his career as Lord Protector.

This is an enjoyable movie, which - yes - takes some liberties with history, but is still well worth watching. 7/10

Pretty lavish but uneven and inaccurate

[Wulfstan10 · 5/10 · 25 March 2005]

This film ultimately fails as an historical drama. It has some pretty good elements. The production values of the costumes, scenes, etc., are overall quite good. Guinness is great as Charles: he looks a lot like him, and he does a good job at conveying the king's tyrannical, autocratic stance, his conviction in his belief that he's right, his nobility to the end, and the fact that while he usually ended up taking bad positions or doing the wrong things, he did so not entirely for bad reasons (at least in his own mind), for he was sure that he was right. The film also makes some modicum of effort at showing Cromwell's more troubling qualities, too, making him out to be the noble hero, but not entirely covering up his transformation into ruthless, hypocritical dictator.

However, the film has equally strong bad points. It tends to drag at many points and frequently gives the impression of being an overly drawn-out stage production that fails to be fully convincing. More serious, though, is the problem that, although presenting itself as historical, it plays fast and loose with history. It does not fully explain the causes of the Civil War or the differences of viewpoints within each side, especially the Parliamentarians, not all of whom were fighting for the same reasons. It portrays the Royalist forces as the flashy, well-equipped and stronger element when in reality the Parliament forces were not only much more numerous, but usually much better equipped as well (after all, it was not a war of rag-tag, grass-roots rebels trying to topple the government; each side represented in part one branch of the government and Parliament, not the king, was the body that held the purse strings). In addition, the Royalists often did quite well in battle despite their inferior forces. It clearly makes Cromwell out to be too important from the start: rather than being one of the key leaders in the beginning, he really started out as a military commander and simply rose to prominence over time. Finally, Cromwell, despite some of his autocratic tendency coming through, is still shown to be too much the reluctant, noble hero, and the film only hints at his other face, one which in short order made him none too popular in England, let alone Ireland. Needless to say, nothing is mentioned of his willingness to shed the blood of Royalists and Catholics, or to destroy historic architecture that conflicted with his Puritan views.

A good piece of English history, badly told.

[Scaramouche2004 · 25 July 2004]

As a lover of history, especially the history of my own nation, I never miss an opportunity to see a great historical epic, with Kings and Queens fighting the very battles of words and blood, which have carved our nation into what it is today.

I also feel that for a film to be educational and informative it has to be accurate and unfortunately Cromwell is never going to win any awards in the 'what really happened' category.

Despite these inaccuracies, the film does give us a general idea of what went on in the England of the 1640's so it still has the power to be enjoyable.

Alec Guinness steals the entire film with the only accurate portrayal in the movie as Charles I. The stuttering Scot who believes in the divine right of Kings. A man who looks upon Parliament as a challenge to his authority over the people, and a head of a protestant state wrestling with his own strong catholic leanings and sympathies.

Richard Harris is outstanding and brilliant, but portrays Cromwell as someone he most certainly wasn't. As an Irishman, it amazes me what ever persuaded him to take on the role. With Cromwell being the most hated Englishman in Irish history, I was surprised he didn't portray him as an evil oppressor and murderer complete with handlebar moustache, top-hat and cape accompanied by Hammond organs and loud hissing sounds from the audience.

Instead Harris' Cromwell is so nice and decent, honourable and just that by movies end he would have been welcomed at any dining table in County Cork.

Cromwell's belief was that Parliament runs the country and the people run the Parliament (reminder for Tony Blair!!!) The system we have today. However during his time as head of a republic state, he seemed to have forgot this and went his own way on nearly everything despite what the people wanted (remind you of anyone Tony Blair!!!)

So again inaccuracies rain on what is on the whole a very good parade.

The battle scenes also fail to excite as they are not filmed on the dramatic scale needed to have done them justice. In fact sometimes they are reminisent of Monty Python's reenactment of the Battle of Pearl Harbour by the Batley Towns-women's Guild.

Watch this film and enjoy it as I did, but I beg of you, don't use it as a basis for a factual thesis in your History Degree...you will fail big time.

Good historical drama undermined by over-simplification and inaccuracies

[jamesrupert2014 · 6/10 · 9 May 2020]

Fed up with the rule of King Charles I (the great Alec Guinness) and with a corrupt nobility, Oliver Cromwell (a somewhat hagiographic portrayal by Richard Harris) champions parliament and ultimately leads England into a civil war. While far from a history lesson (commented on extensively in 'goofs' elsewhere - worth reading by anyone who, like me, watches the film with limited knowledge of events depicted), the film is an entertaining costume drama. Harris and Guinness are very good and the costumes and set design are excellent. Despite the score having been nominated for an Oscar, I found it bombastic at times and intrusive, especially in the first half of the film. While I appreciate that some shortcuts are needed to compress years of eventful history into a couple of hours, I generally dislike 'historical' films that take too many liberties with the facts (or at least most accepted interpretations) simply for 'dramatic effect'.

Cromwell overburdened but film an enjoyable spectacle overall

[TG22Film · 7/10 · 18 July 2010]

It's the middle years of the 17th century. The English constitution lies in an uncertain state and a legal mess. Our then Stuart King Charles I has walked on a parliamentary-set tightrope for 10 years in abstinence of holding parliaments and by levying unpopular taxes on the people of England. Religious disputes lie in an undercurrent of power-shifting scenarios and Charles is unwavering in his belief of divine ordinance from God. And so emerges Cromwell, to heroically salvage the kingdom from Charles and endless civil war, in this film portrayed mostly as Cromwell the Glorious, Cromwell the brilliant and Cromwell the resolute. Richard Harris does a suitable job as each of these Cromwells. The script and film may have benefited from emphasising more on Cromwell's humbler background and strengthening his case by developing his unwilling character early on. Instead, the film's Cromwell is placed as a prominent MP in the Long Parliament and is one of the impeached during the royal retaliation to the Grand Remonstrance which we see in the relatively early stages of the film. I thought this was historically inaccurate and an error to champion Cromwell the politician before championing Cromwell the military leader, which is how he saw himself and how he probably should have ultimately been portrayed. This would have aided the film later on when we finally see him as the reluctant politician towards the end, waiving the opportunity to be King Oliver I and in one of Harris's finer moments showing Cromwell's humbler side and his yearning for a republic no longer roughshod by a tyrannical King.

The most engaging scene in the film, however, is Charles I's public execution. Many historians wax lyrical about Charles' finest hour being the preceding one before his death and thus his martyrdom in speech and performance was made exclusive from his somewhat arguably grander political failings. Alec Guinness is superb in portraying Charles the unwavering Martyr, showing courage and wonderfully saying 'I go from a corruptible to an incorruptible crown'. This scene is perhaps the most spookily accurate one of the film as you sense the paradox in allegiances that many people must have been feeling in the lead in to this scene.

All in all, a film worth seeing and engaging enough (wonderful battle scenes in the middle worth a mention). The ardent historian may fidget in their seat over Cromwell's script and image but the less concerned will enjoy Harris's Cromwell and Guiness's Charles to the extent that (by the end of the film) they will ponder as to whose side they would have joined if they lived in England in the 1640s. And in this sense, the film achieves the spirit of the times.

The issues fairly reported, the history badly distorted

[chaswe-28402 · 7/10 · 19 November 2017]

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.

This nation will prosper because it is a godly nation !

[jamescallumburton · 10/10 · 3 January 2012]

Disgusted with the policies of the tyrannical king Charles the first Oliver Cromwell , a puritan and god fearing man decides to head for the new world. However his plans are soon to be put aside as he ventures forth to lead Parliament against the monarchy and bring about a new order of government that still exists today. Richard Harris gives a fiery and impressive performance as Cromwell and captures the sense of a holy man with an unyielding sense of duty and unequalled ambition. Alec Guiness always gives a charismatic performance and portrays the king in a respectable manor. With notable performances from Robert Morley and Charles Gray amongst others. The battle scenes are excellent with a sense of tremendous scale and stature. The costumes are lavish and beautiful to view. All in all Cromwell stands out as one of the best historical films to date. The history i believe is quite incorrect however it certainly dosen't spoil the film. An excellent film with a great cast and production.

Oliver's Army

[Lejink · 7/10 · 7 October 2014]

I do like a good historical drama and this 1970 epic certainly fits the bill. Of course there were a lot of them around at this time what with "Waterloo", "Nicholas And Alexandra", "A Man For All Seasons" and others. Like so many films of this type, the action centres on two main characters played by lead actors of some weight and that's certainly the case here with Richard Harris essaying the title role and Sir Alec Guinness as his royal nemesis Charles I.

At first I thought Harris would be too physical an actor for his part, but once you get used to his endless prowling, staring shouting, he gives a strong performance, although he certainly doesn't fit my mental image of Cromwell's appearance, despite the inclusion of the famous warts on his physiognomy. Guinness is quite superb as the haughty monarch whose pride precipitates the fall of his head, displaying the King's over-reliance on other's opinions, especially his Catholic wife's, his puzzlement when things go wrong and lastly his regal loftiness when put on trial by what he would no doubt term his inferiors.

I understand that some liberties were taking with the depiction of real life personages and events of the time, which is I think a shame as the director has obviously sought a realistic approach in every other aspect. The battle scenes are well-drilled although occasionally you can see lesser numbers at war than there should be and I also felt I could see where cuts were made to make the film less than a marathon watch, particularly Charles' capture and his trial.

The sets and costumes are fine although I found the supporting cast somewhat varied in quality. Overall though this was an interesting study in the battle between royal privilege and the free-will of the people. The latter won and Cromwell duly assumed the title of Lord Protector (a king in all but name), but his elevation was short-lived and England duly returned to the Monarch with the return of Charles' second son Charles II only five years later.

TWO reviews for the price of ONE!!

[planktonrules · 8/10 · 14 April 2006]

In the next paragraphs I will give two separate review--one for INTELLIGENT people and one for the DUMB. You can decide for yourself which you prefer or combine the two to get a decent overall view of the film. But, first, I should point out that I am a history teacher and know a decent amount about the Lord Protector and the English Civil War--so I really do have some idea what I am talking about when it comes to this movie.

FOR INTELLIGENT PEOPLE (and PSEUDO-INTELLECTUAL SNOBS, like Frasier Crane)--Considering that there is practically no mention of the English Civil War in films, this film is about your best bet to get a decent, though very flawed, overview of this important period in English history.

First, the production values are generally excellent. While the cinematography is lovely and it looks like a rather expensive-looking film, it is sometimes cheapened by a lousy sound track. All the religious-themed music gets annoying very fast--much like the chanting you hear in THE OMEN.

Second, let's discuss the acting. At times it is pretty lousy--with poor performances by both Richard Harris and Timothy Dalton--as well as the rather wooden performances by the supporting cast (aside from Alec Guinness).

Harris does his best imitation of Captain Kirk as he bellows and over-acts and then barely whispers his lines. I half expected him to yell out "KHAN!!!!!" a couple times in the film (see STAR TREK II for more info). I also was reminded of Dave Thomas' very funny imitation of Harris on SCTV. While he was decent as Dumbledore, he never underplayed ANYTHING. Here in this film, he just seemed, at times, like he needed his meds. Plus, who was the total idiot that thought an Irishman should play Cromwell??!! They looked nothing alike and, to this day, Cromwell is seen by the Irish as the Anti-Christ! How can the most anti-Irish man of the last millennium be portrayed by an Irish actor? It's just wrong.

As for Timothy Dalton, I laughed at his campy performance throughout the film, as he played a character more reminiscent of Liberace than a cavalry officer. And, I was left totally confused--was he supposed to be a gay fop who went into battle with his Bichon Frise or was he supposed to be a great cavalry leader? The film couldn't seem to decide which. How this guy later went on to be James Bond is beyond me,...but that is more a discussion for the IMDb discussion boards.

As mentioned above, most of the other actors are rather wooden and undeveloped. However, Alec Guinness does probably the best job of anyone in the movie since he is a marvelous actor and had a somewhat fleshed-out role--though the character of Charles I was REALLY REALLY REALLY sketchy in the film. The movie made him appear pretty sympathetic, whereas in reality he was much more complicated and rather unlikable. I think his real-life supporters followed him NOT because he was a good king but because they implicitly believed ALL kings are ordained by God and MUST be followed.

And this brings me to the biggest problem with the film. The English Civil War and the reign of the Lord Protector (Cromwell) was just way too much for a single film. At the least, it should have been broken into several movies or a protracted mini-series. Or, the scope of the film should have been much more limited. Instead, the many battles appeared to be only a couple--whereas in reality, the king lost and was forced to capitulate several times--only to organize ANOTHER army and re-start the war again. The king was only killed after it appeared that there was no other way to stop these wars--though Royalists may balk at my simplified assessment. Considering I am a bloody American, it's easy to understand how I tend to favor any action limiting the power of kings.

Also, the entire reign of Cromwell as the Lord Protector was summed up in a very simplistic epilogue tacked on to the very end of the film. You COULD assume that either Cromwell was a great and benevolent leader or you could assume his reign was pointless since after his death the Stuart kings regained the throne--both are only partial truths.

However, if you look at this film NOT as true history but an amalgamation of facts into a basically true overview, it is excellent and much closer to the truth than films such as BRAVEHEART or old-time Hollywood historicals such as THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON. The facts are generally true (with many exceptions pointed out by astute reviewers on IMDb) and the overall tone of the film is quite rousing and accurate. Look at it as more of a CLIFFNOTES or CLASSIC COMICS account of English history and you realize it does succeed quite well. And, considering it's all we really have on film from this era, it's at least an excellently produced film and worth watching. I strongly recommend it for teens as such an overview. Plus, it's not boring and keeps your interest.

Now, for the review for DUMB people--there is some killing but keeping up with what's happening is really tough. So, try not to fall asleep during the long speechifying scenes or just have a friend wake you when it gets good (after all, NO movie worth watching lasts more than 90 minutes). Hold on and grit your teeth and eventually, something cool will happen (such as a battle or the king getting his head lopped off). It's not terribly funny and there are no boobs, so it isn't strongly recommended--but enough killing to at least make it better than Shakespeare. Plus, after you tell people you saw this movie, they'll have some new-found respect for you.

Historically inaccurate and pro royalist

[robertasmith · 6/10 · 27 March 2020]

Very well filmed and acted and maybe that's the problem. The performance of Alec Guinness is sublime and makes one sympathetic towards Charles 1. However, in trying to truncate the events of many years into a few key passages it does History no favours. The inaccuracies are obvious with the Earl of Manchester arguing against Cromwell in the Commons. It never happened as Manchester was in the Lord's. Cromwell's son was not killed at Naesby. And so the inaccuracies go on. There should be no sympathy for Charles. He was a corrupt tyrant. The losers were the thousands of working people killed, maimed and starved during the Wars of the three kingdoms. These wars would have been avoided if Charles had been reasonable. The film does try to portray the many efforts that Parliament made to avoid the wars. Also worth noting that Parliament in no way represented the people before or after the wars - the rotten borough system existed until the 1832 reform act and universal suffrage was not realised until after WW1.

For me this has the best performance Richard Harris ever gave and the stellar supporting cast are all on brilliant form. The lasting memory though is of the late great Alec Guinness - it is just a great pity that the power of his performance gives a false impression of who and what Charles 1 was.

Upsetting reviews

[maryamistoonice · 9/10 · 14 March 2021]

So I've watched half of this movie already but I know that this movie is going to be fantastic. I absolutely love the acting, the scenery, literally everything. Which is why I gave it a 9/10, I'm removing the -1 for making Oliver Cromwell way too handsome 😂 I'm pretty upset with the reviews because it's made in the 1970s, what do they expect from a movie like that? Not everything has gotta be historically accurate. Richard deserved better than this.

The truth about Cromwell?

[sabre_pg · 7/10 · 1 November 2005]

This film is no less accurate then any other Hollywood movie about historic events especially British history. The movie does bend the truth somewhat, but doesn't completely smash the truth such as films like "Braveheart", "Bridge on the River Kwai", "The Longest Day", "Kingdom of Heaven", and the complete and utter joke that was "The Patriot"! in a scene at the very beginning Cromwell tells a friend that he is leaving England for the "New World" to make a fresh start, something which Cromwell most seriously never even considered! he was a very wealthy man and owned much land and property, prosperity at that time in England for the likes of a country squire such as Oliver Cromwell was far greater than that of a far off and primitive colony populated by savages! why make a fresh start when you are already rich and powerful? The problem is movie makers ARE changing history, as many idiots around the world believe what they see on the screen as they know no better.

However, this aside, Cromwell has great cinematography, fantastic sets and costumes and a great cast who enjoy getting they're hands dirty in they're respective roles.

Well worth a look ;)

Very pretty, but no history lesson

[johnbirch-2 · 3/10 · 28 December 2015]

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.