Cromwell

Rating:
Summary: Catches the spirit, if not the perfect picture, of the ECW
Review: The Rev. Mortimer would be glad to know, that as a high school history teacher in Virginia, USA, I have been showing "Cromwell" to all of my US and world history classes for many years. It explains why our University of Virgina sports teams are called the Cavaliers. It shows the beliefs of the Puritans/Pilgrims and why they wanted to leave England to come to America. It puts the Hobbes vs. Locke argument into the sharp relief of actual human conflict. It explains why a people would rise up in bloody conflict against a fairly reasonable monarch like Charles I. It shows the sloppiness of democracy, as portrayed by the great scenes in the Parliment. I have read widely on the Civil War and am familiar with the innacuracies. The reason that I HAVE read widely in this area is because I saw this film in a theatre as a child. This superb drama continues to inspire me, and my students today.

Rating:
Summary: Good movie
Review: This film does a fairly good job of representing Cromwell and the conflict with King Charles I. Alec Guinness certainly looks the part of Charles. Some comments by previous negative reviewers are outrageous and totally unwarranted. Cromwell was a complicated figure, with good and bad characteristics, but was nowhere near the level of a Hitler-like dictator as one reviewer suggests. Richard Harris's performance suggests some of the ambiguity of Cromwell's nature. Cromwell did do a lot for religious toleration. He was not a raving lunatic like some would have you believe. Warfare and politics were ruthless in those days, and Cromwell sometimes had to follow suit.

Rating:
Summary: Satisfying Historical Film
Review: This film has been shown in history classes in both Britain and the USA, and rightfully so. CROMWELL is a powerful, albeit uneven, movie depicting the struggle between Parliament and the crown that ultimately led to the English Civil War.

Alec Guinness as King Charles I is simply superb. This gifted actor brings the insecure monarch to life before our very eyes, from his indecision to his eventual desperation to save his thrown--even his slight stuttering problem. Indeed it was Charles himself, by attempting in secret to form alliances with Catholic Ireland and France in order to defeat Cromwell's army, who was the catalyst to his own demise.

Richard Harris is good, but somewhat over the top, as the brooding Oliver Cromwell, the musical score is nothing short of annoying, and the movie succumbs to the gushy melodrama characteristic of the time in which it was made. But despite its flaws, CROMWELL delivers a satisfying story about a turbulent time in English history.

Rating:
Summary: Satisfying Historical Film
Review: This film has been shown in history classes in both Britain and the USA, and rightfully so. CROMWELL is a powerful, albeit uneven, movie depicting the struggle between Parliament and the crown that ultimately led to the English Civil War.

Alec Guinness as King Charles I is simply superb. This gifted actor brings the insecure monarch to life before our very eyes, from his indecision to his eventual desperation to save his thrown--even his slight stuttering problem. Indeed it was Charles himself, by attempting in secret to form alliances with Catholic Ireland and France in order to defeat Cromwell's army, who was the catalyst to his own demise.

Richard Harris is good, but somewhat over the top, as the brooding Oliver Cromwell, the musical score is nothing short of annoying, and the movie succumbs to the gushy melodrama characteristic of the time in which it was made. But despite its flaws, CROMWELL delivers a satisfying story about a turbulent time in English history.

Rating:
Summary: 6 star rating for Cromwell!
Review: This film should be compulsory viewing in all schools, particularly in Britain and America! Although the film is inaccurate in places, a far more important principle dominates here: that is, as personified in the remarks of 'Hugh' (a Church of England Minister) "on the side of justice and truth!" An earlier reviewer suggested that Cromwell was portrayed as 'too emotional,' but the principles that motivated him were not emotions, but justice and truth! Only three of the main characters in the drama come across in a good light: John Pym, Cromwell, and his wife! Henry Ireton is a 'hot head', Fairfax lacks courage at the crucial moment. These were incredible days, with so many important principles at stake, that one film cannot hope to put everything across. However, Cromwell is a figure of hate these days (modern man cannot stand 'Puritan' principle and godliness), and this film restores his place in English history. What comes across is a man of principle who laid the foundation of the greatness of Britain and America. If only we could have true 'democracy' like Cromwell envisaged, and men who would lay down their lives for the people of the nation. What freedom we enjoy today was purchased at a terrible price. This reminds us so very much of the ultimate sacrifice that God paid in sending His own Son to die in the place of sinners. An absolute truth that in which Cromwell passionately believed. If there were a 6 star rating to be given to one film, this would be it. Historical accuracy simply is not the issue.

Rating:
Summary: Inaccurate, too long and too simplified
Review: Unfortunately, ...with one or two noble exceptions, it seems that this film has hoodwinked most of those who watched it. A couple of people rightly picked up on the gross error concerning the arrest of the Five MPs in Jan 1642, and though this was only one of many depressing historical errors, it is probably the most important. Let us consider, for a second, what the implications of suggesting Cromwell was a significant member of the Long Parliament before the Second Civil War (probably the turning point in Cromwell's career - yet not mentioned in the film, why?). In places Hughes' script suggests that Cromwell was merely a reluctant figurehead for a groundswell movement in the Houses of Commons. This is in some ways true - indeed Cromwell, a great military organizer, surrendered his position in the army willingly after the Self-Denying Ordinance in 1644 (look it up); he therefore had no ambition to become a military dictator as he did. The problem is that by portraying Cromwell as important from the outset of the conflict, ie the calling of the Short and Long Parliaments in 1640, Hughes takes the ground away from his own feet. How could someone who actively opposed the king in the Long Parliament have been such a reluctant leader. In truth Cromwell - as the film VERY clumsily suggests - only became important after a string of battlefield victories; although not in the fashion or even the battles that the film shows (he wasn't even at Edgehill!). On the other hand, ...the film is successful in playing down the religious aspects of the Civil War. It is clear to absolutely anyone who studies the war that there was no clash between Protestant and Catholic. England was dominated by the Reformed religion. True, during the Protectorate Cromwell did try to carry on what he called the "Godly Reformation" by such expediants as cancelling Christmas; but this was after the fighting, and indeed the period covered by the film, had passed. Religion did play a part in the tensions that led up to the initial clash in the Long Parliament, but these tensions were between two different forms of Protestantism and, crucially, by the outbreak of the Civil War (which was really a result of a fear on both sides that the other was planning some form of coup, a fear which led both "sides" to start arming themselves) Charles and Parliament had introduced legislation to heal the religious rift. No matter what any religious fundamentalists see in their self-centred view of history, the English Civil War was not a war of religion. Ken Hughes is right in largely playing down any religious divide.

Rating:
Summary: 'I do not fear death'
Review: When I was required to see Cromwell for a European history class, I never imagined that it would become one of my favorite films, not about history, but about common human problems in any era, heroes and villains. I hear it's wildly innacurate. That's probably true, and our teacher pointed out plenty of innaccuracies in the segments we watched in class, but there are also many important things the film gets right: for instance, that the crowd at Charles' execution groaned instead of cheering. What makes Cromwell so great in spite of any inaccuracies, though, is its portrayal of its principal characters. Other reviews accuse Cromwell of overacting, but that's the sort of man he was really was (apparently his quote which begins with 'Why in the bowels of Christ...!' is an actual quote). Cromwell is sympathetic as a man who felt that he was compelled by neccesity, to do things which at first he found unthinkable. Charles I is equally or even more sympathetic as a human being crucified for abstract values, but who manages to meet his end with an astonishing amount of dignity. The scene of his execution almost brought tears to my eyes.

There's something about the old-fashioned cinematography in Cromwell, also, which it makes it more convincing than more recent, slicker historical epics like Elizabeth. It conveys a sense of real life and real history. Cromwell and Charles are given emphasis on the screen more by their behavior than by any trick of the camera.

The one major flaw in the film is its inexplicable ending - in which, against the background of a gothic chorus, a narrator explains what a great human being Cromwell was. The film has shown a different, more complex reality. Still, the intelligent viewer will realize that, and such a small detail isn't enough to keep this very good movie from a five-star rating.