Cromwell (1970) - IMDb IMDb There was an error trying to load your rating for this title. Some parts of this page won't work property. Please reload or try later. X Beta I'm Watching This! Keep track of everything you watch; tell your friends. Error Oliver Cromwell can no longer tolerate King Charles' policies and the self-interest of the ruling class and leads a civil war to install Parliament as the ultimate ruler of England. Director: From $2.99 (SD) on Amazon Video ON DISC Famous Directors: From Sundance to Prominence From Christopher Nolan to Quentin Tarantino and every Coen brother in between, many of today's most popular directors got their start at the Sundance Film Festival . Here's a list of some of the biggest names to go from Sundance to Hollywood prominence.

a list of 45 titles created 20 Feb 2012 a list of 30 titles created 08 Jul 2012 a list of 30 titles created 19 May 2015 a list of 43 titles created 30 Aug 2015 a list of 48 titles created 7 months ago Search for " Cromwell " on Amazon.com Connect with IMDb Want to share IMDb's rating on your own site? Use the HTML below. You must be a registered user to use the IMDb rating plugin. Won 1 Oscar. Another 1 win & 5 nominations. See more awards » Photos A serial killer finds an angelic escape from madness in the distorted love of an exotic dancer. Her only demand? Exterminate her brutal companion. Director: Jonathan Anderson A young writer goes to Wiesbaden to write about gambling and gamblers, only to ultimately become a compulsive gambler himself. Losing all his wealth, as well as his moral fibre, he commits ... See full summary » Director: Robert Siodmak Lowly hotel clerk Matthew Welch stumbles unto a chance to go on a date with supermodel Hexina by pretending he is someone else.

But something goes wrong on the date, she tries to kill him! ... See full summary » Director: Alan Spencer In Brooklyn, fishing is the hobby of the workers Jonah Goodwin and Olaf Johnson and they use to fish every night in their old boat. Jonah's daughter is the twenty-one year-old telephone ... See full summary » Director: Anatole Litvak Facing the decline of everything he has worked to obtain, conqueror Napoleon Bonaparte and his army confront the British at the Battle of Waterloo. Director: Sergey Bondarchuk Edit Storyline Disgusted with the policies of King Charles I, Oliver Cromwell plans to take his family to the New World. But on the eve of their departure, Cromwell is drawn into the tangled web of religion and politics that will result in the English Civil War. Written by Marg Baskin <marg@asd.raytheon.ca> In his raised fist, the power of the people ! Genres: 17 July 1970 (UK) See more » Also Known As: Cromwell - Der Unerbittliche See more » Filming Locations: 70 mm 6-Track (70 mm prints)| Mono (35 mm prints) Color: Did You Know?

Trivia Scenes showing Cromwell's campaign in Ireland were cut from the final film due to the Troubles in Northern Ireland. See more » Goofs Cromwell is present at the King's execution. In fact he did not attend, but went to a prayer meeting instead. See more » Quotes Oliver Cromwell II : Do you think it could come to war, Father? Oliver Cromwell : Well, Oliver, when men run out of words, they reach for their swords. Let's hope we can keep them talking. (Los Angeles, CA) – See all my reviews Honestly, this is the kind of movie that gives historical drama a bad name. Granted, it is handsomely produced, with lavish costumes and sets, but it's mostly a big snooze. Especially when one compares it to Richard Lester's "The Three Musketeers," made only three years later, large parts of this film feel inescapably stagebound, much like the historical epics that were regularly churned out during the early 1950s, at the beginning of Cinemascope (i.e. "The Robe").

Yet the battle scenes and crowd scenes are impressive in their pageantry, and are about the only times in this movie where things seem to come alive. The cinematography is pretty nice, and Alec Guinness's performance as King Charles is remarkable in its subtlety and complexity. But Richard Harris' performance as Cromwell verges on camp, and he provides many unintentional chuckles, as he chews the scenery and spits it out again with a vengeance. One wonders why they didn't just get Chuck Heston for the role. "Get your stinking paws off of me, you DAMNED DIRTY KING!!" But maybe he just wasn't available. So here we have a grandstanding Dick Harris in what should perhaps be called "Planet of the Roundheads." The major problem is that there are really no characters- with the sole exception of King Charles- that are interesting. Virtually everyone in this movie can be described with one adjective. Cromwell is righteous, the Queen is scheming, Prince Rupert is foppish, Fairfax is moderate, etc. etc.

It's impossible to care about any of these cardboard cut-outs in fancy dress, and after a while I was beginning to wish one of those Diggers would go postal and mow down the principal players with the 17th century equivalent of a Glock. The music is particularly obnoxious too- a Carmina Burana rip-off complete with a chorus bellowing out, at intervals, "REJOICE! REJOICE!" And I'm not even going to touch the subject of the director's highly questionable decision to canonize someone like Oliver Cromwell, whose character might be charitably called "complex." I'm not even Irish, but my stomach was lurching at those- many- moments when Richard Harris was staring nobly off into the distance while that damn chorus screeched away in the background like it was the umpteenth millionth remake of "Quo Vadis." However, with all this said, it's impossible for me to hate this movie. It tries... so... hard! The final result is dubious, to say the least, but at least the project's ambition is commendable, and rather touching in a way.

"Cromwell" is a noble experiment which- rather like Cromwell's Commonwealth itself- ends ultimately in failure. But hey, on the bright side, at least there's Alec Guinness! 43 of 70 people found this review helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes Movie Review - - Screen: Oliver Cromwell's Rise to Power in England:Richard Harris Plays Him Without Warts - NYTimes.com Screen: Oliver Cromwell's Rise to Power in England:Richard Harris Plays Him Without Warts By VINCENT CANBY Published: October 27, 1970 Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658), country gentleman, Puritan, passionate reformer, reluctant revolutionist, regicide, a man who fought for freedom but who wound up a military dictator, is the subject of Ken Hughes's big, sober, iron-sided British movie that opened last night at the Rivoli and Fine Arts Theaters. Somewhere between one of its scenes of high council and some earnest debate in Parliament (was it the Rump?), it occurred to me that although fashions in pop historical movies have changed over the years, they haven't changed nearly enough.

If Warners had made a movie about Cromwell 30 years ago, it would have starred Errol Flynn in the title role, Olivia DeHavilland as Mrs. Cromwell, George Sanders as poor old Charles I, and Bette Davis, with a French accent, as Queen Henrietta Maria, all under the wonderfully foolish direction of Michael Curtiz. It might have been historically inaccurate, especially when the Queen made a play for Oliver, but it probably would have been fun. In the early 1950's, Fox would have shot it in Cinema-Scope with Richard Burton, George Sanders and maybe Bella Darvi (as the Queen), all under the doggedly faithful direction of Henry King. It would have been as silly as the Curtiz movie, but inching towards the piety of present-day producers. Mr. Hughes's film, which arrives with its credentials for accuracy certified by Will and Ariel Durant, stars Richard Harris as Comwell, Sir Alec Guinness as Charles and Dorothy Tutin as the Queen.

Its supporting cast includes some well-trained character actors and dozens of those British extras who apparently devote their lives to playing soldiers, farmers, footmen, nobles, clerks and governesses, always with an abject facelessness that is a reminder of British caste in movies as well as history. "Cromwell" is not a silly movie in the sublime Hollywood sense. In fact, the film, taken in conjunction with a handsome program prepared by the producers, gives a rather nice, serious, eighth grade introduction to a place and time that produced Prince Rupert and his pet poodle named Boy, the Grand Remonstrance, and the quote: "Keep your powder dry." Curiously, however, just because it presents its history with such unimaginative respect for facts—which are necessarily truncated and ellipsized, the effect is more historiographically neutral than was Mr. Curtiz's romantic "The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex." Mr. Hughes, who wrote the screenplay he has directed, has kept the form of the old Hollywood historical film but eliminated its meaning.

There are those obligatory early scenes showing commoners being maltreated by the King's men, Oliver refusing to think ill of the crown, finally making his grave decision to fight for freedom, big battle scenes that can only be shot in Spain, lonely vigils, throne room confrontations, and the like. At the same time, however, Mr. Hughes has abandoned the sort of romantic speculation that might have made Cromwell and Charles at least dramatically interesting, without substituting historical speculation that might have given them significance. CROMWELL, directed by Ken Hughes; screenplay by Mr. Hughes; director of photography, Geoffrey Unsworth; music by Frank Cordell; produced by Irving Allen; released by Columbia Pictures. At the Fine Arts Theater, 58th Street between Park and Lexington Avenues and the Rivoli Theater, Broadway and 49th Street. Running time: 139 minutes. (The Motion Picture Association of America's Production Code and Rating Administration classifies this film: G—all ages admitted, general audiences.") Oliver Cromwell . . . . . Richard Harris King Charles I . . . . . Alec Guinness Earl of Manchester . . . . . Robert Morley Queen Henrietta Maria . . . . .

Dorothy Tutin John Carter . . . . . Frank Finlay Earl of Strafford . . . . . Patrick Wymark Hugh Peters . . . . . Patrick Magee Sir Edward Hyde . . . . . Nigel Stock Lord Essex . . . . . Charles Gray A great film made greater by the two leads. Marcus Woolcott Super Reviewer Aided by a very good cast, "Cromwell" is a lavish if mostly simplistic spectacle about the conflict between Parliament led by Oliver Cromwell(Richard Harris) and King Charles I(Alec Guinness) that starts in 1640 as England is facing an invasion from Scotland and Cromwell is about to immigrate to America with his family and fellow Puritans. However, the cause of defending farmers from the king's interests intercedes and Cromwell and his allies work tirelessly in Parliament in an escalating fight that leads to civil war. What works best in "Cromwell" is the contrast between Charles and Cromwell which is expressed perfectly in a great debate about whether ordinary men are capable of extraordinary things.

Cromwell takes one side of this argument as he fights for a more just society but loses himself along the way, eventually becoming a tyrant as much as the one he eliminates. On the other hand, the subject of religion is skirted over as is Cromwell's brutal stint in Ireland.(Gore Vidal once wrote that the Puritans left England not because they were persecuted but because they were persecuting everyone else.) The movie's one critical error is in arguing that a country requires a strong head of state to succeed. Just don't knock anarchy if you haven't tried it. Walter M. Super Reviewer Crowmell tells the story of the man who was the driving force behind the English civil war and the father of English democracy. Oliver Cromwell is played with great intensity by Richard Harris as an honourable and incorruptible man who stuck by his principles despite the burden of his conscience; the fact that he was also a bigoted religious zealot, bullying imperialist and war criminal are all conveniently glossed over. But it would be in a film called "Cromwell", wouldn't it.

Alec Guiness juggles the arrogance and inflexibility of Charles I and his refusal to relinquish absolute power even though his life depended upon it, with his more human side as a loving father. It also has some (for the time at least) epic battle sequences but it is very stagy, and may not quicken the pulses of those without an interest in politics and history. A well made and well acted historical drama that resembles an illustrated (albeit not entirely accurate) history lesson rather than Braveheart-like popular entertainment. xGary Xx Super Reviewer Caught this at the weekend. One of those big historical films that Britain used to make. Harris is excellent and really gets his teeth into the role. Great to see him acting in a 'class' project (sadly he will mostly be remembered by most young people now as an old wizard!). Guiness is also brilliant as Charles and in fact the film suffers once his character is executed. Yes the film is overlong and is probably not historically accurate but they don't make them like this anymore. Shame.

David Sayers Cromwell Reviews & Ratings - IMDb IMDb 17 January 2017 8:34 AM, PST NEWS 54 out of 59 people found the following review useful: What happened to the warts? Author: benbrae76 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 Cromwell was a short stocky man, not tall and athletically built. Neither, I'm sure, did he have a 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. Was the above review useful to you? 51 out of 65 people found the following review useful: No No No from Oxford, England 15 May 2001 Right, let's first get one thing straight: the acting is okay - Guiness, as always is very identifiable with (if that's a real phrase) and Harris portrays some of Cromwell's famously torn character. Secondly, yes there is some idea conveyed of the turmoil of the period; the Levellers get a slight, if ridiculously truncated, mention. However, anyone who knows the slightest snippet about the period must have left the TV screen or whatever nothing but annoyed by the gross licence taken with the events of the civil war. And it is not just the fact that I have studied the period in depth that makes such glaring inaccuracies as:> Cromwell being named as one of the Five Members, he wasn't. Cromwell even being present at Edgehill, let alone rescuing the day. Neither are true.

At the same time the "arrangement" between the officers of the opposing side which was so crucial to the film never happened; and, at the end of the day the Royalists did not actually win the battle. It was a draw. Okay, I can live with some details being slightly wrong, but the outcome of the entire engagement...? Why miss out the most bloody, viscious and, many would say, crucial battle of the war? At least at Marston Moor Cromwell was actually there. Naseby, too, was grossly misrepresented: a) Cromwell did not command the parliamentary forces, Fairfax did; and b) in reality the Royalist force was just over half the size of that of parliament: hardly the stunning victory of a smaller force led by Cromwell as portrayed in the film. The Civil War was in no way Catholic versus Protestant: both sides were Protestant and, to be technical, both were mostly heartily opposed to Charles' Laudianism (a kind of mixture of the two). However in 1970 some scholarship did maintain this so this mistake can perhaps be understood.

These are just some of the many nitpicking points that seem to preclude the idea that "Cromwell" provides "an excellent history lesson". However, "Appocalypse Now" and "The Thin Red Line" are both examples of historically inaccurate but still highly effective and powerful films. How come "Cromwell" fails on this count? Well, on the one hand neither of these, more recent, films even claim to portray real people -"Cromwell" does and therefore its stubborn disregard of the truth cannot be ignored. Then, on the other hand, if the film attempts to be more than just a reasonably nice looking swashbuckler (which it does) and to really look into the character of its protagonists then surely its case is harmed by these shocking errors. For example, how can the film attempt to portray Cromwell as a man made by his times (rather than the other way around) when it suggests that he was a significant player from the start. Before the outbreak of Civil War Cromwell had made just one vaguely significant speech in parliament.

He was never contacted by Pym before the call of Parliament and there was no question of him ever leading the armies of Parliament until the retirement of Fairfax on the eve of the (curiously unmentioned) Second Civil War. Indeed he did not become official leader of the country until 1653. His rise to power was a great surprise to him and his countrymen. Finally, why miss out Ireland completely from the equation when surely there is no more interesting aspect to the man's character than his opinions on religion? Cromwell deserves a more accurate cinematic perspective, and surely half of the problem is that this film attempts to cram the ten most monumental years of British history into three hours. Definately a "could do better". Was the above review useful to you? 34 out of 42 people found the following review useful: Pretty lavish but uneven and inaccurate from United States 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. Was the above review useful to you?

40 out of 54 people found the following review useful: A good piece of English history, badly told. from Coventry, England 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. Was the above review useful to you? 30 out of 35 people found the following review useful: This Country Will Be Well Governed If I Have To Do It Myself from Buffalo, New York 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. Was the above review useful to you? 19 out of 21 people found the following review useful: Good Guiness, Hollering Harris, Bad History from United States 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. Was the above review useful to you? 20 out of 24 people found the following review useful: Oliver's army is here to stay.

Author: dbdumonteil 25 March 2004 The movie is some kind of misnomer ,cause Cromwell's reign is reduced to a short laudatory comment at the end of the movie.However,the film is good with a splendid cast.Richard Harris is every inch a puritan,never cracking a smile during the 2hours+ film.Harris's performance unlayers every nuance of his strength and his weakness (perhaps his best moment is when he discovers the man he's just executed was right). Alec Guiness's king is impressive and his relationship with the catholic queen should have been more developed .Dame Dorothy Tutin's rendering is subtle and she makes all her scenes count.There is also Robert Morley and Timothy Dalton who give strong support. Queen Henrietta took refuge in France and her daughter Henriette married the king Louis XIV 's brother ,"Monsieur" .Sadly she was to pass away at a very early age probably of peritonitis(few historians still speak of poisoning).

"Cromwell" ,which I saw when it was released ,has stood the test of time quite well,thanks to all these wonderful actors.In his own way,Cromwell was an incorruptible person ,ahead of his time,who predates Robespierre .The fact that he substituted a dictatorship for another one does not ruin his main revolutionary idea:a king is not infallible, the absolute monarchy means tyranny.A century and a half later ,minister Turgot told Louis XVI :"do not forget Charles the first,Sire!" Was the above review useful to you? 43 out of 70 people found the following review useful: From Cromwell with love 9 September 2004 Honestly, this is the kind of movie that gives historical drama a bad name. Granted, it is handsomely produced, with lavish costumes and sets, but it's mostly a big snooze. Especially when one compares it to Richard Lester's "The Three Musketeers," made only three years later, large parts of this film feel inescapably stagebound, much like the historical epics that were regularly churned out during the early 1950s, at the beginning of Cinemascope (i.e.

"The Robe"). Yet the battle scenes and crowd scenes are impressive in their pageantry, and are about the only times in this movie where things seem to come alive. The cinematography is pretty nice, and Alec Guinness's performance as King Charles is remarkable in its subtlety and complexity. But Richard Harris' performance as Cromwell verges on camp, and he provides many unintentional chuckles, as he chews the scenery and spits it out again with a vengeance. One wonders why they didn't just get Chuck Heston for the role. "Get your stinking paws off of me, you DAMNED DIRTY KING!!" But maybe he just wasn't available. So here we have a grandstanding Dick Harris in what should perhaps be called "Planet of the Roundheads." The major problem is that there are really no characters- with the sole exception of King Charles- that are interesting. Virtually everyone in this movie can be described with one adjective. Cromwell is righteous, the Queen is scheming, Prince Rupert is foppish, Fairfax is moderate, etc. etc.

It's impossible to care about any of these cardboard cut-outs in fancy dress, and after a while I was beginning to wish one of those Diggers would go postal and mow down the principal players with the 17th century equivalent of a Glock. The music is particularly obnoxious too- a Carmina Burana rip-off complete with a chorus bellowing out, at intervals, "REJOICE! REJOICE!" And I'm not even going to touch the subject of the director's highly questionable decision to canonize someone like Oliver Cromwell, whose character might be charitably called "complex." I'm not even Irish, but my stomach was lurching at those- many- moments when Richard Harris was staring nobly off into the distance while that damn chorus screeched away in the background like it was the umpteenth millionth remake of "Quo Vadis." However, with all this said, it's impossible for me to hate this movie. It tries... so... hard! The final result is dubious, to say the least, but at least the project's ambition is commendable, and rather touching in a way.

"Cromwell" is a noble experiment which- rather like Cromwell's Commonwealth itself- ends ultimately in failure. But hey, on the bright side, at least there's Alec Guinness! Was the above review useful to you? 15 out of 20 people found the following review useful: a good historical drama, if somewhat simplified & under funded from Birmingham, England 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. ***/***** from Sword Of The Protector 7 June 2016 Spoilers Ahead: First, as your movie reviewer, for all of you who have lives and do not live within books, like your philosopher author, I must warn you this movie is quite dry. I am fascinated by history, I found the acting alone worthy of owning this old classic. Guinness is excellent as Charles I even aping his slight speech impediment. The movie condenses the complaints against Charles not even mentioning the eternal grants for his court favorites, his shaking down of the merchants for his never ending taking of their profits. I recommend the movie for a good historical look at Cromwell who is not delineated like a comic book. Watch when Parliament begins negotiating a restoration of the king, he is not shy about marching the army into Parliament's chambers (Akin to Caesar crossing the Rubicon); he is shown to be the ambitious man carefully shielding from his eyes his real motivations.

Be warned viewers, the movie is told within a merchant Zeitgeist; ergo, expect the putative nobility of the merchant Puritans whose lust for power began with the above quotation uttered by Henry VIII who used them but was never in the dark about their real motivations behind their enthralling mantras of: freedom and liberty. Yes, freedom from the King's authority and the liberty to become the new rulers: the seeds of the global oligarchs under whose hegemony we all labor ad infinitum. The movie has slow parts where we labor upon war preparation and training, the replacement of the aristocratic leaders of Parliament's army by Cromwell. This is what I underline when you watch this deification of 'democracy.' Cromwell rises to power surely always cloaked in the name of 'the people of England.' My favorite scene is where Cromwell gives Charles the final demands of Parliament; Charles feigns amiability never intending to heed a word they wrote.

As Cromwell walks away, Charles smiles sardonically,"A very cunning man." This is the core of the movie, though made by democrats in love with the mob, there are hints here and there that perhaps Oliver is not quite the saint that he, and his votaries, believe him to be. One wonderful apropos quotation of Friedrich Nietzsche's sprang upon repeated viewings of this movie: "Whenever people speak of their rights remember it is always about but one thing: Power." It is important not to miss how Oliver jettisons the sacrosanct 'Parliament' when it seeks something that threatens his power. He cleverly shifts that now the 'Army' is the voice of the people not 'Parliament.' I recommend the movie to you for, though it is pro-Cromwell, it is not naive about the complexity of the man and his real motives. When you watch it you will share the Tudors contempt for the rising moneyed merchant Puritans grown fat upon the stolen wealth of the 'New World' who always cloaked their power grab hiding behind the skirts of the peasants whom they showed the same contempt as you see their modern versions evincing today.

The movie is a lovely lesson in a group of people championing the 'common people' as they seek to replace hereditary Oligarchy with a moneyed version that is indistinguishable in its economic vampirism upon the common man. Even for my young readers, if you can put up with its slow pacing, you will learn how money leads to the quest for power ineluctably. It is carefully disguised in heartwarming devotion to the poor but it is always the same. Even in a movie this old, Cromwell pivots between ideological positions to whatever pushes himself forward. The movie has a place in my library for it reminds me that whatever time period any of us live in or wherever upon this small globe we may be: The rich always lust for power. Yes, the tyranny of the King was replaced seamlessly with the tyranny of the rich merchants, try to remember: this was progress my friends. A dry historical gem that is surprisingly frank about the complexity of Oliver Cromwell; he is not delineated as a saint from heaven. An excellent cast with great acting, the lesson of the lust for power transcending all classes is one worth beholding and remembering. A Good Movie. Q.E.D.

"The Natural Enemy Of Any Government Is Its Own People." George Orwell "We Shall Leave This World As Foolish And Wicked As We First Found It." Voltaire "Sic Semper Tyrannis." Cromwell - Buy, Rent, and Watch Movies & TV on Flixster Flixster User Reviews xGary Xx Crowmell tells the story of the man who was the driving force behind the English civil war and the father of English democracy. Oliver Cromwell is played with… More Crowmell tells the story of the man who was the driving force behind the English civil war and the father of English democracy. Oliver Cromwell is played with great intensity by Richard Harris as an honourable and incorruptible man who stuck by his principles despite the burden of his conscience; the fact that he was also a bigoted religious zealot, bullying imperialist and war criminal are all conveniently glossed over. But it would be in a film called "Cromwell", wouldn't it. Alec Guiness juggles the arrogance and inflexibility of Charles I and his refusal to relinquish absolute power even though his life depended upon it, with his more human side as a loving father.

It also has some (for the time at least) epic battle sequences but it is very stagy, and may not quicken the pulses of those without an interest in politics and history. A well made and well acted historical drama that resembles an illustrated (albeit not entirely accurate) history lesson rather than Braveheart-like popular entertainment. David Sayers Caught this at the weekend. One of those big historical films that Britain used to make. Harris is excellent and really gets his teeth into the role. Great to… More Caught this at the weekend. One of those big historical films that Britain used to make. Harris is excellent and really gets his teeth into the role. Great to see him acting in a 'class' project (sadly he will mostly be remembered by most young people now as an old wizard!). Guiness is also brilliant as Charles and in fact the film suffers once his character is executed. Yes the film is overlong and is probably not historically accurate but they don't make them like this anymore. Shame. Walter M.

Aided by a very good cast, "Cromwell" is a lavish if mostly simplistic spectacle about the conflict between Parliament led by Oliver Cromwell(Richard… More Aided by a very good cast, "Cromwell" is a lavish if mostly simplistic spectacle about the conflict between Parliament led by Oliver Cromwell(Richard Harris) and King Charles I(Alec Guinness) that starts in 1640 as England is facing an invasion from Scotland and Cromwell is about to immigrate to America with his family and fellow Puritans. However, the cause of defending farmers from the king's interests intercedes and Cromwell and his allies work tirelessly in Parliament in an escalating fight that leads to civil war. What works best in "Cromwell" is the contrast between Charles and Cromwell which is expressed perfectly in a great debate about whether ordinary men are capable of extraordinary things. Cromwell takes one side of this argument as he fights for a more just society but loses himself along the way, eventually becoming a tyrant as much as the one he eliminates.

On the other hand, the subject of religion is skirted over as is Cromwell's brutal stint in Ireland.(Gore Vidal once wrote that the Puritans left England not because they were persecuted but because they were persecuting everyone else.) The movie's one critical error is in arguing that a country requires a strong head of state to succeed. Just don't knock anarchy if you haven't tried it. Marcus Woolcott

Question: Who played the title role in the 1970 film ‘Cromwell’?
Answer: Richard Harris