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

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

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.