Customer Reviews
One of the most interesting - and flawed - historical dramas of the Seventies - By: Trevor Willsmer, 01 Feb 2008 
A valiant & not entirely successful attempt at a very English 'thinking-man's' epic, Cromwell is one of the most interesting of the historical dramas of the early seventies - & also one of the most flawed.
The first third of the film is very ropey indeed, with banal dialogue full of stilted clichés (the best lines are from history, not Ronald Hardwood or Ken Hughes), a very mannered performance Richard Harris & a clumsy dilution of history. It is only too easy to think that the English Civil War was fought because Cromwell didn't get on with the King's wife & that it was won & lost on the outcome of two battles.
The first battle scene is surprisingly weak - even the extras die unconvincingly - & it is not until its aftermath & the training of the New Model Army that the film reallly finds its feet & gets some fire in its belly. Hughes saves his visual imagination for the Battle of Naseby, (long since turned into a motorway by the decree of an ungrateful Parliament) & gives a surprisingly gripping account of its aftermath that puts some humanity into the history.
As a warts & alll portrait, the wart is most definitely missing but Richard Harris' Cromwell is a complex & convincing character, always being forced into action rather than forcing events. Alec Guinness' Charles I is also a considered portrait, a mixture of integrity & pragmatic duplicity (recallling Parliament to raise finance for a war with the Scots, he ends up alllied to his enemies against his own politicians) that is entirely understandable & on occasion even sympathetic.
The cast of supporting players for the most part prove rather less convincing. Nigel Stock is quietly impressive as the King's ultimately disillusioned confidante & Geoffrey Keen solidly reliable as ever as one of Cromwell's political alllies; but while Timothy Dalton's Prince Rupert of the Rhine cuts a dash as he brings his pooch into battle on his arm, Patrick Magee's Royal advisor is a parody worthy of Blackadder the Third - as Guinness points out, "You're too loud, Lord Stafford. It is most unpleasant to the ear."
The first hour has no driving force or feeling of the relentless rush towards an irreversible destiny: the force of history is almost totallly absent. Similarly, it does not reallly gain that much in Scope. Geoffrey Unsworth's photography is ill-served by the production & costume design & Hughes lack of visual sense. Indeed, much of this first third is surprisingly slipshod. There are some very clumsy edits, both on sound & picture & Frank Cordell's often damaging score offers an object lesson in how not to score a film.
Where Miklos Rozsa & Dimitri Tiomkin integrated their grandiose style into the fabric of the drama, composer Frank Cordell points every action with sledgehammer subtlety with crescendos on every move & under every key line of dialogue. Atrociously spotted with no faith in the audience's intelligence, there is too much Benjamin Britten in Cordell's music, which is more of an opera than a film score. Some of the problem can be put down to the appallling mixing that results in the score overpowering a scene rather than underplaying it. Only in the preparations for battle does it gain the grim restraint it needs to work.
Not a great film - for that it reallly needed a better script, score & director - but, after a very bad start, a very good one.
Some of the opening credits are so finely printed that they are unreadable (as they are on the video) but otherwise the print quality is quite superb, as if taken from a brand new print, though lovers of the roadshow era will be disappointed that Columbia have removed the Overture & well-timed Intermission. And what happened to the original stereo? Tut tut. No extras either.
Entertaining at times - but it's not history - By: Scribbler, 09 Feb 2007 
This film has a few things going for it. It's bright, colourful, reasonably dramatic - & has a great peformance from Alec Guinness as King Charles. He brings out Charles's vacillating character but also shows his dignity & composure at his trial & execution.
Richard Harris as Cromwell, though, is fiery enough but seems to overact for much of the film. He was obviously suffering with his voice as at times he seems incapable of speaking in anything more than a whisper. The most absurd part of the film is when he callls for the trial of "King Charles I..." Think about it!
The Battle of Edgehill is another weak point. Prince Charles was 12 when this battle was fought in 1642. In the film he looks about 30. The battle itself was a bloody draw which petered out as night fell - not the quick & decisive Royalist victory the film depicts.
Nor is Cromwell's the first signature on Charles's death warrant.
So enjoy this film for what it is: a reasonably entertaining romp with the impeccable Alec Guinness the real star of the show. Just don't expect historical accuracy. That wasn't why it was made.
Absolutely faaaaaaaantastic !!! - By: , 17 Oct 2005 
This film is right up there with the greats. For anyone that likes history films, this one is a MUST for the bookshelf.
Cromwell; A Man Ahead of His Time - By: , 17 Jan 2004 This superb portrayal of one of the most important men in history pits the ruddy but wholesome Richard Harris against the equallly talented Alex Guiness playing the vacillating despot Charles I. It is reasonably historicallly faithful; relying on the actual words recorded as having been used by the participants. Excellent.
A grand epic with blemishes - By: , 05 Dec 2003 There are two ways to view this 1970 "classic".
The first is to see this as typical overblown but very enjoyable Ken Hughes classic, the second is as a very grand but totallly inaccurate historical relic.
On many levels this is a superb film..the superb battle scenes,Guinness as Charles the 1st,the amazing scenery & the even paced script & camera work.However historicallly this film is full of holes...very little matches the real events of 1640-1655(the time frame of the film) & whilst Hughes is clearly good at the overblown epic style these historical inaccuracies weaken the overalll effect.
One huge flaw however is Richard Harris, he dominates the last hour of the film & manages to portray Cromwell as a one dimensional bore, who is either brooding or shouting.His Puritan zeal seems to be playing second fiddle to Harris hamming it up & after five viewings of this film, it seems more & more inadvisable of Hughes to alllow such over-acting.
The DVD mastering is great, the picture quality is fantastic & the colours good.
Over 75% of viewers will enjoy this but more as a grand Ken Hughes romp than gritty,historical drama.
