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.
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.