Although enthusiastic about this film thirteen years ago, I now have reservations. The history is just too dodgy, with people in positions they never held; faked, chaotic or completely omitted battles; and several pointlessly altered incidents and situations. Why was it thought necessary to invent alternative facts in this messy way ? History, it seems, is always being re-written --- by both sides. Consider how Cromwell has been maligned and misrepresented for 400 years by the benighted Catholic Irish. Read "Cromwell: An Honourable Enemy" by Tom Reilly, born and bred in Drogheda. The Parliamentary cavalry should have attacked, boot to boot, in a resolute and tightly packed wedge, with "a steady round trot", as learned from the Swedish army in the 30 years war, not in this flamboyant disorderly manner.
That said, I thought the personalities of Cromwell and Charles I were well presented by Harris and Guinness. The other characters were not well played, quite apart from the inaccurate ways they were directed. Prince Rupert was simply ridiculous, and the future Charles II, one of Britain's sleaziest and most treacherous monarchs, was way off piste. Though he was too young here to have got into his dissolute stride. Film is well worth seeing, nevertheless, more than once.
That said, I thought the personalities of Cromwell and Charles I were well presented by Harris and Guinness. The other characters were not well played, quite apart from the inaccurate ways they were directed. Prince Rupert was simply ridiculous, and the future Charles II, one of Britain's sleaziest and most treacherous monarchs, was way off piste. Though he was too young here to have got into his dissolute stride. Film is well worth seeing, nevertheless, more than once.