BallWubba Wow! What a bizarre film! Unfortunately the few funny moments there were were quite overshadowed by it's completely weird and random vibe throughout.

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Haven Kaycee It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

Armand important - the acting. out of historical accuracy , it is story of a friendship and drawing of a revolution. nothing more. and result is a good tale in which lights and shadows, atmosphere and crumbs of events are at well place. interesting is science of Rupert Everett to propose a credible Charles . and Tim Roth is great - out of any surprise. but more that, it is an ash carpet. the details of Cromwell regime are lost. the labyrinth of friendship - ambiguous. the scene - full of masks. and the impression who remains is same - a great play in fragile skin. not an error but ambition to say all. not a mistake but too much ambition to give life, force and color to an old and cruel story.

ianpb I'll keep it short and sweet, as many have already made accurate criticism of this film, and in general I agree.The film is a travesty, portraying Cromwell, inaccurately, as a 2-dimensional bully. This is compounded by terrible acting (as usual) by Tim Roth. The man just can not act! Here he spurts out each line like a child in a school play, relieved that he has managed to get yet another memorised line out of the way.Rupert Everett as Charles 1 was unconvincing, playing the part as a brute with no class. Charles was a Scot but there was not even the faintest hint of a Scottish accent here, and only the clumsiest inclusion of badly performed stutters. He had clearly not done his homework. I guess Alec Guinness set a standard for this part (in 'Cromwell') which may be impossible to surpass. But the difference is that Guinness was a good actor.Dougray Scott played Fairfax better, but it just got tiresome.As for the script, it was dire and lazy. Easy money. Don't expect any history lessons.I walked away from it half way through. Life's too short to waste it on this junk.This film demonstrates two things: Tim Roth can't act and Mike Barker (Director) can't direct. Just goes to show, it's down to who you know, not what you can do.

blue-117 I read a review of the movie to the effect that it wasn't historically accurate and it had a comment (the writer must have known it was coming...) that some would argue that it was only a film (thus artistic license was sure to be taken). What that viewer failed to see was that this film was spot on where it truly mattered - that both sides (Charles I and Cromwell) were equally and totally convinced of their 'mandate from God'.The result for Charles was that his inability to concede any power cost him his life, the cost for Cromwell was that his 'Republic' lasted only two years after his death (although some of his decisions are still felt now especially in Ulster.) So, if what you need is for Cromwell to have a broad West Country accent, don't go...if you enjoy films that have some intellectual depth to them, then I'd recommend it.

Greedytree Apparently the filmmakers didn't even have time for the Cliff's Notes version of the English Civil War. Last time I checked, Oliver Cromwell was regarded even by his enemies as one of the foremost military minds in history. The New Model Army was his baby. And a biggot? The man welcomed the Jewish faith and open practice thereof back to England, for God's sake. As for comparing these events to the French Revolution/Reign of Terror, the FACT of the matter is that it was essentially the American Revolution...just a little ahead of it's time. (Something, no doubt, the Brits simply cannot contemplate.) Sad, silly, revisionist stuff.