If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

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

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

It is strange indeed that there is such a variety of interpretations of the film, quibbles about historical accuracy etc. when the closing narration both makes crystal clear what the film's purpose is and makes claims far more controversial than the film's strongest detractors have noticed. The narration celebrates the change from absolute to a constitutional Monarchy and Cromwell for bringing it about. It says that the 5 years of Cromwell's "reign" brought about an England "feared, respected and powerful". It takes obvious pride in him not just on England's behalf but much more widely as having established the principal of the primacy of parliament over the monarchy. Surprising that reviews quibbling over points of historical accuracy don't mention this narration with its central claim and entirely uncritical celebration of Cromwell.Since 1899 a statue of Cromwell has had a prominent location in the gardens of the British Houses of Parliament, something not without controversy from then until now. The statue's continuing presence can be read as Parliament's loud - and proud - assertion of its primacy.The script and the choice of one of the UK's finest actors, Alec Guinness, gave a gracious and nuanced portrayal of Charles 1. The choice of Richard Harris added to a blunt, forceful and determined Cromwell. The portrayal of a Parliament left to make up its own rules - and Cromwell's dramatic return with the Army to impose his view is memorableIt is a fine and interesting film, also a history lesson but one not everyone would celebrate. It is about politics, not pageantry

Overall, I genuinely liked this film as it was enjoyable to watch and rather entertaining. I would recommend this film to those who are learning or have learnt about Cromwell as it is well put together and gives you a brief overview of the Civil Wars and the key information there is to know, however, this film is for entertainment purposes and doesn't go into great detail. When learning about Cromwell, I saw him to be the sort of character that he is perceived to be in this film and I believe that Richard Harris plays his role of Cromwell extremely well taking on the role of a passionate man who was indeed, hard to understand at times. At times I did feel that this film was rather dramatic however, I felt it was well put together and a very good effort in depicting and emphasising the person that Cromwell was in the 17th century.

Altogether I felt that this film was rather enjoyable, well put together and was very helpful at developing my understanding of Cromwell as a figure and the events that surrounded him. I believe Richard Harris performed his role very well too as a decisive, passionate, and capable Oliver Cromwell; this is how I envisioned him. Though in parts some of the historical content is distorted in order to make it more dramatic for audience satisfaction (such as the inclusion of Cromwell in the arrest of the five MP's) I think despite its flaws it shows an good representation of the key events involving Oliver Cromwell in mid 17th century England.

My English history isn't the greatest, so I take the view that this movie is probably a tolerable overview of the Cromwell era without necessarily being spot on with its facts.Richard Harris is an intense Cromwell and Alec Guiness is an aloof Charles 1 as this tale of accountability, the divine right of kings, parliament's position and, ultimately, civil war proceeds.From a film-goer's perspective, the movie needs a dramatic set piece nearer the end - Charles' execution and its aftermath is a rather low key and understated way to finish off the film. There are some large scale and relatively well staged battle scenes earlier on.Which leads me to ponder the rationale behind this movie. It is rather late in the day for an old-style massed battle action movie (viz. the Hollywood knights in armour movies, El Cid, Charge Of The Light Brigade etc.) and, in any event, despite the battles, this is quite a talkie movie. I suppose it tells an important story which hadn't, at the time, been told in any detail elsewhere.