Cubussoli Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

SincereFinest disgusting, overrated, pointless

Ghoulumbe Better than most people think

Hattie I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

johnbirch-2 I love seventeenth century English history - not because I would like to have lived there (no way!) but because it is endlessly fascinating. So any film made about the period has my mouth watering.I looked forward to this but oh its so bad, Soooooo bad.The historical inaccuracies are legion - really. Its actually quite hard to find anything that's even slightly accurate. As history its so poor you'd think it was made in Hollywood. Not is it factually wrong, with people doing and saying things they did not say in places that they never were, but sharp-shooting with smooth-bore 17th century pistols? Laughable! And that's before we even get onto the politics and religion!It might be possible to relax and consider a fairy story or as entertainment - but its pretty rubbish at that as well. Mumbling characters, dull script...Avoid, avoid, avoid.

sekjr Stunning - - absolutely stunning visually. If for no other reason to see the film BUT -- the sound is awful. You can't understand everyone. It's hollow! You would think with all the producers on this film - that they would be conscious of everything. They were so sensitive to the perfect costuming and sets. But the sound? Yikes! It spoiled it for me...Was it because it was in Dolby 5.1 -- and we didn't watch it in Dolby 5.1 ???There also was not enough explanation as to what was going on. Otherwise it would be PERFECT for school children to see. It would have taken so little effort to explain things..I can only assume this contributed to the films unpopularity. I never heard of it. I took a chance on it seeing it on the library shelf... and was immediately impressed with the costuming and sets. But try to understand it? I put it back on the shelf... and forgot it...

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.

themarina1 I'm not very familiar with this period and this particular story but one thing I can say is that the film was very enjoyable. The story is fascinating to begin but the acting truly adds to the experience. Outstanding! Dougray Scott's portrayal of General Thomas Fairfax, a man torn between the love of his wife and that of his the country, is amazing to watch. To add to the pile, Tim Roth is worthy of an oscar nomination for his role as Oliver Cromwell, an army man that allows power and greed to send his dreams and beliefs and actions askew. I think there are some Oscar worthy performances here. Well worth watching.