L'avis des consommateurs
|
|
|
Évaluation du client type
Partagez votre opinion avec les autres clients
|
|
|
Le commentaire favorable le plus utile
Le commentaire critique le plus utile
1 internautes sur 1 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Catches the spirit, if not the perfect picture, of the ECW
The Rev. Mortimer would be glad to know, that as a high school history teacher in Virginia, USA, I have been showing "Cromwell" to all of my US and world history classes for many years. It explains why our University of Virgina sports teams are called the Cavaliers. It shows the beliefs of the Puritans/Pilgrims and why they wanted to leave England to come to...
Publié le Fév 21 2002 par John McMahon
|
› Voir plus de commentaires 5 étoiles, 4 étoiles |
 |
More Yelling!
Great production values and a terrific performance by Sir Alec Guinness cannot entirely overcome the turgid pacing of this lavish historical epic. The biggest fault with "Cromwell" is well...Cromwell. Richard Harris, an actor who was either very, very good or very, very bad, seemed convinced that he was on the London stage rather than a film set. His postures...
Publié le Avril 17 2004
|
› Voir plus de commentaires 3 étoiles, 2 étoiles, 1 étoiles |
|
|
1 internautes sur 1 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Catches the spirit, if not the perfect picture, of the ECW, Fév 21 2002
The Rev. Mortimer would be glad to know, that as a high school history teacher in Virginia, USA, I have been showing "Cromwell" to all of my US and world history classes for many years. It explains why our University of Virgina sports teams are called the Cavaliers. It shows the beliefs of the Puritans/Pilgrims and why they wanted to leave England to come to America. It puts the Hobbes vs. Locke argument into the sharp relief of actual human conflict. It explains why a people would rise up in bloody conflict against a fairly reasonable monarch like Charles I. It shows the sloppiness of democracy, as portrayed by the great scenes in the Parliment. I have read widely on the Civil War and am familiar with the innacuracies. The reason that I HAVE read widely in this area is because I saw this film in a theatre as a child. This superb drama continues to inspire me, and my students today.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 internautes sur 1 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
6 star rating for Cromwell!, Jui 7 2001
This film should be compulsory viewing in all schools, particularly in Britain and America! Although the film is inaccurate in places, a far more important principle dominates here: that is, as personified in the remarks of 'Hugh' (a Church of England Minister) "on the side of justice and truth!" An earlier reviewer suggested that Cromwell was portrayed as 'too emotional,' but the principles that motivated him were not emotions, but justice and truth! Only three of the main characters in the drama come across in a good light: John Pym, Cromwell, and his wife! Henry Ireton is a 'hot head', Fairfax lacks courage at the crucial moment. These were incredible days, with so many important principles at stake, that one film cannot hope to put everything across. However, Cromwell is a figure of hate these days (modern man cannot stand 'Puritan' principle and godliness), and this film restores his place in English history. What comes across is a man of principle who laid the foundation of the greatness of Britain and America. If only we could have true 'democracy' like Cromwell envisaged, and men who would lay down their lives for the people of the nation. What freedom we enjoy today was purchased at a terrible price. This reminds us so very much of the ultimate sacrifice that God paid in sending His own Son to die in the place of sinners. An absolute truth that in which Cromwell passionately believed. If there were a 6 star rating to be given to one film, this would be it. Historical accuracy simply is not the issue.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Superb, Nov. 12 2009
This is a superb dramatic rendering of the life of Oliver Cromwell. I can't speak about whether or not the film got the historical facts right or not. But I can say a bit about the representation of Cromwell's Christian faith. Ken Hughes, the writer/Director captured that Puritan's faith very well considering the constraints of film (which, in the case of epic, is about action more than dialogue).
The script stands out as exceptional among epic movies, which were still popular during the period in which this movie was made (early 70s). The acting is tremendous all around (ignore critics who try to lampoon Richard Harris with cheap shots about his strident voice; he was a fine actor. Recall: he is playing a man who, for most of the film, is in the pitch of battle, either on the floor of parliament or on the field of war...would you have him whisper or mince instead?; no, of course not, obviously he's going to belt lines out with as much passion as he can muster). Cromwell was a powerful personality, who displayed military genius without the aid of proper training in strategy or tactics--he was a natural-born warrior. He rose from relative obscurity to conqueror of the English crown--winning every major battle he fought--in the space of nine years, becoming the ruler of England as a result of his tireless efforts. No other European common man had ever achieved so much before him. Who does that sort of thing? This film portrays these points admirably.
As a Calvinist, Cromwell believed in a sovereign God who ruled over all things with kingly authority; so, naturally, when he saw himself being drawn into the centre stage of the drama of his time, he believed it was the hand of God leading events. The film depicts his faith without apology. This is the outstanding feature of the film, in my humble opinion. Most (post) modern historians readily admit they have no clue what to make of Cromwell because he was such a forceful man, who used military power to advance the cause he believed in; yet he had an unshakeable faith in the living God and his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, and expressed that faith throughout his life. They see these two aspects as contradictory and conclude that he was conflicted. But many of the great men of faith have also been military geniuses: Abraham, Joshua, Gideon, and David. Why should this be a contradiction? This part of Cromwell, his indomitable faith, is wonderfully present throughout the film.
Was he a saint? Yes and no. No, in the sense that he committed dreadful sins, which the film does not entirely shy away from. But he was a saint, in the evangelical Christian sense, in that he believed in Christ as his Lord and Saviour. This may not be the popular sense of saint (meaning a 'goody-two-shoes'), but it's something to ponder.
Cromwell toppled the king because the king was not acting like a true king but a despot who exploited the authority that God had given him. Charles I conspired with Catholic France to invade England and this made him a traitor to the nation and the Protestant faith. After much agonizing over the situation, Cromwell concluded that the tyrant must go. That's the film in a nutshell.
The final shot left me breathless. It explains the 'contradictions' perfectly. It's absolutely marvellous that a film Director (and a British one!) got the person of Cromwell right, while so many professional historians haven't!
Very good for Christian homeschoolers--as long as the students are in highschool. The battle scenes are intense. And the execution of Charles I, though seen from a long shot, is still depicted on screen.
BTW, Alex Guiness does a fantastic job representing the king, making him very human. Behind his pompous exterior is a very dignified man who truly believed he was doing the right thing. Such a performance (and script) makes this a complex film; a mature movie--which has always been such a rarity.
One final note, concerning Puritanism. A previous reviewer stated that the majority of people during the era of Cromwell hated the Puritans. There certainly were those who hated the Puritans. But several Puritans preachers regularly had congregations of several hundred or even thousand members. There are diary accounts that describe individuals walking miles and miles to hear Puritans preach. Puritan books of sermons and essays on doctrine were bestsellers and outsold all other books. These aren't the only proofs that Puritanism enjoyed widespread approval, but they are starters. Much more could be said. But, it is simply myopic to say that they were universally reviled. That fiction was a 19th century invention that cannot stand up to even the most superficial investigation of the facts.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
More Yelling!, Avril 17 2004
Par Un client
Great production values and a terrific performance by Sir Alec Guinness cannot entirely overcome the turgid pacing of this lavish historical epic. The biggest fault with "Cromwell" is well...Cromwell. Richard Harris, an actor who was either very, very good or very, very bad, seemed convinced that he was on the London stage rather than a film set. His postures and attitudes all seem very staged as if for a theatrical performance. Then there is the yelling. I swear 80% of Harris' dialogue is yelled and at one point in the movie his voice is hoarse from constant yelling. (It's like that SNL skit about Chris Matthews- "More yelling!) Overall, it's just too over-the-top and hurts the film.Movies about historical subjects ALWAYS have to take liberties with their subjects. It's just the way it is. Thus, I tend to judge movies on history by a scale- some rate higher than others in capturing an era and the facts. I would rate "Cromwell" in the low mid range on that scale. It certainly captures the look of the era. The battle scenes are very impressive with literally thousands of extras courtesy of Hollywood's then favorite rent-an-army- dictator Franco's Spanish army. However, it puts Oliver Cromwell in the midst of every important decision of the English Civil War which is way off the mark. I guess the scriptwriters wanted to ensure that in almost every scene Richard Harris would be there scowling and yelling at the camera and forget about historical accuracy.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Entertaining historic epic, Avril 5 2004
I found Cromwell to be an entertaining historic epic movie. I know the period pretty well and although the movie is hardly historically accurate, I thought it was entertaining. Alec Guiness totally steal the movie. He managed to generate a lot of sympathy for being a bad King while Cromwell played by Richard Harris gets too hammy and his character comes out looking like a blood thirsty tyrant. Bit ironic. I hope no one is looking for any history lessons here. Sir Thomas Fairfax founded the New Model Army, not Cromwell who only commanded the cavalry during the initial stages of that army's creation. Historical inaccuracy are too many to write down here. The battle scenes were great (although bit short) but both Guiness and Harris were well supported by an excellent cast.The DVD looks pretty good overall. It was nice to see this movie in (anamorphic) widescreen once again - I haven't seen it that mode since I last saw it in the theaters back in 1971!! The audio is good (Dolby surround), clarity in the presentation but there was no extra features outside of few trailers. This is a totally strip-down DVD, just the movie!
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
BEAUTIFUL AND OUTSTANDING HISTORICAL EPIC, Oct. 6 2003
Par Un client
Richard Harris gives an impassioned performance as Cromwell. The script is literate without being rhetorical. But Guinness steals the show as the fateful King Charles--watch this performance carefully and see great acting at its greatest! The sets and (Oscar-winning) costumes are flawless. This movie is visually impressive and emotionally involving. For some reason certain reviewers in the past and present have dismissed the movie as less than what it is. That's just plain (1970s) snobbery by critics who just want to impress other critics with their limited wit and abundant sarcasm. Forget about the so-called inaccuracies. History in general is one inaccuracy after another. This is a movie, and as a movie it works beautifully! Highly recommended for adults, although I find nothing offensive for mature youngsters. They don't make these films anymore!
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cromwell- England's Transformer, Mai 30 2003
The historical epic,"Cromwell",magnificiantly depicts the turbulent era in British history in which Great Britiain was involved in its own bloody civil war. A religious as well as political war, "Cromwell" brilliantly depicts the two central figures, the doomed monarch Charles I and the passionately reverent Cromwell with pathos and accuracy. A "must" for every Anglophile and history lover.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Satisfying Historical Film, Déc 23 2002
This film has been shown in history classes in both Britain and the USA, and rightfully so. CROMWELL is a powerful, albeit uneven, movie depicting the struggle between Parliament and the crown that ultimately led to the English Civil War.Alec Guinness as King Charles I is simply superb. This gifted actor brings the insecure monarch to life before our very eyes, from his indecision to his eventual desperation to save his thrown--even his slight stuttering problem. Indeed it was Charles himself, by attempting in secret to form alliances with Catholic Ireland and France in order to defeat Cromwell's army, who was the catalyst to his own demise. Richard Harris is good, but somewhat over the top, as the brooding Oliver Cromwell, the musical score is nothing short of annoying, and the movie succumbs to the gushy melodrama characteristic of the time in which it was made. But despite its flaws, CROMWELL delivers a satisfying story about a turbulent time in English history.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cromwell: Good film about an evil butcher, Nov. 22 2002
I'm Irish. Cromwell was the Butcher of Ireland. This is a well made film, but its near-total disregard of Cromwell's genocidal Irish campaign, (and of the heroic opposition to that butchery by elements of his New Model Army, Levellers and Diggers among them), renders the film a profound disappointment. Shame on Richard Harris (RIP) for not insisisting that the Rape of Ireland be at least prominently mentioned in this biopic.In songwriter Terry Woods' words, "A curse upon you, Oliver Cromwell, you who raped our Motherland! I hope you're rotting down in the hell for the horrors that you sent to our misfortunate forefathers when you robbed them of their land. To Hell or Connacht! May you burn in hell tonight!"...
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is historical accuracy important?, Juil 16 2001
I read with great interest the comments of the Reverend RP Mortimer with regards to this film, and his review brings up one crucial issue concerning historical films or at least those depicting historical figures: is true historical accuracy important? Anyone who has seen "The Thin Red Line" or "Apocalypse Now" or "Schindlers' List" or the Channel Four film "Welcome to Sarejevo" will surely accept, as I do, that minute detail can be compromised so long as the general picture is a sound one. Thus the above films successfully convey the, undoubtedly truthful, impression that "war is hell". However, one must at this point make a distinction between films such as this, which are polemical, rather than pertaining to minute historical accuracy. Reverend Mortimer clearly accepts that "Cromwell" falls into this category; however, I have two problems with this. Firstly, and less seriously, I am not convinced that this is the case: there does not seem to be an obvious point to the picture apart from as some sort of history lesson and if this is the case then accuracy is surely crucial.My second reservation, though, is far more serious. The films I mentioned earlier make abstract and indesputable points; "Cromwell" if Rev. Mortimer's view of the point of the film is to be accepted - and I believe it is a largely useful interpretation - is making a series of more specific points of history, and it is here where the problems exist. Let us examine a few. Rev. Mortimer suggests that Cromwell was in a one man pursuit of "justice and truth". Yes, as far as he was concerned he was attempting to spread what he saw as the word of God. So much so that he saw his fortunes at war (the Battle of Worcester was famously "God's crowning mercy") as denoting God's approval or dissaproval of his political/religious policy: the expedition to the West Indies ended in disaster so he had to rejig the constitution having fallen from God's favour. However, this aim, by definition, precluded him from laying the foundations of "true democracy". Mortimer laments the failure of the Cromwellian system of government to stand the test of time but I wonder how many Englishmen today would approve of a government that did not tolerate atheism, Catholicism, even what became Anglicanism; that places spies in the major towns to expose anti-governmental sentiment; that closed the theatres, many alehouses and cancelled Christmas; that put entire Irish communities to the sword largely due to their religion; that kept a severely restricted franchise no wider than it was under Charles I; and that executed the leaders of true democratic movements such as the Levellers. Admittedly it is not fair to judge Cromwell by the standards of today; but the founding father of democracy? Surely not. Possibly the great problem of the film is to blur the two contrasting periods of the Civil War, on which the film concentrates, where Cromwell only became a significant player towards the end; and the so-called "interregnum" where he ruled England, and maybe most significantly, Britain, as a virtual King. The former was the period where true politcal and religious innovation took place; the latter was, in effect, a period of reaction with much greater absolutism than under the ill-fated Charles, who had no standing army while Cromwell had 80,000 men. The fact is, and the film fails miserably to convey this (hoodwinking, it seems, some of its viewers) that like Napoleon Bonaparte, Oliver Cromwell turned his back on the revolution that created him. I would finally like to take brief issue with some of Reverend Mortimer's lamentations with regard to our society and that of Cromwell's. Firstly he opines that "modern man cannot stand 'Puritan' principles and Godliness" (he uses Godliness in its Cromwellian sense, meaning Puritanism). While this is true it is also the case that the vast majority of Cromwell's contempories could not stomach them either. Puritans were no more than a vocal minority during the mid Stuart crisis and while this does not make them insignificant it does make them unpopular: one only has to read some of the spate of anti-Puritan literature during the Restoration period to see this. One could also suggest that the spirit of Puritanism lives on in such modern-day practices as buying organic foods or "ethical investment" but that is another story. The second issue I have is that Mortimer talks of a people's loyalty to the "nation" which does not exist today. I wonder what Cromwell's perception of a "nation" would have beem; it would certainly be nothing like that we have today, traditionally seen as growing after the French Revolution and maybe even much later. Most people in the mid seventeenth century were not loyal to any "nation" but to what they called their "country", ie: in todays parlance their county or region - hence the fact that during the wars more people took up arms to defend their county's neutrality than did to fight for either side. These points render the "polemical" and general points of the film largely invalid and therefore spurious. This, despite what one thinks of the question of minute accuracy, makes the film poor history and a misrepresentation of the truth.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Les clients qui ont vu cet article ont aussi vu
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Accueil Amazon
