Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
A Review Of Cromwell (1970), Part 1
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 дек 2017
- Part 2: • A Review of: Cromwell ...
My apologies for the audio issues, particularly with my microphone.
Just noticed a few errors (I'll update this if people notice more):
- I misspelled 'intensifies'
- Misspelled 'Tracks' in the end credits.
Main Sources:
Clarendon’s ‘History of the Rebellion’:
- (Royalist numbers at Naseby) p.589: Royalist foot 2500, right horse- 2000, left horse- 1600. Reserves- King’s Lifeguard of Foote- 800, Rupert’s Foote- 800, King’s L.G. of Horse- 500, 2100 total. Army total: 8200. Had been depleted by the Siege of Leicester, did not wait for reinforcements from Wales and attempted to rush back to Oxford.
- (the attack of the Royalist infantry) p.590: “the King’s foot, according to their usual custom, falling in with their swords and butt-ends of their muskets.”
- (The King’s retreat at Naseby) “The King, as was said before, was even upon the point of charging the enemy, at the head of his guards, when the earl of Carnewarth, who rode next to him (a man never suspected for infidelity, nor one from whom the king would have received counsel in such a case), laid his hand on the bridle of the king’s horse, and swearing two or three full mouthed Scottish oaths, (for of that nation he was,) said, “Will you go upon your death in an instant?” and, before his majesty understood what he would have, turned his horse round; upon which a word run through troops, “that they should march to the right hand;” which was both from charging the enemy, or assisting their own men. And upon this they all turned their horses, and rode upon the spur, as if they were every man to shift for himself.”
Can’t find the quote he gave about the raising of the standard and it subsequently falling over, here are a few links discussing it:
www.nottshistory.org.uk/articl...
www.explore-parliament.net/nss...
Cavaliers, the Royalist Army at War, 1642-1646, John Barratt
- p.83: In relation to Bristol as an important weapons hub Bristol had at least six gunsmiths, it was also a major arms centre for the Royalist cause, pledging 15,000 muskets and 5,000 pikes to the Kings army by 1645. Can’t find the percentage figure but I am sure it was been repeated in ‘The English Civil War’ (2001) documentary.
‘Cavalier Generals’, John Barratt
- p.55: (Sir Edward Walker, the King’s Secretary, on the attack of the Royalist infantry) “… falling in with Sword and butt-end of Musket did notable Execution; so much as I saw their Colours fall, and their foot in great disorder.”
The letters, speeches and Proclamations of King Charles I, ed. by Sir C. Petrie, London
- p.152 (Letter to the Marquess of Ormonde, Oxford, February 27th, 1645): In relation to why more moderate MP’s came over to his side: ‘‘the English rebels… aim is a total subversion of religion and regal power.”
- This book also contains the speech he gave at his trial and the speech at his execution.
Baccus’ (Peter Barry’s) pdf on English Civil War Uniforms
- www.baccus6mm.com/_paintinggu...
E.C.W Flags and Colours, Stuart Peachey and Les Prince
- www.caliverbooks.com/bookview...
I cannot recommend Caliver Books enough, this particular volume is invaluable when it comes to the flags carried during the English Civil War.
Full text of the Grand Remonstrance
www.constitution.org/eng/conpu...
archive.org/details/remonstra...
The King’s response to the Remonstrance
www.constitution.org/eng/conpu...
The British Civil Wars Project
bcw-project.org/
- this is a really great site if you want to learn more about the conflict.
Video/music Sources:
- Cromwell (1970): www.amazon.co.uk/Cromwell-DVD...
- The Spanish Flea: • Spanish Flea - Herb Al...
- Prince Rupert’s March: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00280VLA...
- Cromwell Soundtrack: www.amazon.co.uk/Cromwell-Fra... (the price has really increased since I bought it a few years back sadly)
- Battlefield Britain (2004): www.amazon.co.uk/Battlefield-...
- Cromwell trailer (1970): • Cromwell (1970) Origin...
I would also recommend the late Richard Holmes’ series “War Walks” with its excellent documentary on the Battle of Naseby.
Guinness portrayal in this movie made it impossible to hate king Charles. It just left me feeling sorry for him
Yeah I feel you. The film seems to be leading you to believe you should hate King Charles. But Alec Guinness plays him in a sorta sympathetic way, I don't know whether that was intentional or not. They could have had an actor play king Charles as monstrous and irredeemable, but instead Alec portrays a more human side to the king. even though he's ultimately supposed to be bad, he's still human. Which I appreciate that touch.
Guinness had a habit of being the best thing about any film he was in.
Old habits die hard. If at all.
I love Alec in these movies, but damn if Richard Harris doesn't chew the scenery and over-act everything. I just can't stomach his performance in this.
I'm a natural cavalier (it's the romantic in me)
I watch anything Sir Guinness is in. He's always brilliant.
It’s Sir Alec NOT Sir Guinness.
I just watched this movie and it’s an excellent movie there was never a dull moment. Granted it might not be historically accurate but it got me interested in a war I never knew about.
Lol that movie turned me as an anti dictatorship atheist into a huge cromwell fan lol
Richard Harris is CRAZY great in this. This is top-level acting.
he's brilliant and so is his son.
After seeing this I read about him. Had no idea he played Marcus Aurelius in gladiator. And a bunch of other great roles. Super interesting guy.
Saw the movie in 1990 in my historical film phase and was mesmerized by Harris' performance. The actor portrayed the ability of leadership and oratory that would persuade the population to leave farms and fight for a cause, in my opinion. He should have won all the awards.
You are correct, Alec Guinness portrayal of a tyrant as a sympathetic, even likable antagonist is great.
My sixth grade class was taken to see this movie when it premiered. I had never heard of Cromwell. I loved the movie & have loved history ever since. Incidentally, that was the only time I was taken to a theater during school hours.
I feel it’s movies like this that caused me to have a love for history while it is a tragic history you can’t say it’s not entertaining
@@AndreNitroX Most of human history is tragic. If people weren't being
killed by armies, they were starving. Some people talk about how bad things
are today but don't realize that they're living in a golden era. This to me is one
of the main advantages of knowing history. It informs people that things could be a whole lot worse.
@@robertsansone1680 Agreed, does anyone know how much disease there was in the past, and how many people were killed by that alone, that's why im not ungrateful to have been born in this era, as lame as it is in 2020, atleast i wont be dying from the plague or a sword stab through my chest.
Sometimes niggling, but fascinating and appreciated. Most of these 'cheats' did serve to help the drama, which is important to me. Given what they now do with historical films, I loved this one. And I'm glad you recommended it in the end. Thank you.
I live near the Fens. If you want to have an idea of what people and life was like there in 1640, just drive there now!
To try to cram 20 years of very turbulent English history into a film less than two hours long was always going to be an impossible task. The best that can be said about this film is that it does capture the basic issues and does at least look the part. However, as an aid to anyone studying the history of that period, the film is riddled with far too many errors to be of any real value. A few more things you did not mention: Fairfax and Essex would have also sat in the House of Lords; Archbishop Laud appears to 'officiate' just before the battle of Edgehill, whereas he had been imprisoned by Parliament; Prince Rupert's dog Boye appears to have come back from the dead at Naseby, since it had been killed by the Parliamentarians at the battle of Marston Moor (after the battle, it was found lying dead, on its back with its legs in the air). What I most hate about this film is that it never mentions the enormous importance of the assistance given by the Scots, without whom Parliament would probably not have won the war.
Thomas Fairfax didn't become Fairfax of Cameron until 1647 and even then, since it was a Scottish title he may not have sat in the Lords - but he wasn't an MP, of course, hence his suitability for command of the New Model. Manchester is also shown sitting in the Commons which was ineligible to do.
I am from Nottingham where the kings standard was raised and a dedicated follower of Cromwell and the English civil war .Even though the film had many factual points I really appreciate the fact that you have pointed out the inconsistencies of the real facts in the film .well done .
Thanks, of course this is quite an old video of mine now (what was it, 2017 I made this?) so I've learned a lot since then!
@@The_Laughing_Cavalier I knew of all the facts that you pointed out but was happy that someone wanted to set the facts right . My son was born in 1970 and on my way back from the hospital I saw the film and decided to take a look . I was hooked and felt ignorant of my own cities history . My son died in 2022 and every time I see the film it reminds me that he was the one responsible for my interest in Cromwell . I even was a member of the ECWS and even took part in many reenactments . I live in Austria now but on Friday I move to the Philipines . I just shipped over my belongings which include 3 original civil war Helmets and back and breast plate and metal gauntlet. In the film Cromwell said .Oh Lord up thou knowest how busy I be this day . If I forget thee do not thou forget me . That actual saying is attributed to Sir Jacob Astley . Keep up the good work .
You know that a movie's battle scene are historically inaccurate when Cavalier compares it unfavorably to Braveheart...twice.
What's wrong with the machine guns?
@@bobs_toys you mean the B-2s and F-18s?
@@musicloverandclassicalmusi698 All standard medieval equipment in Scotland.
It can't be overemphasised just how much the Scottish overcame when the English were attacking them. They were true supermen.
What a superb channel. I went to see this film when it came out partly to see my neighbour, the fine actor Nigel Stock ( 'Sir' Edward Hyde ) who had portrayed the best ever Dr. Watson on TV. Liked and subbed.
Thanks! Sadly, I have fallen behind a bit with the main reviews although I do intend to get the Waterloo one done soon.
Yes, he was a great Watson, although if my memory serves me right, a fair few of the episodes of that series got lost.
I always remember the absurd scene with the Puritan assault course training for the New Model Army. Men dressed as the Quaker Oats man doing the Krypton Factor.
Someone should do an edit of that scene with the Rocky theme over it!
That shit was based as hell, pure cinema
The New Model army was created in 1644-45, not long before Naseby.
Excellent review! Harris & Guinness should be a aged single malt - classic actors.
Ironically Richard Harris who played Cromwell was Irish Catholic.
Well, part 2 is done but has been claimed by Sony. I have filed a dispute, they were pretty quick to lift the strike on part 1 though so hopefully it should be alright. Here is the link for it if/when it is all resolved:
ruclips.net/video/a59t9gETMP4/видео.html
Masterful performance by Richard Harris, watched the film again last night, exceptional.
Funny how in the early 21st century people often complain of characters cast with actors of different ethnicities, while here we have a literal Irish Catholic alcohol hellraiser playing an English Puritans who has done... some not so nice things to the Irish.
Richard Harris nailed it though.
Cromwell was actually Irish decent. I think it's more based on race, swapping and gender swapping. Imagine a movie where instead of Cromwell being played by an Irishman which once again Cromwell was of Irish decent himself. Imagine a movie of him being played by a 75-year-old Malaysian woman with down syndrome. It's not just a matter of race either. I have problems with trying to watch a 50-year-old Joaquin Phoenix play a 20-year-old Napoleon Bonaparte
One of my favourite movies and I enjoyed your breakdown of it.
As cinema, the film is entertaining. As history, it misses the mark. Just like most historical dramas
I wonder how Richard Harris felt about throwing the Crucifix being a devout Catholic in real life.I really enjoyewd this movie and even saw it in the theatre.
Well he is an actor with a role to play but yeah that'd make me uncomfortable being a practicing Catholic myself.
@@brianboru2762 Roman Catholic myself, bothersome to me as well, and a few other scenes as +w ell.
If anything he may have had to make an effort not to overdo it, to not let his personal feelings drive him to making Cromwell seem unhinged and therefore wholly unsympathetic, rather than merely zealous.
his feelings had nothing to do with it. he had a job to do which is to portray a guy who did that. so he did his job. magnificently.
That scene had me bursting out in laughter the first time I saw it.
*The only time when Obi Wan Kenobi and Albus Dumbledore faced off each other*
A great historical movie with dramatic intensity. Much more faithful than most. Great analysis.
I dont recall my expectations but you exceeded them good sir. I regret not finding you sooner
Excellent work, I found this fascinating and also quite a revelation at times- I had no idea that Cromwell was actually quite a minor figure until late in the war. Looking forward to Part 2.
Many thanks! Yeah he only started out as a captain and was made Colonel in 1643, I believe by the end of that year he was a Lieutenant General in command of the Cavalry of the Eastern Association. It was Marston Moor (which we don't see in the film) that really put him on the map as did Naseby.
I uploaded part 2 almost a month ago but am still fighting off a copyright claim on it. Hopefully should be back up in a few days fingers crossed.
Good luck, I hope to see it. You have inspired me to read more about the English Civil War, I have just started reading 'Cavaliers & Roundheads' by Christopher Hibbert.
Excellent, Stuart Reid's books are quite good as well, particularly 'All the King's Armies' (which I am currently reading for a video I am doing on the Battle of Lostwithiel). Caliver Books is probably one of the best places to get English Civil War related books.
I failed to mention in my first comment, the Herb Albert music was very well timed & that's another thing I got interested in around then.
A very enjoyable movie.
Fun fact: Sir Guiness didn't have flattering things to say about Timothy Dalton's acting ability.
At least Prince Rupert was a decent commander in the real life.
Sir Alec.
Strange since Dalton comes across very much as Rupert was written to seem like -- a flamboyant, excitable dilettantish cavalier at first, then a man physically and emotionally wounded and defeated.
@@IrishCarney
A dilettante? Rupert had been a professional soldier since he was 14- by the time of the Civil Wars, he was barely into his 20’s...
8:44 I LOVE Dame Dorothy Tutin, with that heart-shaped face, deep brown eyes and husky voice! She also played Anne Boleyn in the BBC's series “The Six Wives of Henry VIII” (1970).
The soundtrack complements Richard Harris's epic talent for chewing scenery. It might not have been his personal choice, but he went from being an angry young man to an angry old man. He plays an angry thoroughly English anti-papist here and gets to play a angry thoroughly Irish dude later. I think they only two movies where he didn't chew the scenery so much were Patriot Games and Harry Potter. Darn shame he didn't show up in Richard the third and Pulp Fiction, or better yet, Quentin Tarantino's Richard the Third.
Richard the Third: "I'll make good upon thy body, traitor!!! I am the LORD!!!" (gunshots)
As for Alec Guinness, he goes on to play the most genial, stiff-upper-lip Adolph Hitler you never met.
The most amazing thing is that Harris was a staunch Irish Republican and Cromwell is about as far removed from a national hero as can be in Ireland ...
30:16 I think that part of the reason that they borked up the New Model Army's uniforms may have been because the Royalist soldiers in the film are dressed akin to the Yeomen of the Guard (the bright red with yellow and black bands especially give me that impression, though the uniforms seem to have been updated to match Stuart period fashion) and I guess the filmmakers didn't want two armies of red men attacking each other because it might get confusing for the audience. Don't know why they didn't give the Royalists some other colour for the uniforms though, or even just different colour sashes to denote factions.
Funnily enough, I've actually seen quite a few paintings of the New Model Army that were made after this movie came out that depicted them with the odd black and yellow uniforms, so let it never be said that historical films don't have an influence on how we view the periods they represent.
I read somewhere that they filmed the battle scenes in Spain and reused a load of costumes and armour from a Spanish film set in the 17th Century which may be why they are so inaccurate (although like you say they are sort of based off of the Yeoman of the Guard). Still, they could have had the Royalists in Blue or something since that was a fairly common colour (Rupert's foot for example).
I was about to say what about blue? Isnt that the color of the regiments of the english crown? Well at least according to brandon f in his video about 18th century artillery
Not sure IF this was reason for Itetons no beard, BUT, Mr. Jayston played the part of Tsar Nicholas II in a movie that came out in 1971, Nicholas had a beard and mustache and could have confused movie goers.
Hmm, I am not sure if that was the reason since this film was the year before and Ireton had long hair as well as a beard so would look different to the Tsar. I personally think it was because they wanted to make him look more like a stereotypical puritan but then unless somebody involved with the film says, I have no idea.
@@The_Laughing_Cavalier ...Yes Sir, I think your probably right, makes more sense.
Great actors, and a really good film.👍
Always remember films want Drama and sensationalism and the Good vs Evil plot if they showed Naseby as real then the Murder of 100 woman wouldn't look very sympathetic for the Good side. It should be law any movie about History has to be 95% real.
I'm a little shocked I always thought older movies did more research with historical movies.
I'd like to point out how the movie makes a strong distinction between Richard Harris's hot-blooded Cromwell and Alec Guinness's soft-spoken Charles I.
Loved the *puritanism intensifies* there lol, made me laugh out loud (speaking of which please don't come back from the dead and kill me Cromwell, I want to live)
I think you're safe from Cromwell given how the royalists dug up his corpse, hung it in chains, beheaded it, and displayed his head on a spike for over 20 years.
Fantastic video really well done, thank you.
No problem, my next review is of the 1958 film 'A Night to Remember' although, sadly, ITV have copyright striked it at the moment so I am currently appealing that. At some point I'll come back and do a part 2 covering the rest of 'Cromwell'.
I think Cromwell greatest legacy was the creation of a profesional standing army
Sad that the UK abandoned using militias. Citizen soldiers is a time honored tradition that everyone young and old can partake in.
Wasn't Cromwell's creation. Fairfax deserves the credit.
@@rc59191 We have the territorial army
@@Mitch93 ya but you still have to pass their medical requirements it's not like our Militia or Air Force Auxiliary where you can join no matter your age or health.
@@rc59191 You had to do similar back then
“Has it ever struck you that life is all memory, except for the one present moment that goes by you so quick you hardly catch it going?” ―Tennessee Williams.
Can’t wait for part 2 to go back up
I'm a bit late to the party here but this was a great watch. Glad I found this page
Sir Alec Guinness and Dame Dorothy Tutin are everything in this film. The only reason I watch this film is for the scenes of King Charles I and Queen Henrietta Maria (as film/TV portrayals of them are very few and far between).
I think my more succinct review might simply be "Well, there WAS a Civil War and his Christian name WAS Oliver..."
"Who has done this"...well he just qualified as Klingon Chancellor with that line 😎
the irony is cromwell was a member of the Landed gentry, so he would proabbly not really cared too
much about a few peasents being kick of their land.
I have finally got round to recording part 2 of the review although it will be a few weeks away yet since I have to edit everything. In the meantime please check out my latest video looking at the 1970 TV series 'The Six Wives of Henry VIII':
ruclips.net/video/exS8FNJIDhc/видео.html
Currently having to fight off a copyright claim at the minute on it though (gotta love the automated copyright system...), hopefully it will stay up. I might also release a few history videos before part 2 of Cromwell since they are a bit quicker to do. Thanks for all the views on this video and for all the new subscribers.
I find it funny this is your first video cause I always considered this like the video on your channel mostly just cause this is very clearly a topic you know a lot about
Another quick update. I am nearly there with part 2 although I now have an issue in that the BBC have upheld a strike against my Six Wives of Henry VIII video (five days before it was due to expire!). I am appealing it although if they reject this one then I may well end up with a strike on my channel. I am going to risk uploading part 2 of Cromwell in a week or two and hope that that doesn't get striked as well.
BBC government funded bullies
The only movie review that Cavalier has managed to finish!
Correction: I have done 'A Night to Remember' in one review as well! I am currently editing three long videos (each is approaching 1 hour long- they are 'Titanic Drama Rant Part 1', 'Tudor Drama Rant. Part 3' and Part 2 of the Waterloo review) which you should start seeing in April.
@@The_Laughing_Cavalier Ah, sorry. I actually though you might've been angry about that statement. I'm glad you weren't.
No worries, I know it is annoying for my subscribers to see such large gaps between videos so I don't blame people for questioning when the next videos are coming out.
@@The_Laughing_Cavalier Ah alright.
Rupert grew up mostly in Holland , in exile.
impeccable review. subscribed
17:02 I think they might have left the war in Ireland being a major cause of the English civil war out due to the period the film was released in. This was the middle of the Troubles, so they might not have wanted to fuel the fire with a part about Irish atrocities against protestants
Thank you for your interesting commentary...
Well the Six Wives review is back up (thank you BBC for wasting time by upholding the first strike and making me lose a months worth of views on that). Still waiting for the strike to be lifted on part 2 of Cromwell, if Sony fail to reply then it should be lifted on the 16th.
Yes. That wonderful film score by dear old Frank. He was heavily underrated as a motion picture film composer. And it's even more shameful to think that Cordell's score was panned by the film critics of the time. Listen to the wonderful score from the film Khartoum, directed by Basil Dearden. Given the chance, Frank could've given John Williams a run for his money.
I have complained for years about the wretched scores of classic Hollywood, really the entire pre John Williams era. There's no excuse for the tinny, shrill, sometimes silly music in these movies, which often undermine the seriousness, suspense, and drama, especially of action and battle scenes. It's one thing to not have today's special effects, but they could easily have had music of John Williams quality. With magnificent and emotionally affecting examples such as Wagner and Beethoven, they had plenty of good examples and inspirations. Cordell is one of the few exceptions of a generations-long wasteland. Disney movies were usually an exception as well. I just can't understand why the music was so bad.
23:41 No, I'm actually doing my utmost best to forget about Braveheart...
I legitimately thought the scene of Cromwell leading his dead sons horse into the night was the end of the movie when I watched
It's a shame we can't see the full movie
Class love it thank you
So basically the movie axed fairfax and replaced him with cromwell
The exaggerations of cromwell's role is quite rediculous. They literally make him out to be the central figure of the entire war. Although I would say this is quite common in any historical drama about a single individual.. The film is named Cromwell after all, but I can see why this movie has bad reviews. Cromwell is an extremely divisive figure, and they paint him as some sort of epic super-hero.. The part where he stands up in Parliament to chastise the king is comical.
in the 1st 30 seconds im like "look at the costumes. oh man i gotta watch this movie" lol
The artillery at Edgehill looks more like siege pieces than field pieces!
What do you reckon to Brownlow and Mollos Winstanley, I thought it was pretty good back in the day, got me started off with a fascination for the period and it's politics and religious disputes.
Great review! Imagine an ugly spud like Cromwell finding out he was to be portrayed by the beautiful Richard Harris. He might have kept the theaters open!
He might have closed them quicker! When he was having his official portrait made, he informed the artist that he was to get every blemish and ugly detail, and if he was to idealize Cromwell's image, he wouldn't be paid. The man had many flaws, but vanity was not one of them.
At long last they have released the claim on part 2 ( a few days earlier than the 16th thankfully):
ruclips.net/video/a59t9gETMP4/видео.html
I can't believe I haven't seen this movie..
Exploding cannonballs (!)
Guinness, Stock and Jayston later starred together in the BBC's brilliant Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy.
8:52 Ah, good to see Patrick Wymark, who for me will always be the shifty Colonel Turner from “Where Eagles Dare” (1968).
I know that film has a load of inconsistencies (a couple of operatives managing to gun down 100's of Germans, "General Carnaby" getting shot down on his way have a meeting with the Russians in what should be German occupied Crete, the SS suddenly being really incompetent at fighting in their own castle against Clint Eastwood etc.) but it is a great film!
@@The_Laughing_Cavalier Yes, “Where Eagles Dare” can be called “James Bond goes to WWII.” It’s a great film with no relation to history. The German soldiers in that film are as competent as the Keystone Cops, firing thousands of rounds of ammo, yet the only flesh they could hit was Richard Burton’s hand (“Damn! Blast!”). And that SADISTIC fight on top of the cable car, which has the viewers feeling sorry for the bad guys! Still, a film not to be missed.
I almost forgot: Patrick Wymark had his turn to portray Cromwell in “Witchfinder General,” AKA
“Matthew Hopkins: Witchfinder General” (1968).
@@d.s.archer5903 he would be better than harris as Cromwell.
One minor thing - the Scots signed the National Covenant in 1638, not the Solemn League and Covenant. The Solemn League and Covenant is their 1643 agreement with the Parliamentarians committing Scotland to send a second army south of the border in exchange for a pan-British Presbyterian settlement.
Another teensie tiny thing is that while you mention the Treaty of Ripon, and fair play to you the film completely forgets England has already sued for peace with Covenanter Scotland, you don't mention its clauses. Vast sums of money were to be paid to the Scots to maintain their occupying army, and Newcastle was to be surrendered to Lord Leven's army until the full treaty amount was exacted. A complete and utter embarrassment for the King, he accepted almost all of Scotland's demands and further infuriated Parliament at his weakness.
Solid review though 👌
I'm God's strongest Stuart hater, but I appreciate your factual coverage in this review.
Watched “Becket, Cromwell and Waterloo” over the week. There are amazing films. All 3 movies shed light on the deep mental state of men fighting against their conscience. I also notice there was some level of Machiavellianism in their characters. It looked those were the trouble times for common people and the their lack of awareness of politics surrounding them and its impact on their lives. The set designs are marvellous and the acting were superb. We don’t see such movies anymore.
superb review of an epic, British film : the photography is beautiful
Brilliant.
Also i just realised: why does Rupert not wear armor? He's like the second or third most important guy in the royalist army
Watched Cromwell this eve for the first time since a rainy day when it was on tv when I was a kid. It’s flawed on many levels but Harris and Guinness make it engaging but as history and as a portrayal of Cromwell it’s all rather silly.
Best historical event ever there has to be a new movie about it
why would you need more movies? its quite good, and Napoleon prooved that modern movies tend to not be good
Just watch this movie on RUclips I thought it was a pretty good film but I was curious about some historical details found this analysis pretty interesting. Overall though it's fair to say it was heavily biased in favor of Cromwell. I'm interested in finding out more about potentially nefarious actors that were funding him and his New model army
The film does well enough as a historical (courtroom) drama, but it really fails to give the viewer a good sense of how much time has passed.
Part 2 please
Probably will be a few months away yet I am afraid. I have a few other videos on the way though in the meantime, mainly looking at the Tudors this time, so keep an eye out for them.
The Laughing Cavalier that sounds super interesting, I’ll look forward to it.
Well huzzah to you, old chap!
Decided to watch the moviebefore watching your review and I'm glad I did. I was Blown away by this movie and time period that I confess had little knowledge of.
I'm from North Carolina by the way.
That bit about the parliamentarians dressing like bumblebee made me nearly choke on my drink 😂😂😂
ruclips.net/video/IACDcwUKpRc/видео.html Just a slight correction as I am reading on the subject right now. The Scottish created the National Covenant in 1638, those who signed were the Scottish Covenanters and it was their army at the border being discussed at this stage of the film. The Solemn League and Covenant is an agreement between the Scottish Covenanters and the leaders of the English Parliamentarians a little later in 1643 which allied the Scottish Covenanters and English Parliamentarians together against Charles 1
Ah, must have miswrote that in my script back in the day. I was always more military minded so got muddled up with their alliance in the middle of the war.
Where's part 2, very good
Thanks, will be a while before part 2 I am afraid. Got a few more reviews in the works in the meantime.
Mind me asking, whats your back ground, did you study English 1600s politics somewhere?
I did a module on the English Civil War at University and then I helped do some research for an ECW mod for a game, which then led me to do this review and then, after that, it just sort of took off and nearly 6,000 subs later, here I am.
I give up. Who is the man portrayed in the period portrait shown at 0:17 (and at every scene transition)? I'm guessing the artist was Anthony van Dyck.
I read there is some controversy about this. Its most likely Richard Neville although in some instances it is said its actually Sir Charles Lucas. It was painted by William Dobson
Dear Laughing Cavalier, I've been wondering if you'd like to voice a small (somewhat)comic I've been thinking to make so you could set up another video. And secondly, I've been wondering when you'll upload your Waterloo review part 2, more Tudor rants and of course 1000 subs special.
I might have to pass on the comic sadly since I have quite a backlog of things to record, sorry, maybe some other time.
If you see the post I put up on the community tab I talk about it a bit but, basically, it is slowly coming together but taking a bit longer than expected. Other videos will be on the way after that.
Oh well, if you change your mind then let me know. The comic is about your Alter-Ego in his stand against the recent "productions" on Tudor era.
Did you rip the DVD to mp4 format for this video? The footage looks quite clean for DVD version.
I did indeed rip it from the DVD, with Handbrake from what I remember (which I still use along with MakeMKV sometimes).
@@The_Laughing_Cavalier thanks for your response. I have heard that there is a Bluray format of this movie. Have yourself tried watching it ? What’s the quality like? Better or similar to DVD?
@@mygumybear I was not aware of the Blu Ray, no idea how it looks. If I ever get it, I'll be sure to report on it.
@@The_Laughing_Cavalier Thank You.
A lot of stuff here that worked it's way into the US Constitution. Forbidding bills of attainder, and making treason limited and specific so it doesn't get tossed around as an accusation much.
How did you get away with using the film without getting a strike?
I didn't, I initially got copyright claimed back when I uploaded it but countered it under Fair Use and Sony lifted the claim. Since then, I have changed how I edit videos and make sure I use clips no longer than five seconds if I can help it.
@@The_Laughing_Cavalier thank you very much
Someone should do a remake of this movie 🎬 and do it accurately.
New sub
Soooo... part 2? :)
Probably a while before I get round to it I am afraid, currently working on the next film review though which should be out in a few weeks fingers crossed.
The Laughing Cavalier no rush mate, good things come to those who wait 😊
Wasn't it the King who was opposed to enclosure whereas Gentry like Cromwell wanted them because they were in the process of becoming more powerful and trying to usurp the old aristocracy.
I'm not sure, been a while since I studied the causes of the Civil War. It would make sense for the gentry to support enclosure like you say and the whole Robert Kett thing was led by the common folk and not the gentry too much as far as I am aware. I am glad they did mention it in the film though although the Ship money and the Bishops Wars felt a bit condensed and/or missing. Not sure if there are any good books about the economic and social causes of the war out there? I'm more military minded myself as you can see!
@@The_Laughing_Cavalier I'm also more military minded. The 1640s and 1650s are one of my favorite times in history, however, I love Eastern European history, specifically the Great Cossack Revolt. I just remember that I had studied the ECW in High School and as part of that we watched the film during lunch, my teacher paused to remind us of that fact.
Considering Cromwell and many of the men of the Commons were wealthy landowners who were not aristocracy, it makes sense. They wanted to get more land and power over the peasantry. The aristocracy and crown derived their wealth from vast estates, they don't need to enclose public land, because they already own enough. They also probably have a political interest in keeping the peasantry happy and the gentry down.
Seen film read books on this still don't know which side I'd fight on , cromwell did do away with Christmas
33:00 Naseby 14 June 1645. Cromwell led a decisive cavalry charge against the Royalist left wing, then broke up their infantry in a flanking attack. Parliamentary forces killed around 1000 troops and took around 5000 prisoners. The Royalist field army never recovered. Charles surrendered in summer 1646.
17:04 Parliament wanted to name the commander of the English Army to be sent to Ireland, not trusting the King. This was, as correctly stated in the video, a root cause of the breakdown between Parliament and Charles.