Darkest Hour

silverharp

this is out in Jan, another Churchill movie but set in the early part of the war, looks good and better than the other one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtJ60u7SUSw

horse7

Saw it today, I don't know why they are raving about it. The acting is excellent, but it's even more booring than Dunkirk.

Avatar MIA

horse7 wrote: »

Saw it today, I don't know why they are raving about it. The acting is excellent, but it's even more booring than Dunkirk.

Can't even agree on the acting. I thought it was terrible, it seemed like Oldman didn't even try with the accent. It was mostly just his accent with a bit of a mumble for the famous lines. Very off putting.

They had their work cut off for them, as everything has been told and retold numerous times. Their was one exception and that was

how close they came to continuing to appease Hitler. It could all have been very different, but not sure if that was artistic licence to build drama. As they did for emphasising the importance of the "little boats" going to Dunkirk.

Telecaster58

As a film, it wasn't great. However, Oldman's performance was excellent. It sort of reminded me of the other biopic of a British PM, The Iron Lady. That wasn't a great film but was saved by another virtuoso performance from Meryl Streep.

NIMAN

So looks like its going to be another example of hype and marketing over actual substance?

Never seen a film pushed as much as this one in the last month. Was expecting to hear great things about it.

den87

Both the film and Oldmans performance are highly overrated,Oldman isn’t even the best actor in it in my opinion. Mendelsohn does a fantastic job as King George and Stephen Dillane is great as Viscount Halifax. 3/5

El Duda

Darkest Hour - 6.75/10

A really engaging slice of politically fueled drama which, for the most part, manages to balance out the humour with the more serious stuff. On paper this sounds like it could be a dull, dialogue heavy film that will bore a large majority of its audience but Joe Wright has managed to keep things interesting throughout.

Gary Oldman is superb but it is not a flawless role. At times, the make-up looks a bit off, possibly the fault of the lighting. There is an excruciatingly bad scene on the London underground which almost made me cringe my way out of the cinema. The highlights of his performance are when we get to see Churchill dictate and perform his great speeches.

The film would work really well as a companion piece to Dunkirk as it focuses mainly on the flip side to Nolan's epic. We get to see everything that happened back home that lead up to the evacuation/Operation Dynamo.

It doesn't shy away from showing the bad sides of Churchill and touches on the war mongering side of his personality. It isn't afraid to show his flaws, vices, stubbornness and arrogance and in doing so avoids falling into the trap of being jingoistic revisionist nonsense.

At times the supporting cast can be a bit hammy/chewy but overall it is a really good dramatisation of Winston Churchill that maintains its focus and tells its story well.

Walter Bishop

That entirely made-up scene

on the Tube near the end, where all the common folk, including the token black guy and six year old kid, try to get Churchill to cop on and not negotiate with Hitler

was absolutely excruciating, and dragged down an already not-great film. A serious disappointment.

spurious

Walter Bishop wrote: »

That entirely made-up scene

on the Tube near the end, where all the common folk, including the token black guy and six year old kid, try to get Churchill to cop on and not negotiate with Hitler

was absolutely excruciating, and dragged down an already not-great film. A serious disappointment.

This. What nonsense in a film selling itself as dealing with a pivotal point in history.

They even threw in a Paddy - good old Agnes Dillon and the way she might look at ye.

Comical.

silverharp

I'll not go to it then, seems like a wasted opportunity of a movie as it should be a great story

Avatar MIA

spurious wrote: »

They even threw in a Paddy - good old Agnes Dillon and the way she might look at ye.

Comical.

Except, I think, when he was recalling the names for inspiration. He left out the paddy I think, knew he never liked us

Optimalprimerib

Rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb. The extras were very off putting and badly managed. They couldn't hide their excitement of being in a movie.

El Duda

The scene on the tube reminded me of this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPALRwCSv6U

"You're not gonna surrender... are ya Mr Churchill?"

Addle

Churchill seemed quite spritely for a portly man?

silverharp

silverharp wrote: »

I'll not go to it then, seems like a wasted opportunity of a movie as it should be a great story

Its an excellent film in my view, its getting unfairly pilloried here really. I would go see it with an open mind.

Avatar MIA

Addle wrote: »

Churchill seemed quite spritely for a portly man?

Yeah, he was cavourting like a 59 year old man at times :pac:

Agricola

Saw it last night. Enjoyed it. Oldman does Churchill the man with a hint of Churchill the dog. Far better than Brian Cox I thought, who just did Brian Cox. Oldman really gets the weird squeakiness, the lisp and the looooong drawl when making speeches.

sporina

Was dubious about Darkest Hour but was well impressed (i am not no history buff - not even close).. but was v well done in every way.. especially the way you could see that Churchill was totally out of kilter when he said that he would go into partial negotiations with Hitler (Mussolini) et al.; he was so ill at ease with it - it did not sit well with him at all.. v well done.. you could feel it..

I loved Phantom thread but one could not give DDL the Oscar over GO for best actor in a leading role.. the movie and him acting was just too big (if you know what i mean)

TerrorFirmer

So I finally got around to seeing this and I was very disappointed. Oldman is quite good as Churchill but outside a few key scenes, the whole thing is unbelievably hammy and feels completely detatched from reality - the experience is more like a play than a film.

Some shockingly bad dialogue throughout and that scene on the underground was absolutely cringe-inducing.

Maybe I expected too much given the warm critical response and oscar winning performance....but I'd really consider it a 5 or 6 out of 10.

robbe

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

So I finally got around to seeing this and I was very disappointed. Oldman is quite good as Churchill but outside a few key scenes, the whole thing is unbelievably hammy and feels completely detatched from reality - the experience is more like a play than a film.

Some shockingly bad dialogue throughout and that scene on the underground was absolutely cringe-inducing.

Maybe I expected too much given the warm critical response and oscar winning performance....but I'd really consider it a 5 or 6 out of 10.

That was my experience as well....I did like someone somwhere (may have been here) who likened Oldman's performance to an impression of Zippy from Rainbow (not a reference everyone will get but made sense to me)...