Directed by:
Joe WrightScreenplay:
Anthony McCartenCinematography:
Bruno DelbonnelComposer:
Dario MarianelliCast:
Gary Oldman, Kristin Scott Thomas, Ben Mendelsohn, Lily James, Ronald Pickup, Stephen Dillane, Nicholas Jones, Samuel West, David Schofield, Richard Lumsden (more)VOD (1)
Plots(1)
During the early days of World War II, with the fall of France imminent, Britain faces its darkest hour as the threat of invasion looms. As the seemingly unstoppable Nazi forces advance, and with the Allied army cornered on the beaches of Dunkirk, the fate of Western Europe hangs on the leadership of the newly-appointed British Prime Minister Winston Churchill (Gary Oldman). While maneuvering his political rivals, he must confront the ultimate choice: negotiate with Hitler and save the British people at a terrible cost or rally the nation and fight on against incredible odds. (Universal Sony Pictures Home Entertainment)
(more)Videos (3)
Reviews (9)
Winston Churchill is a very controversial figure for me. The film deals with his becoming the Prime Minister at a time when everything seemed to be lost, and it’s true that it was he who managed to galvanize Britain to fight on. However, as the war progressed, his interfering with the decisions concerning war operations often proved counter-productive (Force Z, Mers el-Kebir, trying to open up the front in the Balkans, etc.). Gary Oldman in the role of Churchill was good; I liked John Lithgow in The Crown better, though. I wasn't bored for a single moment, I've always found British politics interesting, especially war politics. Like many other users, I was disappointed by the massive load of political correctness. All that was missing after the tanned young man said the last words of the poem was to casually mention that he was a renowned surgeon and sang opera in his spare time. Oh well...
()
On the one hand, Darkest Hour is primarily a one-actor film, and Gary Oldman proves his mastery here. On the other hand, it's also a film about a time that was very unpleasant, but in which people still lived and wanted to live, and it can even be presented in a funny way. Churchill was a strong personality and deserved a film like this.
()
It was almost palpable to feel my fabled generosity slipping away from me as the running time grew longer. A film in general is meant to be a representation rather than a description, no matter what historical variable it’s working with, so I don't mind the lavish begging for attention and auteur shortcuts. But I have a hard time with auteur extensions, and here they are not tactfully incorporated in any way; on the contrary, they are horrible, kitschily tasteless and easily exposed. Yes, I'm looking at you, you ten-meter braking distance on the tube between Piccadilly and Westminster stop. And you're not alone. It's clearly discernible from the outset that the character of the (of course) young, pretty secretary only exists in the film because the film is otherwise desperately lacking a female character (besides, her real-life counterpart didn't work for Churchill until a year later). The studio itself admitted that the scene in the tube was an offering to contemporary audiences who might not have filled the seats on the grounds that we're really just watching a story of old rich white men changing the world. That may be true, but it wasn’t my idea for you to make a film about 1940s British politics. Besides, the level of cheesiness of these injected scenes is a throwback to the wartime agitations where the crowd chants the hero's point of view in unison, underscored by the steady gaze of a cutely confident kid who will never let the country fall into enemy hands. To keep my pain at bay, the foreign posters have shielded themselves with a lengthy testimonial taken from a Washington Post review that reads: "The movie we need right now. This is the portrait of leadership at its most brilliant, thoughtful and morally courageous." But Churchill is far from a historically unambiguous, universally positive figure. As monumental as his contribution was to the outcome of World War II, many of his other historical moments are highly problematic, whether it be the Boer War, the management of the colonies, or his tendencies towards racism. An uncritical glorification of him as a lovable, stubborn commentator with plenty of human failings but his heart always in the right place is to some extent responsible for the current cult of the swashbuckling ruler with a minimum of empathy but plenty of witty catchphrases up his sleeve, the fruits of which we may have been enjoying here for years.
()
Are convincing sets, a skilled cinematographer, and one awesome actor enough for a thought-provoking historical reconstruction and Oscar fanfare? Not really... Gary Oldman is deservedly polishing his precious bald statue, and I enjoyed his speech a hell of a lot, but this time Joe Wright showed himself to be an uninteresting routine artist who may be able to put pictures together nicely and play an engaging charade with the viewer, but he uses rather inferior gimmicks and shortcuts. As a TV project it would have been great, but as an ambitious star-studded drama it comes off as simplistic, with supporting characters that are as flat as Cara Delevingne's chest, and a narrative that moves mechanically towards its stated goal without trying to add anything enlivening or believably human – and when it does try, it comes off as a major filmmaking and plot dud (the subway). Thanks to Churchill, whose charisma is enough to sell the film, it works well on a motivational level and the story is whole, but Wright is simply not Spielberg, whose Lincoln reaches an incomparably stronger catharsis at the end through a much more thoughtful interweaving of the private and political lines. As something easygoing to watch once, though, it’s more than OK.
()
It is an exemplary Oscar drama. If only the film screened in any different time, but it has to appear at the beginning of January, the typical date for the release of Oscar movies. It doesn’t get more obvious than this. And of course, Gary Oldman is awesome in it. It is even more fascinating if you have seen him in films like Lost in Space, which is over twenty years old, and then you see him play the role of Winston Churchill. Of course, it looked like Churchill was played by Churchill himself. That traditionally stands out over everything else in the movie, which always happens with films like this.
()
Ads