Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Dorathen Better Late Then Never

Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Cheryl A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

rohit_sl Glorifying a mass murderer, bigot & racist. How he is any different from Hitler, Idi Amin or Mugabe. People don't care because he was responsible for deaths of brown & black people.

catchmadhav16 In the era of military operations, evacuation missions and sentiment injected war dramas, we have often failed to realize that another side of a coin that makes a currency whole. Rewinding back to 1940, World War 2, to peril inflicted locations mainly Britain and France, "Darkest Hour" showcases the retelling of the parallels of the Dunkirk evacuation. This movie boasts from a grounded point of view, exploring the very basic human emotions like regret, self-doubt, and courage embedding them all together in a beautiful mixture of political fiascos. Parliament debates, votes, political thrills all stuffed inside the same hat, particularly the hat happens to pertain to Sir Winston Churchill (Gary Oldman).downloadThe film explores Churchill's early controversial days while being surrounded by the close-to-the-chest rivals in his cabinet. There is a constant threat of the Nazis being precariously close to annexing the United Kingdom at the backdrop, leading to a linear increase of the anxiety till the end of the film. The hopelessness of Chamberlain's perspective, the edginess during cabinet meetings and Churchill's eccentricity form the backbone of the movie.The atmosphere of the movie is inculcated in the very first scene, where Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup) is accused of being incapable of leading the parliament. The typical scenario of a house packed political debate replete with grey haired individuals making Klaxons sound futile unfolds smoothly. When Winston Churchill assumes the position of Prime Minister in the very beginning, it's the balance of the modern world resting on his shoulders which he realizes soon enough.When peace seemed to be crucial to be attained at any cost, Churchill's opposite perspective creates a rift among the members and the Prime Minister. His clear struggle to establish a balance between the crisis and the tempting desire to yield to surrender is beautifully depicted adding a human ground to an eccentric roof.When wars are waged, the swords and guns are the ones which are eagerly taken out initially. We fail to acknowledge the presence of words and oration that can truly make a difference sparing the arms and ammunition to a far greater extent. The way diplomacy, when done right can play an important role is slightly highlighted which pinpoints modern-day leaders. The powerful speech cementing their unbreakable faith to protect their Homeland, "We shall fight on the beaches", is a very testament to the finest degrees of oration, and how language can change the course of action. Indeed, "Churchill just mobilized the English language and sent it into battle." Gary Oldman's performance is perhaps one of his lifetimes. Buried under deep prosthetics deeming him unrecognizable, he submerges himself into the grumpy character of Churchill making us live his very experiences. The tantrum throwing man-child, the fierce but emotionally frail carrying the weight of the world was depicted as a fascinating historical figure cementing that history wouldn't have been the same without him. Supporting characters were adjusted here and there, like King George VI(Ben Mendelsohn), downplaying his stammering defect, was a surprising but satisfying casting. Elizabeth (Lily James), the typist girl was depicted as a victim of Churchill's eccentricity and was more of an onlooker to the events around her. Winston's wife, Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) was perhaps the most underused yet useful additions in the script. Her unbreakable faith in her husband was an homage to the fact that a man under pressure needs nothing but love and support from his loved ones.The game changer, however, was the London tube sequence where all the boundaries of caste, race, religion, and prejudice were demolished. A narrative device perhaps meant to moisten the eyes was perhaps the most defining sequence of the film out of the deck. However, the credibility of such a sequence was questionable as the fact that a decision could be taken just through an interaction between civilians quite briefly was borderline cringe-worthy.As historical and peril stricken this movie claimed to be, there were a few melodramatic moments that did pull it down. The over-saturation of Churchill's presence in every frame felt moderately claustrophobic; especially when the necessity to show him taking a dump was considered. It didn't end up being a gem, as it was masqueraded but more of a significant watch. Perhaps the multiple takes on the World Wars have stagnated its genre, or maybe because of Christopher Nolan's recent take on Dunkirk. Many parallels can be drawn from both films that cross cut at various points considering that one of them is a behind the scene story and the latter a war ground drama (prequels anyone?). Churchill's courage and determination throughout is something commendable that not many world leaders would warm up to today. It's a queer disappointment that the narrative was lost somewhere in the fumes of war and Winston's vices. Nevertheless, a political drama that prolifically combines human nature, the war inside and outside themselves and a bearable history lesson for all prove more informative than your basic history lesson. Towards the end, we'd end up surprised how many times the phrase- "We shall never surrender" can hum in our ears.

neilbrooming Off the bat, I have not watched all other Churchill biopics, nor am I as historically up to speed about Churchill as I would like...so..Pros: Great cast, pretty much throughout.Oldman does an excellent job; if just for metamorphosis alone.Loved the cinematography and editing. Great sets and feel to the scenes. They paint Churchill to be complex character, not shying away from some of his less disirable character traits. (At this point I would like to mention, that I know that he polarised public opinion, and for as many good things that he did, there are notable, misguided decisions that he made too)Cons: Not many really. I guess it is down to how much you are entertained by a film of this type, and how much faith you put in the historical accuracy. Remember, this is a film, and factual elements will always tend to bend to the benifit of the film's narrative, and so don't expect every scene to be historically accurate.If you like Churchill and the whole 'war hero' aspect to his character, you'll enjoy this. If you are a Churchill sceptic, then funnily enough, you might not like this film. It is unlikely to turn you, if you feel that way already.

JLRVancouver "Darkest Hour" presents a somewhat hagiographic portrayal of Winston Churchill in the days leading up to the Dunkirk evacuation. Churchill is depicted as a steadfast defender of England in the face of both the ruthlessly efficient German army and the hapless conciliators in his own government, such as Neville Chamberlin and Lord Halifax, who see negotiating with Hitler as the way to peace. The clock is ticking, as 300,000 Allied troops are encircled on the beaches of Dunkirk and hard decisions must be made. The cast is uniformly excellent, with Oldman's much-lauded performance a standout, but the movies suffers from historical inaccuracies (discussed at length elsewhere). The scene where the Prime Minister suddenly leaves his chauffeur-driven car and boards an Underground train where he can gauge the opinions of a suspiciously diverse group of Londoners is a particularly egregious example of 'fake history', allegedly inserted to spare modern audiences from the monochrome reality of 1940's British politics. There are also some gimmicky camera tricks that could have been dispensed with. Many people who dislike Churchill feel that films such as this do little to present the darker side of his history and politics. While I have no problem with the perspective the filmmaker's chose, and I appreciate that some dramatic license is often necessary to tell a complex story in a short window, making up facts undermines the credibility of historical films, and, at least to me, diminishes their educational and entertainment value.