PosterPoster

All Comments about...

Darkest Hour 2017

I have no idea why people are raving about this film, it's a bit crap, it's probably Oldman weakest performance to date, and the cinematography is terrible. Churchill with Brian Cox in the lead role is a FAR superior film on the subject.

loading replies

Gary Oldman is fantastic in the part, but the movie did very little to keep me engaged or entertained, unfortunately.

loading replies

When viewing this movie, two recent movies spring immediately to mind: Dunkirk and Lincoln. Dunkirk comes to mind because of the battle being predominant to the narrative of the film. Dunkirk makes the battle visceral, sure, but this film surpasses it in describing how critical that battle was and its importance to Churchill's career.

Lincoln is the film it more closely resembles. It's a character study of a national leader in their early years, during war, surrounded by political enemies with a standout performance by the lead. I found this movie more compelling because the character of Churchill more readily demonstrated his fear and lack of confidence in his own convictions which made for a more dramatic film that I thought brought the gravity of the war more to the fore. I'm not debating who was the better leader, but who had the more engaging story and I think this is it.

It moves along at a good pace and the "secretary" character does a good job of being the new person added to the world so the "Morris the Explainer" exposition is fairly well camouflaged. 8/10

loading replies

This film won me over. It began poorly for me. I didn't care for Gary Oldman's Churchill or Ben Mendelsohn's choice of characterization of George VI. I was unuse to seeing Winston or the King portrayed as a blowhard or a faltering man but this provided a base upon which Anthony McCaren would build an arch that would span upward to a glorious triumph. He frames his story with a juxtaposition of viewpoints from the back rooms of power to the typewriter of a lowly secretary. Brilliant writing. Incredible performances from the aforementioned as well as Lily James and Kristin Scott Thomas. A superb film for which I give a rating of 9 (superb) out of 10. (If you haven't already, you should immediately watch DUNKIRK following this movie - bring tissues.) [Historical Drama]

loading replies

One of the most amazing moments in history - impossible decisions of immeasurable consequence. Good vs an ultimate evil. And while others cower under such a heavy burden, one with courage grabs the reins and takes hold of the situation, creating an
unforgettable moment in history. This sequence of events is turned in to a well done drama, carried out with amazing acting.

loading replies

Absolutely excellent. Oldman is brilliant.

loading replies

Gary Oldman is a tour de force as Winston Churchill capturing his mannerisms and characteristics to show that he truly deserves award nominations in the acting categories.

However, I personally feel like this is inferior to a similar WW2 film, Christopher Nolan’s Dunkirk. Darkest Hour manages to show you the actions of Churchill and his War Cabinet but (despite a few moments) does not show the consequences of these actions leading to less of a emotional weight, even the Tube scene felt a little forced to me.

The film is technically well done, using light and dark and even rain and sun to show the effects of war on the people with tracking shots being used to capture the grim atmosphere of 1940. Both cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel and composer Dario Marianelli deserve a mention, helping to set the world in a captivating way.

The film is an acting masterpiece (especially from Oldman) but it’s just a shame that other elements of the film couldn’t match the high-bar set by that.

loading replies

Yes, Oldman's acting is as good as his makeup, but that does little to change the fact that this film is about a man making historical speeches. If you're a fan of speech making and history, then this film is for you. If not, try Dunkirk instead.

loading replies

I thought this film was absolutely marvelous! It really gave a great sense of Churchills mindset and the decisions he had to make for the good of the country. The weak politicians around him and the strong sense of support from his wife and close team really came out during the film. The acting was great, the cinematography very gritty and perfect for such a film. Overall this was one of the best movies i've seen this year, it even prompted me to look up some of the history behind this great leader.

loading replies

Propaganda trash that falsifies the real look of WW2.
The war began in September 1939 (not in May 1940) from the betrayal of the allies.
Poland which had the guarantees of Great Britain and France was betrayed!
If Churchil ruled in 1939 then it would not happen and the whole war with the Third Reich would end within a maximum of three months. In 1939, the western borders of Germany were defended by pensioners and the whole army of the "great Third Reich" struggled with the outdated Polish army with great difficulty.
PS. If Churchil was a drunkard who has problems with fluent speech and logical thinking (as claimed in the movie), what a miracle GB did not fall?

loading replies

I know I am in the minority but I don't see where this movie is better than Teplitzky's. On the contrary, with the exception of production, which is on the same level, the Brian Cox movie is better on all accounts.
It's not a documentary so I am willing to give writers some leeway for the purpose of dramatising certain facts like, say, timeframes or putting a fictional character in between real ones. But that scene in the underground is pure fabrication, it's a fairy tale that is pure Hollywood. Do filmmakers even care that there are people who don't know the real history taking things like that at face value.
Oldmans performance maybe more accurate but did not pull me in. While, after watching Cox, I tought Churchill is a person I would liked to have met, I percieved Oldmans versions as unlikeable. After watching this I can only say I am dissapointed.

loading replies

This movie is very good. It and Dunkirk compliment each other well.

Oldman earned that little gold statue.

loading replies

What a great movie! If you are a fan of great acting and well written dialogue this is a must see. No it’s not a bang bang shoot em up kind of flick. But as a history aficionado i was very well entertained nonetheless. I’d put this in the top 5 movies of 2017. I especially liked the interaction between Oldman and Lily James (his secretary). Just beautiful and subtle. 9 out of 10 from me.

loading replies

I'm 10 minutes in the movie and I'm fucking crying of how beautiful and stunning the photography is!

loading replies

Although this movie lacks action and is mostly conversation it does not bore. This movie is very well made, the story and the feeling are just right, and the acting is superb! I do hope that Gary Oldman will get an oscar for him amazing portrait of Winston Churchill.

loading replies

I liked the movie a lot. The scene on the underground was one of my favorite scenes ever.

loading replies

I slept half the movie.

loading replies

I really enjoyed this movie. Wasn't going to watch it initially because I'd already watched "Churchill" and didn't think it worth going over the same stuff, but it is actually a different version/viewpoint of the same time-frame - albeit only the first 3 weeks or so of Churchill's assention to Prime Minister. I think Gary Oldman did a good job of Churchill, but Brian Cox was better. If you haven't watched Dunkirk, watch it after this one and you'll get a continuation of the story.

Possible spoiler alert.. if Churchill had taken the peace treaty, millions upon millions of people might have been saved because the war would have essentially been over in May of 1940. Hitler initially had no intention of invading the U.K. as he felt they were a fellow "Aryan race." He'd have turned his full might onto Russia - an enemy of all the other coalition governments at the time. We'll never know if his decision was a good one or a bad one...

loading replies

It is a bit of an odd film in that I felt like I spent the entire film watching Oldman play Churchill rather than Churchill being a central player in a very dark time. At no point did I feel any urgency about what was going on. It just felt like.... Oldman putting on his dressup clothes to be Churchill. In that sense it is ironic that they kept referencing Dunkirk because that film conveyed a ton of desperation and urgency. I felt none in this film and often found myself looking at my watch.

loading replies

What an amazing surprise.. That underground scene brought tears to my eyes

loading replies

Very great character interpretation, but in the end the movie seems only to be a propaganda movie, a movie to remember how strong the British people was in that period and how brave were they in front of the rest of the world ready to surrender. This was the real limit of Darkest hour, that not allowes to rate it as one of the best movies.

loading replies

Worth seeing just for Oldman, but the set pieces and customes need to be appreciated as well. Strong enough as a character study but limited in scope, with the emphasis so much on how a myriad of gargantuan historical forces intersected and were made tolerable by a single eloquent leader.

Strong performances by those playing the opposition, and Mendelsohn as the King, but just not enough for them to really do. The dripping patriotism toward the end felt a little mushy compared to the strict British stuffiness of the rest.

loading replies

Gary Oldman becomes Winston Churchill, not just behind the make up but his accent and mannerisms too, he is almost unrecognizable. He even got nicotine poisoning, which sounds familiar to Leonardo DiCaprio eating bison liver trying to win an oscar. His performance alone is worth seeing this but it is actually a good movie too. Lily James is great and so is Ben Mendelsohn with his limited screen time.

loading replies

Great movie with amazing acting

loading replies
Loading...