User Reviews

It's a one man show about one of the towering figures of the 20th Century and what a show it is. Gary Oldman has been able to be Sid Vicious in "Sid And Nancy" with the same outstanding commitment and extraordinary results. Joe Wright, the gifted director of "Atonement" presents us with an irresistible version of Churchill through the magic powers of Oldman but sometimes he doesn't seem to trust the power of what he has in his hand. Eccentric cuts in the middle of a famous speech for instance and other stylistic distractions arrive with irritating frequency but that doesn't spoil. too much, the joy and fun of seeing Gary Olman in action. Also interesting to notice, Dunkirk provides a very moving moment for the second time this year.

As a film this is quite good; it's not dull, the performances are good, the production design is excellent, the script is a professional piece of work and even Oldman's make-up is not too distracting.

However, something is not right. If most people get their history from movies, this is concerning. It's obvious that actual events occurred with real people and what they did and said but in a movie this gets pasteurized into what smart people believe will be more thrilling, more sympathetic, more emotional. That process necessarily alters things into something that is even anachronistically rendered and therefore not in the record.

This defect occurs frequently in this movie , so it's not history but myth making. A good example is Churchill's dive into the Underground to meet the common person to steel his resolve. Now Churchill had a mixed view of the average voter, and he was a patrician, but even that aside, he did not need to take a Tube train survey to gauge opinion.

This scene is poached from Shakespeare's Henry V where the king goes among his soldiers the night before battle to hear them and take courage from their strength. Steal from the best is a good policy, but it's not history. It's Shakespearean history and that trades effect for accuracy too.

The audience is given this scene to present Churchill as an instrument of democracy; he's acting for what the people want, therefore he's doing the right thing. It's called pandering.

Well, it is just a movie.

I'm sure I am not alone in having seen everything ever filmed about the man.

But this is nothing like I have seen before. He is so funny.

We see his ability to make jokes like never before and there is more here than just dry sarcastic references.

He keeps us in stitches. He must have told 25 jokes.

This film starts in the days when Chamberlain knows he cannot continue as prime minister, alongside the crippling uncertainty of his cabinet meetings, and through to when the entire country, as a result of his speeches, stands firmly behind Churchill as war leader.

What surprised me the most was how large a role the opposition party played in Churchill's rise to power.

Excellent supporting cast from those distinguished actors we have seen in many BBC productions and "Game of Thrones".

Ben Mendelsohn's portrayal of King George VI was stunningly well done.

A real delight at Tiff - too bad no Q&A for my screening.

Darkest Hour shines a light on a crucial moment in British and world history - the initial month of Churchill's term as he stand resolutely in the face of Hitler's advance while his peers wish to sue for peace.

The standout in this film really is Gary Oldman, who is as deserving of an Oscar for this performance as any actor ever has been. He toed the line perfectly, giving a powerful and accurate portrayal of Churchill without it every feeling like a gimmick or impression. He quite simply was Churchill. The physical transformation was a part of this, and the costume and makeup departments should be extraordinarily proud of what they achieved, but the majority of the credit goes to Oldman himself. The task at hand for was not an easy one. Churchill's speeches that he tackled perhaps go down as some of the finest in the English language, being so recognisable and quotable, and he delivered them flawlessly. Simply tremendous from Gary Oldman.

What I also thoroughly enjoyed about Darkest Hour was its attention to detail in bringing to life the period. The costumes, sets, score and supporting cast all blended together perfectly to recreate May 1940 so finely. With this alongside Oldman's performance you will get completely lost in this film and the era, perfectly capturing the spirit of the British people at the time. This was demonstrated particularly well during a spectacular scene on the underground, which was a real highlight for the film.

The camera work in Darkest Hour also stands out as we navigate the murky and claustrophobic tunnels of the Cabinet War Rooms, which adds to the sense of the British having their backs against the wall, trapped by the Germans.

If you love history, fine acting, and accomplished cinema, look no further than Darkest Hour.

Churchill takes over a failing Government as Germany rages war on Europe.

It's a fascinating piece of history, there are countless films about world war two, but this focuses on the story from Churchill's point of view, how he came to power, and the obstacles he had in his way.

An incredible production, the visuals are staggering, I remember being blown away at the cinema, years later it's still as impressive.

It's a powerhouse performance from Gary Oldman, I believe he studied Churchill for quite some time, he is captivating from start to end here, he's always immensely watchable, here though, even by his standards, this was dazzling, the mannerisms, the eyes, the irascibility, it's perfect.

Kristin Scott Thomas, Lily James and Samuel West are all terrific in their respective roles, the acting throughout is first rate, plenty of well known faces for you to recognise.

It's one of those films I never get bored of watching.

A classic, 10/10.

We go to the movies to be gripped by powerful narratives presented with good scripts and moving imagery. This film has all of it, most especially a riveting performance by Gary Oldman.

The subject matter will clearly divide audiences thanks to its pat view of history: UK as the righteous hero and everyone else as inept -- Italians and French losers, Germans the evil fascists, US completely unmentioned, Canada the quiet prairie for monarchs to escape to -- in the still-somewhat- mysterious Dunkirk incident where Hitler could easily have tightened the noose and pushed UK over the edge of what was evidently a crushing defeat, but somehow allowed them the leeway to escape by civilian boats. There's next to no mention of the French army that stood its ground and valiantly sacrificed itself to win a couple of days for the Brits on the beach.

All that said, as a film, this is a gripping narrative with just the kind of insouciant wit you'd expect from Churchill. While movies such as "The Gathering Storm" with Albert Finney were more considered, Darkest Hour is the kind of production that wows awards juries and audiences. Worthy watch when it comes to a theater near you. I feel Nolan's "Dunkirk" would be richer if you saw it *after* Darkest Hour.

At this point, "Darkest Hour" has an overall rating of 5.3. I do not understand this at all, but the film has not actually been released yet and has only been seen in film festivals. I assume the overall score will increase considerably--especially since the two reviews for it were quite positive.

Now I must point out that I am a retired history teacher and I consider Winston Churchill to be perhaps the greatest politician of the century. So, I clearly have a bias and predisposition towards liking the movie...especially if it's done well. Is it a crowd pleaser? Maybe not, as the average movie-goer (especially teens) might not enjoy this or care a lick about the film.

The story covers only a portion of the month of May, 1940...just before the fall of France during WWII. Prime Minster Chamberlain is about to be tossed out of office, as his appeasement strategy with Hitler has turned out to be completely stupid. In his place, some hope for Churchill to be the next Prime Minister...though some forces are working to depose him as soon as he comes to power. At the same time, the war is going as badly as it possibly can. Can Churchill survive this? Well, of course...duh, it's HISTORY!

The reasons to see this are two big ones....the film has achieved the look of 1940 beautifully and Gary Oldman provides an Oscar- winning performance in the lead. If he is not at least nominated for this top award, I will be completely shocked...and he really managed (along with ample prosthetics) to LOOK and SOUND like the great man. Great job all around...and a perfect film.

Rubbish film. Great acting Nothing like the events of what actually happened in World War Two

I cannot remember the last time I was in a movie and I said, gee I wish this movie would keep going because it's just so damn good. I don't really have to say anything more about Oldman beyond what's already been said, that was brilliant Academy Award work. Despite being a literalist on history and not enjoying Hollywood embellishments/contrivances that didn't really happen, I will repeat something I said on another movie (Patton): I am okay where a fictional event is one that could have happened (or maybe happened out of time sequence) where it is used more to show the persona of the character than to establish an historical fact. Notwithstanding this, the subway scene may have been a little much. Strong cast throughout, including the portrayers of King George VI, Chamberlain, Halifax and Churchill's lovely secretary (James). A must see for WW II buffs and appreciators of good cinema everywhere.

This biopic of a very narrow period in Winston Churchill's life - May 1940 to be exact - was probably made to earn British actor Gary Oldman the academy award, but man, did he ever earn it! This film won Oscars for Best Actor for Oldman and for makeup, and I'd say they definitely earned that. Great trouble is taken to make sure you believe you are looking right at Sir Winston. Oldman literally disappears into the part.

The film opens with Parliament in open rebellion over Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's failure to deal with Hitler and the opposition party demanding his resignation. Chamberlain wants Halifax to replace him, another appeasement advocate cut from the same cloth as he, but Halifax refuses saying his "time has not yet come". So Winston's party picks him literally - while holding their noses - because nobody else wants the job. And for good reason. Hitler is knocking over European countries with the ease of dominoes and the entire British army is trapped at Dunkirk, with so many damaged ships blocking the harbor that no other ship can get into it to rescue them.

Next we meet Oldman's portrayal of Sir Winston. He is a man of enormous appetites - food, drink, cigars - and sometimes tremendous temper. His spending brings him to the brink of bankruptcy multiple times. His party doesn't like him. The king resents him for how he advised his brother when he was planning to marry Wallis Simpson. And Chamberlain and Halifax STILL want to appease Hitler and because Churchill does not, they are working to undermine him, particularly with the king.

The film uses two obvious plot devices that are probably not based in fact. One is Churchill's young secretary who at first he scares to death with his tantrums, but later the two become close as he softens his approach with her . The other is a trip into a subway to get "the man on the street's opinion" about Hitler that just seems eye-rollingly over the top. There is a baby that the mother oddly says looks like Churchill, what seems like an interracial couple in 1940, and a woman who, from the way she is dressed, appears to be a socialist. Yet they to a man, to a woman, to a child, encourage Churchill to fight Hitler to the end. This fictitious event seems to be stolen from Shakespeare, but if you must steal, then steal from the best.

Honorable mention has to go to Kristen Scott Thomas as Clementine, Winston's supportive wife who is often overlooked by history. Also deserving mention is Ben Mendelsohn as King George VI, who is portraying a man much more comfortable as monarch than he was portrayed in Then King's Speech, but then this is not his story.

Yes, it is not historically accurate, but if Churchill did confront the situations and people he confronted in this film, he probably would have acted exactly as he was portrayed here.

I knock off one star for not at least TRYING to explain to the audience WHY - with Hitler obviously not trustworthy - members of Parliament would not realize the choice was between slavery and war. The answer is that WWI cost Britain a generation of young men. Literally every British young man who went to war either died or was maimed. And in the end the entire conflict seemed like it had been for nothing. And so many of the British - and more of the Americans - did not want to go through this a second time with the exact same country, not realizing until it was almost too late that the Kaiser was no Hitler.

When Meryl Streep won her third Oscar for playing Margaret Thatcher in "The Iron Lady" it was as much for her make-up as it was for her acting, (it's actually one of her least interesting performances; more mimicry than anything else). The same can't be said of Gary Oldman's turn as Winston Churchill in Joe Wright's "Darkest Hour". It's a phenomenal performance that demolishes all previous Churchills. Yes, he looks the part thanks again to his hugely talented make-up artists and he has the voice off pat, but more importantly he gets inside Churchill's heart and head which is, perhaps, something of a surprise considering the material he's been given to work with is really rather third-rate.

Wright's film, which simply covers the month of May 1940 when Churchill was elected Prime Minister and saw the evacuation at Dunkirk has every cliche in the book including a disasterous scene when Winston decides to ride the Underground for the first time in order to gauge public opinion. This sequence is positively embarrasing though Oldman just about manages to carry it off. Elsewhere the film is very unevenly acted. The men have the best of it with both Ben Mendelsohn and Ronald Pickup impressing as the King and Neville Chamberlin respectively. On the other hand, Kristin Scott Thomas isn't given enough to do as a rather genteel Clemmie and Lily James makes for a very dull secretary. So then, very much a hit and miss affair worth seeing for Oldman's Oscar-winning performance, (they may as well put his name on it now), providing you are prepared for another lame history movie and Wright's poorest picture to date.

Although its been shown to have been largely fictionalized, the gist of the story is accurate. Oldman gives an incredible performance, and not as some old bellowing windbag either. After seeing this, one might recommend reading churchill's own 6 volume set on the subject, but to save time, the first volume, The Gathering Storm, may provide one with some historical pretext for this monumental event in western history-Churchill standing up to a madman, and this saving not just britain, but all good men everywhere. Oldman, you da man!

Not many films nowadays touches people deep inside their hearts.

This one did. At least mine. I am not often generous with grading movies, but I proudly give this a 8/10.

And no Im not an englishman, im Swedish!

Gary Oldman is SUPERIOR in his acting. He is simply flawless in his acting. He even twitches his eyes from time to time making him look tired and old in his very eyes.

I dont know what else to say than bravo, and on to Victory!

Not only is this a riveting account of one of the most important moments of the Second World War, but it's also an exhilarating drama that goes beyond being a simple biography by bringing humour, energy and passion to every moment. With a stunning central performance by Gary Oldman, confident and passionate directing from Joe Wright, and a brilliant screenplay from start to finish, Darkest Hour is a simply exceptional film.

When telling a story as well-known as that of Winston Churchill and the Second World War, being both exciting and historically accurate isn't always easy, but that's where the unique take on the historical drama of Darkest Hour comes in.

Yes, it does tell of the extreme intensity of the early days of the war, the political manoeuvring in Westminster as Churchill was appointed Prime Minister, and the very real and impending threat that the fall of Britain could very well mean the end of freedom-loving Western civilisation, which are all absolutely fascinating to watch unfold, but they're all parts of history that you arguably already know very well.

That's why the film's decision to bring a brilliant sense of humour and a strong passion to proceedings is so effective. The importance of the events being portrayed on screen is never downplayed, and there are indeed some very intense and emotionally powerful moments, but there's so much more to Darkest Hour than just history, something that made it such a refreshing watch compared to how most Oscar-bait biographies turn out.

Above all, what impressed me most about the film was the fact that it's just so funny. It's by no means a comedy, but this isn't a pompous and dry historical drama, but one that takes glee in pointing out the eccentricities in its main character, eccentricities which are undoubtedly a part of why Churchill is so lauded and respected to this day.

While the film praises Churchill's bulldog spirit in fighting the fight against the Nazis, it's always keen to show him in a slightly brighter light, almost as if he was a man who stumbled into the most important job in history by coincidence. In that, there are so many genuinely hilarious scenes as Churchill's quirky personality clashes with the more uptight politicians of Westminster, a part of the film that I felt not only made everything more entertaining, but helped to give the movie an incredibly refreshing energy, allowing me to see Churchill in a very relatable, personal light rather than just as a historical figure from a textbook.

As well as being downright hilarious at points, there's a real passion behind the film's depiction of the darkest hours of the war. With Churchill being forced over to opening peace talks with Hitler, the film does an incredible job at inspiring you to a point of fever pitch, fully backing Churchill's bulldog spirit to fight and defend freedom to the very last moment, meaning that the internal conflict he suffers throughout the film is such a riveting focal point.

This is an undoubtedly patriotic film, and heaps a lot of praise onto Churchill's gusto, but that doesn't mean it's overly jingoistic. There may be a case that Brits watching the film will feel more emotion from its incredible passion, but I still feel that most of that comes from how well the character of Churchill is developed throughout, from a bumbling, mumbling, lovable old man to a truly honest and principled leader.

Finally, we have to talk about Gary Oldman's performance, which is amazing. For one, thanks of course in part to the make-up and costume teams, it's pretty impossible to tell that you're watching Gary Oldman in this movie. But not only does he look nothing like Oldman, and so much more like Churchill, but everything about Oldman's performance, from the smallest details about Churchill to his fantastic passion and energy on screen, pulls you further and further into the moment, and creates an exceptionally convincing portrayal of the great man and the situation surrounding him, which I was blown away by.

Overall, I absolutely loved Darkest Hour. It's an undoubtedly riveting historical drama about a crucial turning point in global history, but more than that, it's full of incredible energy from start to finish, with amazing and still appropriate humour throughout combined with stunning patriotic passion, making for a genuinely exciting and properly entertaining film that does so much more than your typical Oscar-bait fare.

Winston Churchill is one of history's most enigmatic figures. As Great Britain watches Europe fall to the Nazis, most of the leaders sit, hands in their pockets, trying to figure out what to do. Neville Chamberlain has sold the country out, thinking he has become buddies with Hitler. Of course, the scourge of history would simply see that as avoiding an obstruction. So the call on gnarly old Winston, whose reputation in other confrontations is not that good (according to this film). So we are going to see a biographical presentation of this great man. What we get is a guy that can't go twenty minutes without downing four fingers of whiskey or smoking a dozen cigars a day. He is doddering and forgetful. That's OK. Maybe that was him. I suspect not quite as severe. While this movie portrays the time pretty accurately, they repeatedly stick him in situations where he can deliver pithy comments. A secretary, the young woman who portrayed Rose on Downton Abby, is his confidante. There is a scene on the subway. Did any of this ever take place. I know it is historical "fiction," but we deserve a bit more. It's not a terrible movie, hence my rating, but don't write a book report using the events presented here.

This film is absolutely brilliant from the acting to the sets..the editing is tight. Thrilling. It took me about 1 minute to accept Gary Oldham as Churchill...after that I was sold.

Probably my favorite film of 2017 so far. Pacing is superb. Historically pretty accurate

It's a must see for any WW2 fans, political fans and Winston Churchill fans.

Very good film with nice production design , notable performances and historical events about Man who took the power of leadership to unite the Nation . Dealing with Winston Churchill : Gary Oldman , First Lord of Admiralty, and his process to be appointed as Prime Minister , in fact he wasn't their first choice, but he became their last hope . As he must decide whether to negociante with Adolph Hitler , or fight on knowing that it could mean the end of the British Empire. While the powerful Wehrmacht is destroying the European armies and rampaging across the continent to Dunkirk, and an impeding encroachment over England by Nazis is nearly . As Chamberlain : Ronald Pickup renounces his charge , and after the resignation is named a successor , Winston Churchill . As Churchill carries out Dynamo Operation to save the British army and French soldiers from Dunkirk siege and he will fight the Nazi enemy at whatever cost. Never , never surrender¡ Never give up. Never give in!

This is an exciting film based on facts with biographic elements about the turbulent life of the great Prime Minister Winston Churchill , a man who took a stand that changed history , as he has to explore a negotiated peace treaty with Nazi Germany or going on the war, while his own Conservative Party is plotting against him . There are several historical happenings well developed and well paced , but especiallty focusing on May 1940 when Neville Chamberlain is forced to resign due to the opposition Labour Party that accused being too weak in face the Nazi enemy , in fact he signed the useless Covenant of Munich in 1938 , then Churchill is appointed P.M. , along the way he manages to convince the different parlamentary forces , as well as he prepares Dynamo operation to rescue the European armies in Dunkirk .

The cast is frankly excellent as Gary Oldman giving an awesome acting who won deservedly Academy Award , Stephen Dillane as the coward Halifax , Ronald Pickup as the failed negotiator Chamberlain , Ben Mendelshon as the skeptical King George VI , Dame Kristin Scott Thomas as his beloved wife and Lily James as his personal secretary, and other secondaries in brief appearances as Samuel West , David Schofield , David Bamber , Nicholas Jones , and David Strathairn diving voice to President Franklyn D Roosevelt . The motion picture was competently made by Joe Wright . This professional filmmaker Joe Wright has directed good films such as : Pan, Anna Karenina, Hanna , The Soloist , Atonement and Pride and prejudice, among others. Rating 7.5/10 . Better than average.

An account of Winston Churchill's difficult early days as Britain's wartime prime minister that feels speculative even before misguidedly embarking on a near-fantastical tube ride that is quite frankly laughable. A shame, because Darkest Hour is quite powerful at times and Gary Oldman gives a performance worthy of an Oscar as the irascible old Winnie.

This film covers a period of real tension and drama. So why does the film have to invent fiction to tell the story? Perhaps modern film making prioritizes a flowing narrative over the truth, but to misrepresent so many people telling the story accurately would have provided more than sufficient content staggers me. Oldman plays his part as written well. Chamberlain and Halifax are quite unconvincing though and many of the scenes are so unrepresentative of what would have happened in the Britain of 1940 ruins the fictitious plot line. The number of historical inaccuracies are currently beyond counting, and many unecessary, for example Chamberlain was in pain in May 1940, but had yet to be diagnosed with cancer, and when he was he remained ignorant of the fact because his doctors elected not to tell him. Overall a huge let down.

At the Paris Theater premiere in NYC last night, Joe Wright concluded his introduction by saying, "This is a film about resistance." That brought immediate and enthusiastic response from the crowd. Oldman gives a stunning performance, but the entire ensemble is clearly caught up in the relevance of the work, not a false note anywhere. Powerful film celebrating Churchill as in touch with the resilience and grit of working class commoners. The villains here are the snobbish pacifist appeasers. Hard to say what American audiences will make of this. It could go either way. There's enough populist ammunition here to leave a huge chunk of the American political landscape as devastated as the castle in Calais.