Darkest Hour Review

Darkest Hour (2017) - In May 1940, the fate of World War II hangs on Winston Churchill, who must decide whether to negotiate with
Darkest Hour (2017) - In May 1940, the fate of World War II hangs on Winston Churchill, who must decide whether to negotiate with Adolf Hitler, or fight on knowing that it could mean the end of the British Empire.

darkest-hour-2017-review

@nucumber
FUN FACT: you can visit the Churchill War Rooms, the underground bunker where many scenes from this movie take place

It's a time capsule, left as it was on the day in 1945 when the war was almost over and the bunker no longer needed.

@RedOctobyr
And they were really cool, IMO. Definitely worth going to see, if you're around there, and find this stuff interesting. We had seen this, and Dunkirk.

@gogetakame
Gary Oldman does a great job in this one and won the Oscar for Best Actor for it.

@kisscumbag
It’s become a bit of a cliché but you seriously forget you’re watching Gary Oldman

@Happy-Investment
Did he gain weight? Last I saw John Lithgow played Churchill.

@EggMcFuckin
He did not gain weight for the role. He used a "fat suit" plus prosthetics and makeup. Apparently it was what led Christian Bale to say he might need to rethink his massive body transformation habits for his roles.

@jacksonwhipple
I want to see that movie edited into Dunkrik (2017) as one month. One hour in the air, one day on the sea, one week on the mole, and one month on the home front. Since both of those movies end with the same speech Churchill have regarding the Dunkirk evaluation.

@CJRedbeard
Just watched this last night. Definitely a great show and Gary Oldman killed it.

@aarrtee
this magnificent film owes a lot to the work of it's star. it ranks with Lawrence Of Arabia in the small group of top tier 'guy flicks'.

do not miss it.

@foggybottom54
Great movie alot if awesome scenes oldman was fantastic

@damiami
Saw it last night and loved it

@filesalot
Britain brutally extracted the life-blood of India for 150 years. Pinning too much on Churchill seems a bit of a deflection.

He was definitely a heartless S.O.B. in many ways, I think that is well known in and out of Britain. But for sure his standing up against Hilter and avoiding defeat until the U.S. and the Soviet Union entered the war changed history for the better, at least for the West.

You can judge for yourself whether India would have been better off if Britain had capitulated in 1940 and Nazi Germany taken over Europe and North Africa, and possibly Russia too.

@ballsack-vinaigrette
Like pretty much every historical figure, Churchill was a mix of good and bad. Saints only exist in fiction.

@raiseyourglasshigh
Churchill's history in Ireland, including responsibility for the deployment of the Black & Tans, made the decision in this film to place an Irish woman with him during his trip on the underground towards the end of the film absolutely unforgivable. A film that juxtaposes his heinous past behaviour towards India and Ireland with his integral role in World War 2 is a better and more interesting piece of work. What they made is nationalist pornography.

@ballsack-vinaigrette
Completely agree that Churchill had a very checkered (Chequered) past, but the movie is only concerned with that single critical month in 1940. Personally I think that's OK, you can't squeeze Churchill's eventful life into a single movie.

@raiseyourglasshigh
Sure and I have sympathy for that argument. But a film that deals with a man making a world changing decision should at least acknowledge previous decisions that he'd made that had massive consequences. Ignoring that would be one thing but the casting of the Irish character at the end was insulting and unnecessary, suggesting that the creative team either didn't know or didn't care about his previous actions.

I can see how that wouldn't weigh as heavily on other audiences but I also can't help but feel as if I'd have had an easier time looking past it had the film itself been more compelling.