User Reviews

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

The plot and the period settings are interesting, but the development is rather flat and with little real content, ending up boring along its development and resulting in an excessive duration.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Against the backdrop of the second world war, with mainland Britain on the brink of a **** invasion, Winston Churchill is appointed Prime Minister amidst almost universal reluctance. Determinedly anti-capitulation, he swims upstream from day one against the embarrassed, vengeful political faction in his war ministry and the wary, unconvinced king who watches his every move. The entire weight of this film rests on the strength of its central performance, as one might argue any biopic should, and Gary Oldman, once again, proves up to the task. His take on Churchill is transformative and enveloping. Oldman lives the role, becoming this historical giant through wardrobe and makeup, but also speech, posture and subtle mannerism. The power of his convictions on full display, we can almost see each sharp, momentous proclamation develop on his quivering lips before it's barked out into the air. In fact, that formulation is a crucial piece of the story: as his speeches and opinions progress, we see them change shape, wording and direction, advancing through various rough drafts to a tight, powerful, focused final product. The plot tends to slow down at points, and not every supporting character deserves the scrutiny they receive, but as mere decoration for the one man show, those flaws can be somewhat overlooked. Overall, Darkest Hour is a very well-constructed, finely focused narrative that provides audiences a sweeping glimpse of the man himself, both guarded before the sting of his political enemies and vulnerable in the friendlier confines of his home or office. Interesting to pair this with Dunkirk, a fellow Best Picture nominee, as the two explore the same military event from very different perspectives.

Perhaps not as accurate as a documentary, this biopic serves to cement the reason why Churchill is considered one of the greatest leaders in World War II through a basically "highlight reel" of his accomplishments prior to the Blitz. The dramatization done for the audience is substantial but does not detract from history, instead adding to preconceived motions of greatness that keeps the audience engaged fully in a up to the end.

I rate this movie 8 stars out of 10. Acting is undoubtedly amazing as well as the shot actions. Despite the fact that this movie is not strictly historical or biographical, it is a war drama. I expected more references to the historical concepts and terms. Gary Oldman as always did a great job. Visually pleasant and recommended for people who start their adventure with war drama or historical/biographical movies. Dates help a lot!

a wonderful depiction of the greatest Briton ever during what was undoubtedly the darkest period for the nation. But why, oh WHY, do contemporary filmmakers feel the need to incorporate moments in 'factual' pictures that are blatantly made up? The incident on the tube train most definitely fit into this category, and the political correctness that was unavoidable made it worse. In those days, there were few opportunities to see a black person on television, and even fewer opportunities to see someone with a classical education. One day, I hope to watch a movie that respects its viewers' intelligence.

I liked the (sometimes lavish) settings/surroundings this film is set in. Its quite engrossing, with a very commanding central performance from Gary Oldman as Churchill. As the story develops, Oldman's performance gets better and better. Of course the fact that this is based on a true story made me find it all the more engrossing. The film is quite tense at times and I thought it made for a very decent period drama. The music used isn't over the top and thus overbearing and the script didn't strike me as cheesy or bland, so I'd recommend it.

A brilliant performance from Oldman as Churchill, a flawed leader in a time of crisis. Rather than all encompassing biopic, it focusses on a critical period of his life and is all the better for it.

I was led to believe that Gary Oldman was in this movie and yet he's nowhere to be seen. What a scam. This was fine. It's a very theatrical movie with lots of yelling that can get annoying, but the performances are all good, especially of course the completely unrecognizable Gary Oldman (more like Gary Old Man am I right?). The makeup is mindblowing. It's unfocused and inconsistent in its style, but mostly makes up for it with a very strong third act, a delightful, though undoubtly fictional scene in a subway (let's just say the real Churchill would probably not have shaken hands with a black man) and Oldman's wonderful, though very hammy performance as Winston Churchill.

Darkest Hour was fine, I guess. Gary Oldman is brilliant and the makeup is great. But as a whole movie, it just didn't stand out. It was just like The Imitation Game in 2014, classic oscar bait (although the imitation game was much better film). It didn't delve into Churchill's life deeply and was just boring and tedious in many parts. It was a mechanical direction and storytelling, which just didn't captivate or gain my attention that much. It's definetly really good in some places and Gary Oldman deserved an oscar. The production values are stunning and it manages to have a solid first half of the film (which was the only part of the film which was consistently good). But the second half was nothing new to the biopic genre and it just wasn't creative enough to be worthy of a Best Picture nomination instead of The Florida Project or The Big Sick

I found The Darkest Hour to be kind of a boring let down. Gary Oldman does give a great performance, but this movie is essentially a lesser Dunkirk. Now, I don't mean to say that the political arguments and behind-the-scenes maneuvering of Winston Churchill is bad. A lot of political thrillers are quite exciting! This movie just doesn't have a whole lot of consistency on when to deliver its punches. This is not a terrible movie, this is not a great movie, its just incredibly middle-of-the-road.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Churchill méritait bien un film dédié à sa gloire et son opiniâtreté, ses talents d'orateur et son sens de la formule mais son portrait ici ne se borne pas à un simple panégyrique : ce singulier personnage était un fumeur et un buveur invétéré mais aussi et surtout un animal politique. Avec le recul, il est incontestable qu'il a été l'homme de la situation dans ces temps troublés et ces... heures sombres. La grande qualité du film qui se focalise sur le mois de mai 1940 est de montrer la débâcle elle-même vue du côté britannique : l'Europe de l'ouest tombe alors sous le rouleau compresseur de l'agression **** via sa "blitzkrieg" stupéfiante de rapidité et d'efficacité. On ne voit pourtant que très peu de séquences de guerre : les mauvaises nouvelles qui ne cessent de s'accumuler suffisent à retranscrire cet état d'urgence et d'effondrement imminent... y compris après l'évacuation réussie de Dunkerque. C'est une chose que le film de Christopher Nolan n'a jamais réussi à rendre dans son "Dunkerque" d'ailleurs. Le Royaume-Uni se retrouve donc isolé face à l'ogre allemand avec à cette époque sans doute un seul homme capable de lui tenir tête, de résister... bien que le Premier Ministre ait quelque difficulté à se faire entendre dans ce gouvernement de coalition dont il a la charge... L'interprétation de Gary Oldman y est pour beaucoup ; on sait l'acteur très doué et tout ce maquillage n'était à mon avis pas nécessaire mais après tout, cela rajoute encore à ce portrait criant de vérité. On peut regretter du coup qu'on ne suive pas Churchill pendant toute la guerre, de même que son passé ne soit qu'à peine abordé ou évoqué. La séquence dans le métro est certainement de trop par son caractère surréaliste et ressemble davantage à une vision de la "communication" de notre époque qu'on a maladroitement plaquée, placardée ici via un agenda SJW assez ridicule (mais que fait cet homme noir dans la rame de métro au juste ?). De même pour la dactylo (la très jolie Lily James) dont le rôle sert un autre agenda (féministe celui-là) plus ou moins dissimulé. Quoi qu'il en soit, le film reste passionnant et très bien fait ; il alterne la grandiloquence, le désarroi et l'émotion avec talent. L'espérance et la fierté aussi, celle d'un peuple inquiet mais combatif. Un peu (beaucoup) comme les si beaux discours de Winston Churchill en somme.

The film "Darkest Hour" by itself is not one of the most memorable works in film history, despite having many qualities. What will make him relevant in the future is precisely the powerful performance of Gary Oldman, unrecognizable and uncontested as Winston Churchill.

If you as an audience member are in love with things that go boom then this is not the film for you, because "Darkest Hour" is a film created by people who know something about drama, and dialog, and character, and how to hold people's attention without any need for chattering machine-guns and roaring explosions and 120 minutes of unending carnage. This is one of the best films I've seen in years and it won something like 5 separate awards for best film, including the Oscar and the British Academy award. Gary Oldman is excellent and won something in excess of 15 awards for best actor, including the Oscar and the British Academy award. The story is engrossing. Makeup, costumes, and cinematography all won awards as well. And at least one historian is on record as saying that Oldman nailed it: the man, the gestures, the speech patterns, etc. If you haven't seen it by now, get the DVD, get it from your local library, borrow it from your cousin, but see it.

A beautifully-shot, cinematic retelling of the least interesting aspects of the least interesting events taking place during WWII. Gary Oldman's prosthetic makeup gives a strong performance as Churchill. Ultimately, the film fails to make a point or an impression.

I knew nothing when I watched "Dunkirk" about that time. The movie felt flat for me And then I just watched this movie, which is the opposite of Dunkirk. No action and all plot/characters. And this movie is as good as this type of movie can be, in my opinon. Good. I just believe that if we could combine both we would have the best war movie ever...which this is not

Great acting and directing, but the film is painfully slow since it is a biopic about Churchill. It is not for everyone because of that, but if you like inspiring dialougues then go for it.

Joe Wright's 'Darkest Hour' might be the most obvious Oscar bait film of the year, especially when it comes down to Gary Oldman's impeccable and brave performance of the controversial Winston Churchill, but you know what? It worked! This is one of the best films of the year! 'Darkest Hour' sets itself apart from other generic biopics by seeping the mannish personality of its lead character through nearly every single element, especially the soundtrack and the refined and polished cinematography, and mostly through its pace. It is rarely that a film inspired by real life events managed to thrill, as real life is often not very exciting, even from a political stand-off. But the grim situation in which the Allied Forces found themselves during the beginning of the Second World War its definitely made for the screen. The director, Joe Wright, and the screenwriter, Anthony McCarten were well aware of this, as they kept the historical accuracy without sacrificing excitement. It is definitely a film which manages to thrill more than one which would take place in the actual battlefield. But the tensions between Churchill and his associates in the government is really tense and generates a consistent rhythm of adrenaline pumping. This rhythm is also conveyed by Churchill's nearly unbreakable will, which, thanks in part to Oldman's well deserved Oscar-winning performance, seeps an uplifting, glorious and patriotic tone, amidst the Allies being nearly wiped out! In an age where world leaders are less and less trusted, 'Darkest Hour' is a proud example of historical leadership and eventual glory achieved by listening to the people (addendum to the scene in which the prime-minister rides the underground metro as a simple man). For him, riding the metro was an experience, as he confessed "I've never been on public transport[...] I know how to boil an egg but only because I've seen it done." There have been many portrayals of the bulldog himself in cinema, but never was one so personal and so truthful but respectful at the same time.

It wasn't perfect, god not nearly so. But that's no excuse at all to ignore the phenomenal, earth **** performance given by Gary Oldman and Kristin Thomas as Mr. And Mrs. Churchill. The dark story of the first few months of Churchills term as Prime Minister shows us a theatrical (But enjoyable) window into the struggles that were faced during the events of Operation Dynamo, and offers us a chance to see another take through the eyes of Joe Wright. Is it perfect? No Is it Dramatic? God yes. Should you see it? Without a doubt.

While this movie is not specially different from many, many other WW2 flicks, and it does glorify some of the characters and themes too much, Gary Oldman's performance and some excellent cinematography here and there, specially in awkward scenes makes this movie a worthy use of your time, specially if you like historical films.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

While Gary Oldman certainly deserved the Oscar for Best Actor, as well as the film winning an Oscar for Makeup & Hairstyling, the majority of the film is very boring and badly paced.

strong movie. People need to know who Churchill was. He was no saint but had guts to go against ****. Gary Oldman plays well and as much as I did research, movie is close to what historians have on their records.

This movie is driven by Gary Oldman's astonishing acting, he'll easyly win best actor this year. It's all about dialogues but it's pretty fast paced.

The movie had all the right ingredients to be a classic. Epic setting and great actors. Unfortunately, the final concoction was somewhat lacking. It explored a little here and a little there but no final KO punch. This was not Garry Oldman's best performance, and he is one of my fav actors, but the fault isn't his. As a big history buff, I expected more detail, more intrigue and some new insights. The truth is it is quite average when it comes to suspense, action and you do not feel the gravity of the Darkest Hour. I would have preferred if more themes were explored. As it is, it might as well be named Much Ado About Nothing. Will I ever watch it again? No. Will it be remembered as a classic? No. Is it worth a watch? I guess so. It is certainly better than other Oscar contenders.

Churchill was a very complex character, very difficult to deal with like most genius normally are. His strong personality and drive are probably responsible for saving England and the movie is very clear portraying that. The performance is Oscar level by Gary Oldman, but Kristin Scott Thomas is also brilliant, as was the real-life wife. A very emotional movie, carefully directed and powerfully acted, one of my year favorites and a must-see for any History lover!

With Gary Oldman's never-seen-before stellar performance, Darkest Hour certainly reminded us how politicians during wartime used to be honorable and righteous. The power of language throughout the film is a dominant driven force to underscore the imminent danger that faces one nation and to boost morale in the people during extreme circumstances.

I have to say I'm pretty disappointed. Yes, Gary Oldman is one of the best things in this movie, but that doesn't mean much, really. His acting is OK, at best. His voice keeps reminding me of South Park's Cartman and he is always either whispering of shouting. He looks like a caricature of Winston Churchill from a sitcom, honestly. The directing is bland, but there are some interesting shots sometimes. The script is the worst part. Darkest Hour is basically two hours of men in suits talking to each other. Filmmaking is so incredible because it allows you to tell stories through dialogue and images. But Darkest Hour tells its story entirely through dialogue, so there's no reason for it to be a film. Every information you get from this movie is conveyed through dialogue. They should have just made a radionovela instead. I have to give credit where credit is due, though. The makeup is amazing.

An exciting and moving film that is also a testament to the acting ability of Gary Oldman. The editing and cutting between scenes is masterfully done, particularly the "looking up into the sky" moments. Some very moving sequences, particularly the speech at the end and the section showing the defenders of Calais. A great film.

Took me awhile to go see this film but it was worth the wait. I'm kind of a history buff so my rating may be high for some's liking but personally I thought it is worthy of it's nominations for the Oscars. Outstanding lead role portrayed as was supporting roles. The negative raters should be ignored ... probably hated history class in school :)

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Una película muy divertida con una historia que debe ser conocida por todo el mundo. La actuación de Oldman es genial, digna del Oscar.

Gary Oldman gives a great performance, Lily James is also really good. The cinematography looks great and there's some funny humor sprinkled in throughout. But this movie is one only history fanatics will find interesting. I am not one of those people at all.

Darkest Hour dreht sich um Winston Churchill und sein Wirken beim Eintritt Großbritanniens in den 2. Weltkrieg. Churchill wird brilliant von Gary Oldman verkörpert. Der Film startet und endet sehr stark, hat jedoch im Mittelteil ein paar Probleme das recht hohe Pacing beizubehalten. Der Film sieht super aus und schafft es an manchen Stellen sogar gekonnt einen Witz einzubauen.

10 out of 10 for Gary Oldman's performance - brilliant! one of his best, which is saying a lot. But 4 out of 10 for the film itself, which is melodramatic and, in part, historically inaccurate.

Gary Oldman = amazing performance, great humour, great! The film = not fantastic. It didn't full me in, I lacked the interest in this story. I was happy to learn more British history but I struggled to concentrate with this. My boyfriend loved it. If you're really interested in this piece of history you'll probably really enjoy this. For me, it wasn't very good. Oldman is gonna take that Oscar next month though, of course.

Darkest Hour is directed by Joe Wright and stars Gary Oldman, Kristin Scott Thomas, and others. This movie isn't necessary a biopic about Winston Churchill's entire life. Instead, the movie focuses on Churchill as he first comes into power up to the point of the Dunkirk evacuation, he deals with the doubts many people have about him, and it shows the process of how he made many of his great speeches. In addition, it shows the debates he has with other members of parliament over ****, whether Britain should fight on or sign a peace agreement. In many ways, this is a political drama in addition to a biography. In a sense, this movie is a companion piece to Dunkirk, as this movie mainly shows the conflict from Churchill's point of view while that movie showed the conflict from the soldiers point of view. The best part of this movie is Gary Oldman. He does a terrific job playing Churchill. He shows both charm and charisma. Unfortunately, the story is a let down. It's a very interesting story, but it would've worked better as a tv mini-series or normal documentary. As a film, the story feels as if parts and details were cut out or shortened and it makes the overall film feel rather dull and a little disjointed in areas. In the end, Darkest Hour benefits from a terrific performance from Oldman, but apart from him, there's not much else to see unfortunately.

Darkest Hour is a film that missed its true calling as a Sunday afternoon TV movie. It certainly plays like it was created for television, with the lack of any real visualization of the script other than pointing the camera at the actors and having them wave their arms around as they speechify or proving a hindrance that massively tests a person's patience and willingness to pay attention. Another cinematographic grievance is the film constantly using dolly shots whenever it's not just people standing talking in a room, which isn't anything you notice immediately but it's definitely annoying after a while. The cast is OK other than Oldman, who's legitimately great turn as a fat, balding, alcoholic Michael Caine is one of the better interpretations of Churchill being performed on screen. The film feels very fluid and almost jaunty at first but it does drag on way too long, the whole screenplay doesn't really have any excuse for how uninteresting it manages to be with its material because it's based on some of the most dramatic events in history. The little touches of cliche that permeate the mess of storytelling created, such at the random interest in Churchill's typist so that we don't feel like he's spending the entire film talking to himself, or the vilification of Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax, in order to give the film an actual antagonist, drive me up the wall. Maybe I'm being harsh on the film because Churchill might have actually been very personable with his typist and maybe Chamberlain/Halifax were horrible for the war effort post-Chamberlain's resignation, but honestly that'd be worse for my judgment of this film, because it makes me inherently doubt it's own historicity purely on the basis of it making plausibly historical elements feel cliche. A few other elements rubbed me the wrong way. There's a scene where Churchill literally decides the fate of the country on polling random strangers on the London underground, which must be the most cringeworthy scene in the history of film. It feels like the writer(s) of this film ran out of ways to perpetuate the themes of the script, so came up with some outlandishly hamfisted way of getting the point across that blows any pretence of realism out of the water. This movie somehow had me on the side of the people that history proved wrong, just on the basis that they were the ones that made the best arguments in the script. I think that's a bit of a problem if you're supposedly making a film based on true events, to be perfectly honest. Also, as an aside, I hate the cliche that this movie also revels in of historical films about famous people where they get eureka moments off of some offhandedly mentioned dialogue to come up with what they're most known for instead of them just doing so out of long arduous thought. It's kind of insulting to the intelligence. Despite all of this, I can't say I hated the movie as a whole, Oldman is great in this, there's a few interesting or well created scenes and a couple of small laughs here and there, and I didn't feel like I'd completely wasted my time. So there's that.

will you stop interrupting me while i am interrupting you.. Darkest Hour I think that this is probably the first movie to have these number of monologues (after any Woody Allen's movie, I presume) and they are so good and within all these speeches or explanations or discussions, there is a beautiful relation brewing whose innocence and sweetness might probably the highlight of the movie along with of course Gary Oldman's performance. Darkest Hour is as it name suggests; dark on its premise and character driven film which is entirely based on facts which may come off as a bit disappointing since it is low on drama. As mentioned earlier, this is clearly Gary's show and what a show he puts on; from his walk to attitude or behaviour to nature or even how he manages to move as he talks or even argue, Gary lights up Winston Churchill brightly and majestically. Joe's depiction is perfect on screen and there is no doubt but it still needed a better editing considering it is more that 2 hours long. Darkest Hour is raw, brutal and dark on its tone and its completely palpable too and if it had better editing, gripping screenplay and high on drama or entertainment; Joe would have crossed it out of the park.

Gary Oldman is one of the actors who that best interpreted the historic profile of Winston Churchill, is his early days as Prime Minister, and his hardest dilemma. The sequence of London Underground is for antology.

The journey from confidence, to doubt, to purpose is so well handled, that even those who know everything about Dunkerque, Churchill and his speech will find inspiration at the end of this movie. What an amazing accomplishment.

The Second World War is at its height; the system has fallen and Britain is at its Darkest Hour. Chamberlain has stepped down from the Big Chair, Halifax refuses to take over the reins, and the focus obviously shifts to a man who they believe can win most hearts; a flawed man who's known widely for his strange habits and fitting eloquence, a man who lives upto the reputation he upkeeps-none but one of the greatest Leader-Orators the world has ever had a taste of-Winston Churchill. It's such a well known story, with multiple underlying aspects to it. Joe Wright, the man who made 'Atonement', chose to make a movie on this one in particular, because he knew how far elucidative and reverberatory a story he could tell on this one. He has managed to rip of multiple perspectives on the same, besides the Great Man demanding a constant centre stage; the movie focuses on the view points of Clementine Churchill, King George VI, Halifax, Chamberlain, Eliza Nel Churchill's personal secretary, and more importantly that of free citizens, as much as it focuses on The British Bulldog. The word 'Dark' is given paramount importance in the whole method of storytelling; most of the drama happens in dark rooms and unlit alleys, and within the brooding darkness of a perplexed mind, Churchill has always housed. Some of his iconic speeches have been featured in the movie, and the arresting flow of visuals blended with a storming performance by Gary Oldman is sure to oust you out from your seats on intense outbursts. Gave me goosebumps, literally. Portraying Churchill, Gary Oldman's is an expression par excellence. Besides impersonating Churchill to the maximum possible extent, in appearance, gait as well as strange poses, he has manifested the essential character of the Man under study, to astounding results. He looks like a Churchill in the eyes, in deeds and posture; even in silhouettes!!! As far as an actor is concerned, he must make the rest feel nothing about his acting at all; at least until the movie ends. I never saw a trace of Oldman in this movie; all I saw was Churchill, who I even took to believe could've replaced the real one. Such a profound feat! Brilliance is the word. Churchill was not only a man famous for his leadership, looks and behaviour, but also for his strong words. The modulation that Oldman has brought about, combined with the strict control he has kept, gives us one of this year's countable performances which will make the Big Race soon. As of now, I'll say it's Oldman; have to watch Phantom Thread more to judge on that one completely! At one instance Churchill says at the peak of his screen tension, "You cannot reason with a Tiger when your head is in its mouth." Oldman will make us wonder which side Churchill meant himself to be in; he has both the tiger as well as a fearing doe in his face there!!! The movie is all about inner conflicts, the mind's darkness; it also brings in unheard details about the Great Man. It shows even the great Winston Churchill had stuttered on many occasions, before presenting some of his iconic pieces. The movie was made the same year we had another Dunkirk movie by Nolan; 'Darkest Hour' presents a whole lot of unseen perspective on Operation Dynamo and Churchill's hardbound decisions. There's even a subtle nod to the hasty 'naming ceremony' of the whole operation. There's another great scene where he makes a call to the Whitehouse, asking for help and reinforcements to defend his country; 'Franklin Roosevelt' on the other end is shown as a helpless voice, while the effective drama is taking place in Churchill's face and his head, not to leave out the darkness enveloping his private recess. The movie starts of where the darkness has just crept inside the Men's souls, wounded with fear and ends off on a resolutive high. It shows the ordeals that the Great Leader had to surpass to reach there, the new channels he had to break open towards it. Instead of focusing on the general victory, it dwells and swings inside a perplexed heart; which had to think a great deal in pain, before making an anyway detrimental decision at this hour, with the least harm assured. The age too wasn't favourable for him; Thanks to Oldman's acting expertise, all these details subtly flow. It also has its funny moments; gives some trivial confirmation on the iconic man's strangest ways. His wits were impeccable, as was his uncontrollable rage! Joe Wright has done it all in a conventional way, delivering an outright classic. The Drama is so intense, and rich with emotions; and it's as riveting as the peachiest entertainment flick there is, running in town. A very well written screenplay by Anthony McCarten, and a dashing score by Dario Marianelli has rightly contributed to its ebbs and flows. A really well made movie on one of the most adored figures from History, a ripe man who was always young at Heart and eloquent in speech, 'Darkest Hour' is easily a must watch.

"Darkest Hour" was a great movie, the story is somewhat entertaining, but Gary Oldman was the one who took all the credit, and almost all the prizes missing the Oscar, he played a great British character such as Winston Churchill, his battle and his ambitions were key to a great story.

This is a docu-drama that depicts end of May in 1940 when most of Europe fell to **** Germany, and Winston Churchill became GB's PM. The moment in history was one the the most grave that GB had endured. Yet film's authors invented several fictional episodes that never happened to make it look even more dramatic. I do not want to spoil it for you but the movie should not be taken as "this is how it happened in 1940", only to some degree. Gary Oldman playing Winston Churchill deserves Oscar nomination. Director Joe Wright made the whole film a bit too stagy and theatrical for my taste. Overall, the movie is interesting to watch, especially for people who know little about that time in history, particularly in history of WWII.

Once upon a time,Joe Wright understood that the abomination known as "Pan (2015)" failed big time and decided to make a comeback with "Darkest Hour",a movie whose material and execution I would describe with an adjective 'Solid'. After seeing countless versions of Winston Churchill,Gary Oldman is probably the Churchill worthy of an Oscar,and to the makeup team 'credit where credit is due',because they somehow managed to transform Oldman's sweet-looking face into someone else. The story was also easy to follow (kinda like the instructions of a LEGO Set),where its execution was going for a slow build-up to a delirious 3rd Act,with surprising moments of comedy that try to make the movie a little 'lighthearted' and parts that make it the 2nd movie of 2017 with some mentions of Dunkirk (that was indeed refreshing). The soundtrack by Dario Marianelli was both catchy and the movie's only flaw (near the end) and it sure made a scene after the beginning the best part of the movie. Summing everything up,Darkest Hour was a surprise (especially since this is my first Oscar Contender movie of 2017). Talking about Awards,I would compare this to Titanic,since both of these movies I would call 'Oscar Movies that don't really need that much recognition',since they'll be talked about for years to come. Joe Wright made a step-up over his last (horrible) effort and made an inspiring movie,with,as said,a Winston Churchill worthy of an Award.

The very first time I left the cinema early. Tonally awkward from the start - expected a historical drama rather than a comedy of manners - which would be fine if it had anything to offer beyond caricatures as antagonists and Gary Oldman's performance, which was a fine piece of work I believe, though I couldn't tell in the midst of this raging garbage fire of a movie. I'm still beyond surprised that even "We will fight them on the beaches", among the impactful speeches of the entire 20th century, falls flat. Avoid with a wide berth if you have any knowledge of the historical facts, enjoy movies that try not to hit every cliche in existence or generally prefer movies that go beyond pandering to the very lowest of lowest common denominators.

As a film, the movie may lack some gravitas, and feels very stilted as a by-the-books biopic. As a character study of Winston Churchill, Gary Oldman proves he is a master chameleon, blending into a role that should finally adorn him with that long-deserved Oscar. The film finds humanity in it's light-hearted moments, creating a character study that many will point to as a template for future biopics. Some of the camera shots felt like a forced artistic choice that didn't meld with the film, but whenever Oldman is on screen, you can't ignore him. Regardless of the flaws, this performance is defining, and cements Oldman's status as one of the finest in film to date.

There are a handful of roles that will almost automatically set an actor up for an award nomination. Show me the actor who plays Richard Nixon, FDR, LBJ, Queen Elizabeth and Winston Churchill, and I'll show you an actor who's being considered for an award. And if you look back through cinema history, I would bet that more actors have gotten award nominations for playing Churchill than for any other historical figure. Gary Oldham's performance was decent, but not ****. To be honest, I got tired of hearing Oldman's voice, which was audible on the screen, pretty much, non-stop. In the end, "Darkest Hour" lacked drama, suspense. and, most of all, emotion.