Darkest Hour [Blu-ray]

As someone interested in history, but who is not a scholar, I decided to do a bit of homework before watching the movies Dunkirk (2017) (BD) [Blu-ray ] and Darkest Hour. I looked them up on the Internet, using resources like Wikipedia to simply get the gist of what was going on, historically, so I might better grasp the dramatizations created in the two movies. I watched Dunkirk first, and Darkest Hour a few days later. Because I was so bowled over by both movies, I can confidently recommend that these films be watched back to back, because they cover the same period, both specifically (Dunkirk – one event) and generally (Darkest Hour – about a nation’s resolve, leading into the war years). Conversely, the action of Dunkirk is seen through the eyes of an “everyman” character, a soldier among many soldiers, sailors and airmen, mostly nameless, but who made up the forces, which eventually helped England, defend itself from Hitler’s massive assault machine during World War II. Because they had been successfully evacuated from the encircled Dunkirk, British forces were able to regroup and come back stronger. Had this event not occurred, they might have been largely wiped out, and the war could have had an entirely different and deeply tragic conclusion. Meanwhile, Darkest Hour takes up the story from the perspective of Winston Churchill, portrayed brilliantly by Gary Oldman, who deservedly won the 2017 Best Actor Oscar for this film, along with his wife, his young secretary, members of the British Parliament, and even the King. Dunkirk is a mesmerizing and relentless portrayal of a turning point in a battle that was very nearly lost. In case readers here want to be kept in suspense, I won’t reveal its climactic moments, but this same time in history is briefly visualized in Darkest Hour. Both films have incredibly moving sequences. The aerial dogfights in Dunkirk were made real by the filmmakers’ refusal to turn them into some kind of Star Wars, breakneck-speed fest. It’s clear by the fine details that these airmen were working with technology quite primitive by today’s standards. Because we are invited into their cockpits through the use of beautifully calculated camera close-ups, their heroism becomes palpable, and we sweat and grit our teeth and hold on to our seats as if we were in there with them. Two scenes in the final half hour of Dunkirk may resonate with some viewers long after the movie is over. They did me, not to mention the breathtaking cinematography (shots of the beaches from the air, with thousands of men lined up to be rescued while the Germans continued their bombing raids, are among the most memorable scenes in the movie). While Dunkirk is saturated in tones of aqua, blue, pale yellow, green and white, Darkest Hour uses warm browns and sepias, with accents of red, orange, navy blue and beige. It is another animal entirely, but is a perfect counterpoint, dramatically and emotionally, to Dunkirk. Churchill, I learned from my research, was a tremendously complex individual, with a history of both failures and successes in various leadership roles. He had detractors as well as champions. While other portions of his life and career apparently revealed him as a deeply flawed human being, what Darkest Hour makes clear is that he was a tremendous communicator, and it was much to his credit that England did not surrender, but fought to the bitter end, and with the help of its allies, arose triumphant. Now I’m not knowledgeable enough to speculate that the British Empire would have triumphed over the Nazis if America had not finally been sucked into the war. But Darkest Hour pulls out all the emotional stops as it races toward its conclusion, and I was left with both tears and renewed astonishment at the fortitude of a small nation’s resilience, sacrifice and determination – all foreshadowed in the speeches of Winston Churchill. Darkest Hour is not an action film, and yet compared to Dunkirk, it seems to be over much, much faster. Personally, I attribute this to the extraordinary Gary Oldman. This is surely his finest hour on the Big Screen! Each of these two movies is stronger, I think, because of the existence of the other. The prime message that I took from this pair of fine films was not so much some notion of the “glory of war,” but just how valuable and hard won is the peace. During World War II, Hollywood movies seem to have been created as rallying cries to the battlefield and to victory, with manly men proudly marching into danger and destruction, and sturdy women working in the factories and keeping “the home fires burning” – and these entertainments often fulfilled their purpose. Dunkirk and Darkest Hour accomplish something a bit different – to remind us of the necessity of shared sacrifice, so important when the world faced down the “Great Dictator,” but which seems almost like a foreign, impossible concept now. I don’t see any leaders today who have the strength of character of a Winston Churchill, who can help us put aside our petty differences and to see ourselves as a nation with common goals, a society capable of achieving some kind of unity while remaining free. Woe to us if we ever have to face another Hitler!

Despite some critical claims that there were many historical inaccuracies in this film's plot, and between the enactment on film and real events in 1940, this was an outstanding film, and eminently worth watching. Oldman's performance was superb, as was the screen play in general. I found the finale of the film electrifying, as the portrayed Churchill followed his instincts, and courageously addressed Parliament with a rousing, forceful speech to go to war. To watch the resolve of the British people to defend their country has elicited some strong emotions. It's been quite some time since I enjoyed a film as much as this one. He was quite a character: brash and outspoken. His wife, in the movie, called him a "brute". ----- This is a postscript to my original review (above). After reading a lengthy Wikipedia article on Churchill's involvement in the debates prior to going to war against Germany, I was astonished to learn that it was Neville Chamberlain (the pacifist prime minister) who actually delivered the declaration of war to Germany - while he was still prime minister. Not Churchill! So, there are some historical inaccuracies in the story. This is not exactly what actually happened. You can say the film was "inspired by actual events". Nevertheless, the movie is electrifying and worth watching. Oldman's portrayal of Churchill was so effective, that Ben Mendelsohn, the actor who portrayed King George VI in this film, was prompted to confess that the characterization of Churchill made him feel that he was as close to meeting the real Churchill as he'll ever come.

Gary Oldman is an excellent actor and I have enjoyed several of his films like Bram Stoker's Dracula, Air Force One, the Batman films as Commissioner Gordon and as Smiley in the remake of Tinker, Taylor, Soldier, Spy (originally Alec Guiness which is also very good). In Darkest Hour, I feel he surpasses his acting ability compared to his other films. To me, he brought Churchill to life, in the way he spoke, his physical mannerisms, his dress, being a hard drinker and heavy smoker, showing his frailties, which made him stronger and determined to show he was right about "that man", whom Chamberlain was arrogantly blind to believe his "signed paper" he brings to England, after meeting "that man" was their salvation, yet the country was still Blitzed. The kindness he shows to his secretary when he takes her to the map room to show her Dunkirk explaining the, what and why, and he feels the pain that she and other Londoners are experiencing. The sets are very well done and the filming in darker lighting enhanced the scenes of the war, and meetings between Churchill and other officials, and the one with King George VI where they each state their belief and trust in each other. I have watched the film three times now, and still enjoy it as much as the first viewing. My favorite scene is of Churchill finishing his speech in Parliament to the cheers and he starts walking out of the chamber, it was not Oldman I saw, but Churchill. I was eleven when I got to see Churchill's funeral on TV, something I have not forgotten. I highly recommend the film. UPDATE: Just finishing reading some other comments about this film. I do agree with some statements that Churchill was a determined man with his opinions already set in place, would not bow to anyone, whether political opponents or family members, though I am sure that he had some moments, where he thought long and hard on many issues. Some aristocratic/political heads deemed him a traitor to his own aristocratic class. No head of state/country will ever please every citizen, every time in everything. Another reviewer made the comments about how Gary Oldman as Churchill was made to look older than what he really was, so I would have to give that is correct. Churchill still had hair and was a bit chubby but not obese. As to historical accuracy, well, Hollywood films are for the sole purpose of "entertainment" not "educational" value, to which, one would watch a documentary on History Channel. But for purpose of movie entertainment, I still enjoyed the film and Oldman's performance. I have not seen the Albert Finney version, but some reviewers suggest that it is a good one.

Great film about a great man doing what England needed during war time.

A great movie at the right price plays well, Thanks

Gary Oldman got, and definitely deserved the academy award for this. I still watch it every once in a while. Tinker, Taylor also great. I own them both.

Might not be totally accurate historically, but a damned entertaining flick.

Excellent movie and the 4k Disc picture is fantastic.

Amazon.de send me an area 1 dvd copy of the movie. So I could not play it on my dvd player. I live in Denmark.

Ein ausgezeichneter Film über die Zeit als Churchill Premierminister wurde, bis zur Niederlage Frankreichs. Der Film stellt Churchill in einem persönlichen Licht dar mit all seinen Schwächen und Schrullen. Für die Szene in der U-Bahn gibt es zwar kein Zeugnis, allerdings war Churchill bekannt dafür während des Krieges immer wieder irgendwo in London aufzutauchen und mit Menschen zu sprechen. Eine völlig andere empfehlenswerte Kriegsgeschichte ist "Der Flieger von Tsingtau" von Gunther Plüschow.

Churchill est sans aucun doute l'une des personnalités les plus influentes du XXe siècle. Plus j'en apprends sur lui, plus j'apprécie à quel point il était doué, parfait et imparfait... quel homme merveilleux il était pour son époque. Lorsque nous apprenons l'histoire de France de nos jours, nous ne lui accordons pas suffisamment de crédit pour ses efforts inlassables avant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, et évidemment pendant la guerre, non seulement pour protéger la Grande-Bretagne, mais aussi pour libérer la France. Il était francophile et entretenait des liens d'amitié étroits avec de nombreux hommes politiques français. L'un des paradoxes est que les bons amis français de Churchill appartenaient souvent à la gauche radicale et socialiste, notamment Reynaud, Léon Blum, Édouard Daladier et Georges Mandel. En juin 1940, alors que la France tombe aux mains des nazis, Churchill reconnaît en de Gaulle « l'homme du destin ». Mais leur relation va se transformer en montagnes russes, entre admiration mutuelle, suspicion et, pour Churchill, dégoût. Pour lui, il ne faisait tout simplement pas confiance à de Gaulle, dont l'ego démesuré et l'apparente ingratitude « dégoûtaient » Churchill. En France, de Gaulle est présenté à la plupart des gens comme un héros, mais plus j'en apprends, plus je pense que c'est un peu déformé. Certes, en tant que soldat, de Gaulle était brillant, mais en tant qu'homme politique, il était autoritaire et semble avoir travaillé à l'encontre des valeurs nationales à plusieurs reprises, et il a tenu ses alliés à une distance qui n'était pas nécessaire. Bien sûr, ce n'est pas le sujet de ce film, mais pour comprendre la vie de Churchill, il est important de comprendre ce contexte. Personne n'est parfait, ce film montre les défauts et le génie du personnage de Churchill. Si vous aimez l'histoire, ce film vous aidera, comme plusieurs autres films, à comprendre cet Anglais complexe. Bien sûr, ce n'est pas le sujet de ce film, mais pour comprendre la vie de Churchill, il est important de comprendre ce contexte. Personne n'est parfait, ce film montre les défauts et le génie du personnage de Churchill. Si vous aimez l'histoire, lisez certains des livres de Churchill. Il était un écrivain prolifique et a reçu le prix Nobel pour son travail sur l'histoire de la politique mondiale et de la Seconde Guerre mondiale du point de vue de l'Empire britannique. En tout cas, ce film est top.

Firstly, let me say that you will find, in these reviews, many opinions, conjecture, supposition and personal interpretations of events and character. That’s all perfectly acceptable. You’ll also see these same things presented as facts. That’s less acceptable. This is a fact. Churchill’s Granddaughter, Celia Sandys, herself an author (aged 74), stated the following in January of this year, 2018. “I would like to congratulate Gary for an incredible performance. So often when I’ve watched people playing my grandfather, I’ve winced and felt it was overdone or somehow fell flat but you’ve done a wonderful job. Churchill was twinkly and funny and affectionate, and he certainly wasn’t curmudgeonly of character. Of course, there were moments, and in that period he had a load to bear. He was never afraid of showing his feelings and crying.” This is an opinion. I find that to be a very moving and authoritative endorsement of the film’s portrayal of the man. This is another fact. Anyone really wishing to encounter a definitive account of the events depicted in this film should read Winston Churchill’s six-volume History of the Second World War. I have. (the first two volumes would probably be enough) This is an opinion. I loved the film. It does use legitimate and proportionate dramatic license to compress events (quotations etc.) into a timescale suitable for a theatrical presentation. By using this device, it achieves its objective of accurately presenting the whole character of a man who many judge to be the greatest ever Englishman. This is another fact. The film, for the first time ever, presents the Battle of Calais and the men who fought it in their true historical perspective. Their sacrifice is as worthy a tale as the evacuation from Dunkirk. Yes, there were roughly 4,000 men there, only two thousand were actually combat trained, many were cooks, drivers and mechanics. Of the two thousand trained men, many were unarmed, some had only side arms, they had few vehicles and fewer tanks. Many died, many more were taken prisoner and a few, very few escaped, and they are mentioned in the full text of the ‘fight them on the beaches’ speech. Everyone remembers Dunkirk, even Harry Styles! Not enough people remember Calais. There are a couple of books that tell some of the story. Flames of Calais by Airey Neave (a cabinet minister assassinated by the IRA) who was there and taken as a POW. Moral Chains by Richard A. McDonald who wasn’t there but has a fertile imagination and appears to know how to conduct proper historical research. Akin to Ken Follett it says, and his work is not for the faint of heart.

Excellent film ,of good quality and portrays the story correctly