Darkest Hour

Are convincing sets, a skilled cinematographer, and one awesome actor enough for a thought-provoking historical reconstruction and Oscar fanfare? Not really... Gary Oldman is deservedly polishing his precious bald statue, and I enjoyed his speech a hell of a lot, but this time Joe Wright showed himself to be an uninteresting routine artist who may be able to put pictures together nicely and play an engaging charade with the viewer, but he uses rather inferior gimmicks and shortcuts. As a TV project it would have been great, but as an ambitious star-studded drama it comes off as simplistic, with supporting characters that are as flat as Cara Delevingne's chest, and a narrative that moves mechanically towards its stated goal without trying to add anything enlivening or believably human – and when it does try, it comes off as a major filmmaking and plot dud (the subway). Thanks to Churchill, whose charisma is enough to sell the film, it works well on a motivational level and the story is whole, but Wright is simply not Spielberg, whose Lincoln reaches an incomparably stronger catharsis at the end through a much more thoughtful interweaving of the private and political lines. As something easygoing to watch once, though, it’s more than OK. (18/03/2018)

The excellent Gary Oldman (he is not lost at all under the mask, in fact acting not only with his eyes, but also his vocal cords, all his chins, and so on) and other actors headed by Kristin Scott Thomas and Ben Mendelsohn, Wright's direction adorned with a number of attractive shots... And at times, sadly, a bit of a boring script with a rather tacky scene on the subway that would have been even worse without Oldman. I admit that was expecting “second Lincoln" from Darkest Hour, the subject matter is very similar, but even though I didn't get that, it was definitely a good two hours. (16/01/2018)

On the one hand, Darkest Hour is primarily a one-actor film, and Gary Oldman proves his mastery here. On the other hand, it's also a film about a time that was very unpleasant, but in which people still lived and wanted to live, and it can even be presented in a funny way. Churchill was a strong personality and deserved a film like this. (28/01/2018)

An engineering film, perhaps for the target audience of naive naturalised university students who feel that a degree is the holy grail and the key to good results. In a figurative sense, this is the same Joe Wright, director of the 11-year-old and brilliantly polished Atonement. He tries to make every scene formally, aesthetically and dialogically perfect so that the charge, juice and density of the story actually slips through his fingers like a knife through butter with nonchalant elegance. But the ending is way off the mark. If it is supposed to be Oscar bait, it was not very successful. If the film worked as a mere vehicle to highlight Gary Oldman's makeup and acting, then OK. (28/02/2018)

Winston Churchill is a very controversial figure for me. The film deals with his becoming the Prime Minister at a time when everything seemed to be lost, and it’s true that it was he who managed to galvanize Britain to fight on. However, as the war progressed, his interfering with the decisions concerning war operations often proved counter-productive (Force Z, Mers el-Kebir, trying to open up the front in the Balkans, etc.). Gary Oldman in the role of Churchill was good; I liked John Lithgow in The Crown better, though. I wasn't bored for a single moment, I've always found British politics interesting, especially war politics. Like many other users, I was disappointed by the massive load of political correctness. All that was missing after the tanned young man said the last words of the poem was to casually mention that he was a renowned surgeon and sang opera in his spare time. Oh well... (06/07/2018)