en la tormenta

I simply loved this movie. amazing story of bravery and great leadership and chivalry. I felt very connected to this movie as an Iranian since my own country was in 8 years of bloody war with Iraq( read the world)! The writing was flawless , lovely story telling with almost all angles of Winston Churchill's characters. I liked how the writer showed how important Mrs.Churchill was in the success of Winston Churchill as one of the best politicians of the history , with out doubt.

casting and direction was just perfect and let's not forget unbelievable make ups that were done on the face of the actors and actresses. Epic job by the costume designer(s) as well. but I think everybody agrees that the best of the best in this film is the performance of the leading actor whom by the way I can not believe did not win golden globe after this outstanding performance.

In the end I have mention the big mistake by the writers made in writing , the movie shows that Stalin , Roosevelt and Churchill meet in Tehran but they never mention the main reason of that meeting. the main reason of that meeting was to decide over the new government of Iran after the removal of Reza Shah whom they assumed was pro Germany. Allied government needed Iran to be saved from Germany who had racial roots with Iranians because of Iran's key role in the middle east and more importantly it's resources and of course Persian Gulf as the key to Suez Canal. also fall of Malaysia and Philippines was never mentioned which was another error made by the writers. the way they pictured the war it was like world war 2 was all about and around Britain which was not the case at all.

As you can gather from the other "reviewers" here, the only people who generally disliked this movie are the pretentious English snobs and those who want to be. Perhaps they forget, this is a movie. It, like all "true stories," lies on a historical foundation that is covered by a great deal of assumptions. Assumptions that have to be made because so few are left alive who knew Churchill, and even fewer who have reliable memories. Only so much screenplay and dialogue can be gleamed from the pages of a history book. Otherwise you'd end up with a documentary instead of a movie. If a documentary is more your taste, then watch one. This is a movie. And a damn good one.

this is a very enjoyable war drama without reaching any great heights in excitement. Brendan Gleeson acts well as Churchill and overall the film gives us a good impression of the difficulties of the time and how Churchill managed those difficulties and his 'assistants'. His fallibility as well as his leadership are well known and I agree with the earlier comment that the Stalin like character was terrific and a real star in his somewhat brief role. Roosevelt was well portrayed and you should not worry Mr Attley was portrayed as a Scot.

I did find the twisting of the story a little annoying insofaras we are watching churchills life during the war years but the story softly concentrates on his holiday in France with his wife at the end of the war and his struggle to hold onto power.

Not convinced this is intended in any way to be a sequel to Gathering Storm.

there are some good one-liners in this movie by Churchill, King George and others. Not convinced Gleeson makes it his own as Churchill but cant fault him for his efforts and professionalism and it really doesn't matter that he is much younger than Churchill actually was, this is a drama film and lets not forget that.

100 minutes is long enough and we are spared warfare throughout the film. this is not a war film and nor is intended as a biography on Churchill the man but much more a documentary to churchills role as British leader during those war years.

Easy to mock it as a British as the film is intended clearly for an American audience but it does not deflect from its entertainment level and the ending is for once a satisfying one.

after all, always better to leave the cinema happy even if not in agreement with the outcome.

Though "Into the Storm" is possibly a sequel to "The Gathering Storm," it can't hold a candle to it. Nor can the performance of Brendan Gleeson, as good as it was, approach Albert Finney's performance in The Gathering Storm.

This movie deals with Churchill being named Prime Minister and his concern for the British force which is now trapped, his destruction of the French fleet, his forming of a unified government, meeting with Stalin and Roosevelt, and his final ousting from office in 1945.

Naturally, as some of the reviews here point out, there was a great deal left out. One of the reviewers states that Roosevelt and Churchill are responsible for World War II by cutting off access to trade, and that Hitler was faced with starving his people.

I suppose that's one way to look at it, and one can spin events any way one wants. The fact is, Hitler couldn't have cared less about the German people and he starved them anyway. He took their pots and pans and anything else they had, including teenage boys when they were needed to fight. And in the end, when it was obvious Germany was losing, he blamed the Germans. To present him as a concerned dictator who cared about his people - I'm sorry, it's ludicrous.

The author Marcia Davenport (The Valley of Decision), who was in love with Czech freedom fighter Jan Maserek, said that Roosevelt and Churchill sold Eastern Europe down the river. The reference to Poland toward the end of the movie hints at letting Stalin have Eastern Europe rather than go to war again.

Getting back to this film - yes, a great deal was left out by necessity and yes, I suppose to some it seems too simplistic. I, too, felt it was on the sketchy side.

But what bothered me were all these famous phrases of Churchill's just tossed off in normal conversation, so that when he talked, he always sounded like he was making a speech. For me it gave the production a very stagy feel. Then, when it came for him to actually make a speech, they left out his biggest one.

The acting was good, as the cast was top drawer, with Janet McTeer as Clementine Churchill, Iain Glen as King George, Len Cariou as FDR, and Aleksey Petrenko as Josef Stalin.

For some reason, as I read through the reviews, some people expected these actors to do Rich Little impressions of these people and were complimentary of Petrenko because he looked like Stalin. I don't think lookalikes and vocal impressions were the point of the film.

If you're a novice and intend to read up on some of the other aspects of World War II, this is a good starting point. It's by no means definitive.

As an history teacher whose bust of Churchill graces my classroom wall, I was looking forward with some trepidation, feeling that this would be another example of British film-makers dumbing down for their American cousins. And reading the comments here, it would appear with some reason. Churchill is supposed to come across as an humourless man with chunks of history taken out or exaggerated. However, I find this to be a study in resolution under unimaginable pressure. The war in Britain is presented with broad strokes, but such short episodes manage to convey the mythic times they present. Churchill is not seen to be infallible (at times he expresses gratitude for the war and a megalomania that cost his judgement so dear, whether at Gallipoli or with Norway) but this all the more makes one appreciate his achievement. This film is meant to have viewers come away with an understanding of what his leadership meant and why he was such a towering figure over the past century. Of course much is left undeveloped or left out, but then this was only 100 minutes long. For those who know Churchill intimately through history (including his own), I think you'll be gratified with many of the asides and intimations that may pass over the heads of others. If I have any quibbles, one would be the format. I'm not sure why the narrative goes back and forth after VE day and during the war. It adds nothing but in fact messes up the history needlessly- Churchill had been at Potsdam when news of his crushing election defeat came in, not on holiday in France. That why it was such a blow, and how he knew (as he is made to say here) that Stalin was shocked; if even Churchill could lose elections, better to dispense with them in his Eastern settlements. Churchill's role at Potsdam was crucial, not only in the final settlement with Germany, but in having the US agree with the dropping of the A bomb. Here is an example of his greatness in shaping our world completely erased only to have considerable dramatic licence made concerning his marriage, which was never as rough as is made out. But as a tribute to one of those rare Great Men who change the course of history (even rarer for being, in this case, for our lasting benefit), it makes one watch with back straightened and a lump in the throat. Sure, some scenes appear staged (as when he meets with young airmen about to do battle, inspiring him to come up with "Never in the field of human conflict..." on the spot) but then, Churchill lived by and through myths. With fine direction (it was produced, I noticed, by Ridley Scott!) and acting, I'm going to force my girlfriend now to sit and watch it with me. www.imperialflags.blogspot.com