Churchill

It's hard to understand the motivation of the makers of this movie in producing such an appalling and deliberate distortion of the facts. It is nothing but a hit piece intended to defame a great man. Don't waste one minute of your life on it.

Yet another film where they feel the audience is too stupid to have any knowledge of the subject, so must dumb it all down into patronising pap.

Not happy with insulting us already, they then take historical facts and rewrite them totally for no other reason than they can. Then slip in the old adage "Based On A True Story" which like so many films, claiming to be 'Based on a true story' is actually code for a load of B.S. pretending to be factual.

Churchill was one of the greatest, complex and most flawed characters of recent history.

Instead of going with truth (and therefore being much much more interesting) they went for a Hollywood horrible caricature full of errors and downright lies.

I'm not surprised the writer has no other credits shown on IMDb. This is atrocious pap. Insulting to a great man, who we were privileged for him to give 'the lions roar' for us, in the face of evil.

People watch films like this and others e.g. 'The Imitation Game' and think they are portraying factual history. They leave the theatre feeling they have learned something, instead it varies from gross distortion of the truth to out and out lie.

The irony is, the true story is so much more interesting. But it means the writers would have to put a lot of work in portraying it. Hence it's more convenient to serve us this pap and pass it off as 'historical'.

the reviews saying this is an 'Insight into Churchill' etc, shows real ignorance and how Hollywood rewrites history.

Never..in the field of cinematography..has so much crap been made to be watched by so many people. When the DVD comes out we will see it on the beaches...see it in the wheelie bins...etc I was dying to say that so there you go.

Good points are that if you knew nothing about Churchill, this could pass as a good " based on real events" matinée movie. All the cast do as much as they needed to pay their mortgages...sometimes beautifully filmed and neatly directed...if sometimes it wallowed in it's own importance.

Now the bad points..totally and absurdly historically inaccurate. Badly written and all through tries to build up to a crescendo but falls flat every time.You leave the theatre no wiser of what went on and who Churchill really was. As much as I admire Brian Cox ( I think his portrayal as Hannibal Lecter is almost as good as Tony Hopkins...and that's a MASSIVE compliment) I think he was miscast.

They had a chance to show us the mind of one of the few people who changed the world ...and I walked out of the theatre cold and short changed.

Watch it on a wet day but cannot give more than a 4!!

This is a shambolic mess of a film with a one-sided view of Churchill, factual inaccuracies and appalling errors. The scriptwriter obviously did not read Field Marshal Alanbrooke's diaries or the many biographies of Churchill.

Even basic military details were so wrong, it is farcical. Couldn't the budget stretch to a military adviser? Monty addressing 20 or so soldiers? He went round addressing brigades, thousands of soldiers at a time.

The way that the characters addressed each other, the salutations, the lack of an equerry for the King, no PPS for Churchill...all utter rubbish.

It's not like this viewer watched 'Churchill' expecting or wanting to hate it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Actually very much wanted 'Churchill' to succeed, considering that it is based on an important historical figure and his incredible story. Also very much like historical dramas and the cast is enough to draw anybody in.

'Churchill' turned out to be a real disappointment. Not one of the year's worst, it's nowhere near as bad as 'The Mummy' or 'Transformers: The Last Knight', but it's one of the most disappointing. It has been remarked that the representation of Churchill and his story is grossly inaccurate to the point of perversity. This is true, but 'Churchill' has more wrong with it than just historical inaccuracy and for now will be judged on its own as a film.

Let's start with the good things. The best thing about it is the magnificent performance of Brian Cox, a blistering portrayal and also a nuanced one that never resorts to mimicry, caricature or imitation. He may not sound like Churchill but man did he do his work. Faring best in support is an imperious Miranda Richardson and the two work very well together.

Jonathan Teplitzsky directs with some degree of dignity and the production values are spot on meticulous, beautifully photographed and with production and costume design that's atmospheric, sumptuous and evocative. The make-up for Churchill is well done.

Unfortunately, 'Churchill' is let down primarily by a thinly sketched, melodramatic and contrived script and a plodding over-stretched story that feels muddled in tone and focus. Most of the support acting doesn't work, John Slattery lacks the gravitas for Eisenhower and James Purefoy is in every sense one of the grossest miscasts for any film personally seen recently.

Pacing is leaden, and this is coming from somebody who is quick to defend deliberately paced films criticised for being "boring" (one of his most hated words as of now), too often and the music score is far too intrusive to an annoying degree.

Overall, disappointing but not a complete disaster. 5/10 Bethany Cox