मई 1940 में, द्वितीय विश्व युद्ध का भाग्य विंस्टन चर्चिल के निर्णय पर आधारित था, जिसे यह तय करना था कि एडॉल्फ हिटलर के साथ बातचीत करें या लड़ाई ज़ारी रखें, यह जानते हुए कि इसका मतलब ब्रिटिश ... सभी पढ़ेंमई 1940 में, द्वितीय विश्व युद्ध का भाग्य विंस्टन चर्चिल के निर्णय पर आधारित था, जिसे यह तय करना था कि एडॉल्फ हिटलर के साथ बातचीत करें या लड़ाई ज़ारी रखें, यह जानते हुए कि इसका मतलब ब्रिटिश साम्राज्य का अंत हो सकता है.मई 1940 में, द्वितीय विश्व युद्ध का भाग्य विंस्टन चर्चिल के निर्णय पर आधारित था, जिसे यह तय करना था कि एडॉल्फ हिटलर के साथ बातचीत करें या लड़ाई ज़ारी रखें, यह जानते हुए कि इसका मतलब ब्रिटिश साम्राज्य का अंत हो सकता है.
- 2 ऑस्कर जीते
- 54 जीत और कुल 81 नामांकन
Adrian Rawlins
- Air Chief Marshal Dowding
- (as Adrian Rawlings)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
I'm sure I am not alone in having seen everything ever filmed about the man.
But this is nothing like I have seen before. He is so funny.
We see his ability to make jokes like never before and there is more here than just dry sarcastic references.
He keeps us in stitches. He must have told 25 jokes.
This film starts in the days when Chamberlain knows he cannot continue as prime minister, alongside the crippling uncertainty of his cabinet meetings, and through to when the entire country, as a result of his speeches, stands firmly behind Churchill as war leader.
What surprised me the most was how large a role the opposition party played in Churchill's rise to power.
Excellent supporting cast from those distinguished actors we have seen in many BBC productions and "Game of Thrones".
Ben Mendelsohn's portrayal of King George VI was stunningly well done.
A real delight at Tiff - too bad no Q&A for my screening.
But this is nothing like I have seen before. He is so funny.
We see his ability to make jokes like never before and there is more here than just dry sarcastic references.
He keeps us in stitches. He must have told 25 jokes.
This film starts in the days when Chamberlain knows he cannot continue as prime minister, alongside the crippling uncertainty of his cabinet meetings, and through to when the entire country, as a result of his speeches, stands firmly behind Churchill as war leader.
What surprised me the most was how large a role the opposition party played in Churchill's rise to power.
Excellent supporting cast from those distinguished actors we have seen in many BBC productions and "Game of Thrones".
Ben Mendelsohn's portrayal of King George VI was stunningly well done.
A real delight at Tiff - too bad no Q&A for my screening.
Although its been shown to have been largely fictionalized, the gist of the story is accurate. Oldman gives an incredible performance, and not as some old bellowing windbag either.
After seeing this, one might recommend reading churchill's own 6 volume set on the subject, but to save time, the first volume, The Gathering Storm, may provide one with some historical pretext for this monumental event in western history-Churchill standing up to a madman, and this saving not just britain, but all good men everywhere.
Oldman, you da man!
Darkest Hour shines a light on a crucial moment in British and world history - the initial month of Churchill's term as he stand resolutely in the face of Hitler's advance while his peers wish to sue for peace.
The standout in this film really is Gary Oldman, who is as deserving of an Oscar for this performance as any actor ever has been. He toed the line perfectly, giving a powerful and accurate portrayal of Churchill without it every feeling like a gimmick or impression. He quite simply was Churchill. The physical transformation was a part of this, and the costume and makeup departments should be extraordinarily proud of what they achieved, but the majority of the credit goes to Oldman himself. The task at hand for was not an easy one. Churchill's speeches that he tackled perhaps go down as some of the finest in the English language, being so recognisable and quotable, and he delivered them flawlessly. Simply tremendous from Gary Oldman.
What I also thoroughly enjoyed about Darkest Hour was its attention to detail in bringing to life the period. The costumes, sets, score and supporting cast all blended together perfectly to recreate May 1940 so finely. With this alongside Oldman's performance you will get completely lost in this film and the era, perfectly capturing the spirit of the British people at the time. This was demonstrated particularly well during a spectacular scene on the underground, which was a real highlight for the film.
The camera work in Darkest Hour also stands out as we navigate the murky and claustrophobic tunnels of the Cabinet War Rooms, which adds to the sense of the British having their backs against the wall, trapped by the Germans.
If you love history, fine acting, and accomplished cinema, look no further than Darkest Hour.
The standout in this film really is Gary Oldman, who is as deserving of an Oscar for this performance as any actor ever has been. He toed the line perfectly, giving a powerful and accurate portrayal of Churchill without it every feeling like a gimmick or impression. He quite simply was Churchill. The physical transformation was a part of this, and the costume and makeup departments should be extraordinarily proud of what they achieved, but the majority of the credit goes to Oldman himself. The task at hand for was not an easy one. Churchill's speeches that he tackled perhaps go down as some of the finest in the English language, being so recognisable and quotable, and he delivered them flawlessly. Simply tremendous from Gary Oldman.
What I also thoroughly enjoyed about Darkest Hour was its attention to detail in bringing to life the period. The costumes, sets, score and supporting cast all blended together perfectly to recreate May 1940 so finely. With this alongside Oldman's performance you will get completely lost in this film and the era, perfectly capturing the spirit of the British people at the time. This was demonstrated particularly well during a spectacular scene on the underground, which was a real highlight for the film.
The camera work in Darkest Hour also stands out as we navigate the murky and claustrophobic tunnels of the Cabinet War Rooms, which adds to the sense of the British having their backs against the wall, trapped by the Germans.
If you love history, fine acting, and accomplished cinema, look no further than Darkest Hour.
As a film this is quite good; it's not dull, the performances are good, the production design is excellent, the script is a professional piece of work and even Oldman's make-up is not too distracting.
However, something is not right. If most people get their history from movies, this is concerning. It's obvious that actual events occurred with real people and what they did and said but in a movie this gets pasteurized into what smart people believe will be more thrilling, more sympathetic, more emotional. That process necessarily alters things into something that is even anachronistically rendered and therefore not in the record.
This defect occurs frequently in this movie , so it's not history but myth making. A good example is Churchill's dive into the Underground to meet the common person to steel his resolve. Now Churchill had a mixed view of the average voter, and he was a patrician, but even that aside, he did not need to take a Tube train survey to gauge opinion.
This scene is poached from Shakespeare's Henry V where the king goes among his soldiers the night before battle to hear them and take courage from their strength. Steal from the best is a good policy, but it's not history. It's Shakespearean history and that trades effect for accuracy too.
The audience is given this scene to present Churchill as an instrument of democracy; he's acting for what the people want, therefore he's doing the right thing. It's called pandering.
Well, it is just a movie.
However, something is not right. If most people get their history from movies, this is concerning. It's obvious that actual events occurred with real people and what they did and said but in a movie this gets pasteurized into what smart people believe will be more thrilling, more sympathetic, more emotional. That process necessarily alters things into something that is even anachronistically rendered and therefore not in the record.
This defect occurs frequently in this movie , so it's not history but myth making. A good example is Churchill's dive into the Underground to meet the common person to steel his resolve. Now Churchill had a mixed view of the average voter, and he was a patrician, but even that aside, he did not need to take a Tube train survey to gauge opinion.
This scene is poached from Shakespeare's Henry V where the king goes among his soldiers the night before battle to hear them and take courage from their strength. Steal from the best is a good policy, but it's not history. It's Shakespearean history and that trades effect for accuracy too.
The audience is given this scene to present Churchill as an instrument of democracy; he's acting for what the people want, therefore he's doing the right thing. It's called pandering.
Well, it is just a movie.
At this point, "Darkest Hour" has an overall rating of 5.3. I do not understand this at all, but the film has not actually been released yet and has only been seen in film festivals. I assume the overall score will increase considerably--especially since the two reviews for it were quite positive.
Now I must point out that I am a retired history teacher and I consider Winston Churchill to be perhaps the greatest politician of the century. So, I clearly have a bias and predisposition towards liking the movie...especially if it's done well. Is it a crowd pleaser? Maybe not, as the average movie-goer (especially teens) might not enjoy this or care a lick about the film.
The story covers only a portion of the month of May, 1940...just before the fall of France during WWII. Prime Minster Chamberlain is about to be tossed out of office, as his appeasement strategy with Hitler has turned out to be completely stupid. In his place, some hope for Churchill to be the next Prime Minister...though some forces are working to depose him as soon as he comes to power. At the same time, the war is going as badly as it possibly can. Can Churchill survive this? Well, of course...duh, it's HISTORY!
The reasons to see this are two big ones....the film has achieved the look of 1940 beautifully and Gary Oldman provides an Oscar- winning performance in the lead. If he is not at least nominated for this top award, I will be completely shocked...and he really managed (along with ample prosthetics) to LOOK and SOUND like the great man. Great job all around...and a perfect film.
Now I must point out that I am a retired history teacher and I consider Winston Churchill to be perhaps the greatest politician of the century. So, I clearly have a bias and predisposition towards liking the movie...especially if it's done well. Is it a crowd pleaser? Maybe not, as the average movie-goer (especially teens) might not enjoy this or care a lick about the film.
The story covers only a portion of the month of May, 1940...just before the fall of France during WWII. Prime Minster Chamberlain is about to be tossed out of office, as his appeasement strategy with Hitler has turned out to be completely stupid. In his place, some hope for Churchill to be the next Prime Minister...though some forces are working to depose him as soon as he comes to power. At the same time, the war is going as badly as it possibly can. Can Churchill survive this? Well, of course...duh, it's HISTORY!
The reasons to see this are two big ones....the film has achieved the look of 1940 beautifully and Gary Oldman provides an Oscar- winning performance in the lead. If he is not at least nominated for this top award, I will be completely shocked...and he really managed (along with ample prosthetics) to LOOK and SOUND like the great man. Great job all around...and a perfect film.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाGary Oldman spent a year studying Sir Winston Churchill and his mannerisms before starting on this movie.
- गूफ़Blackout restrictions were imposed starting in September 1939 and strictly enforced, requiring all vehicles to be fitted with slotted covers that only allowed a tiny sliver of light to be directed downwards toward the road. However, all the vehicles in the street scenes had fully exposed headlights.
- भाव
Winston Churchill: You cannot reason with a tiger, when your head is in its mouth!
- क्रेज़ी क्रेडिटAt the end of the closing credits the Big Ben clock is heard striking.
- कनेक्शनFeatured in CTV National News: 7 सितम्बर 2017 को प्रसारित एपिसोड (2017)
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How long is Darkest Hour?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- आधिकारिक साइट
- भाषाएं
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Las horas más oscuras
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- उत्पादन कंपनियां
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- $3,00,00,000(अनुमानित)
- US और कनाडा में सकल
- $5,64,68,410
- US और कनाडा में पहले सप्ताह में कुल कमाई
- $1,75,006
- 26 नव॰ 2017
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $15,08,47,274
- चलने की अवधि
- 2 घं 5 मि(125 min)
- रंग
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 1.85 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें