उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

This film may make a good story but it doesn't make good history.It is true to say that the casualties on the first day in Normandy equalled those on the first day of the Battle of the Somme.However it is difficult to give much credence to the notion of the film.Churchill would have been aware of the threat posed by the V rockets and the prospect that if nothing were done eventually the whole of Europe would have been overrun by Stalin's Soviet army.Also by this time Churchill had very little say in things and he was aware of this.He was not senile,which the film implies,but he was haunted by depression,which the film chooses not to mention.All told this is a film which is totally unworthy of the great man's memory.

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

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.

Despite the title, "Churchill" is not a comprehensive biopic of the British wartime leader. It concentrates upon a very brief, limited period in his career, the few days leading up to the D-Day landings in June 1944. Moreover, its take on these events is an astonishing, almost incredible one. It alleges that Winston Churchill, haunted by memories of the bloody Gallipoli landings in Turkey during the First World War, became convinced that D-Day would be a disastrous failure and desperately, but unsuccessfully, tried to persuade Eisenhower, Montgomery and other Allied generals to cancel the plan. He argued instead that the Allies should concentrate about on their offensive in Italy and fight a multi-front war by launching new operations in Norway, the Balkans and the Bordeaux area of western France. When overruled, Churchill insists that he should sail in person on board one of the ships accompanying the invasion fleet, and only abandons this idea when ordered to do so by King George VI.

Needless to say, this line has been criticised by historians and biographers as historically inaccurate. The decision to land in Normandy in the summer of 1944 had been taken at the highest political level long before; it Churchill had wanted to challenge it he would have needed to raise his objections at a much earlier stage with Roosevelt rather than Eisenhower. (And possibly with Stalin as well). The film-makers do not seem to appreciate what an enormous political storm would have been raised had the British Prime Minister attempted to cancel, at the very last minute, the greatest Allied offensive of the war.

Despite this criticism, I have given the film a relatively high mark because of the quality of some of the acting involved, although not all the performances are equally convincing. Julian Wadham as Monty and Richard Durden as Jan Smuts are both instantly recognisable, but the same cannot be said of John Slattery as Eisenhower or James Purefoy as the King, as neither actor looks anything like the man he is supposedly portraying. Miranda Richardson, however, is excellent as Churchill's wife Clementine, the one person with the courage to speak common sense to the great leader. In looks, as well as in the forthright, no-nonsense style of her acting, Richardson reminded me of Judi Dench, or at least of Dame Judi as she was twenty years ago.

The best performance, however, comes from Brian Cox as the great man himself. Cox, admittedly, does not bear much physical resemblance to Churchill, although the make-up people have done a good job in this respect, but he has clearly studied his subject in depth and mastered his voice and mannerisms well enough to enable him to give a fine impersonation and to deliver his speeches with an authentically Churchillian ring. The storyline may be historically doubtful, but in psychological terms Cox's portrayal of an elderly wartime leader exhausted by his gargantuan efforts and suffering under the burden of self-doubt (and possibly also of guilt over his own part in the Gallipoli affair) is strikingly convincing. It is hardly surprising that the critics, even when they were less than enthusiastic about the film as a whole, singled him out for praise. "Rolling Stone" called his performance "a master class in acting" and "Time Out" said he was "rudely magnificent". My own verdict would be similar; Cox lifts what would otherwise be an indifferent movie into the category of something well worth watching. 7/10

The critics have not taken very kindly to this 4-day biopic, but I found much to admire. It's June 1944, in the week before D-Day, and Prime Minister Winston Churchill (Brian Cox) is having grave doubts about the Normandy landings. World War One saw a similar beachhead go catastrophically wrong at Gallipoli, and Churchill took much of the blame for the disaster. Generals Eisenhower and Montgomery (John Slattery and Julian Wadham) are gung-ho for a great victory, and even King George (James Purefoy) is quietly optimistic. Clementine, Mrs Churchill (Miranda Richardson), worries about her husband's stress – and his drinking. She doesn't seem to worry about his smoking: we hardly ever see him without a cigar.

This is something of a 'chamber piece', more like a play than a movie, all talk and little action. There are no battle scenes; the Blitz is in the past; London is more or less a safe place in which to be planning a mighty campaign to defeat Hitler and Nazism. Brian Cox is made up to be a very believable Winston and he does a splendid job with the great man's voice without lapsing into caricature. Only the cigars are overdone.

The rest of the cast are convincing, although Ms Richardson could have done with some sharper lines: her Clemmie is a bit like a Jane Austen mumsical matriarch. Cox is well-served by the script, although critics and historians are claiming that Churchill never actually had the four dark days of doubt and despair pictured here. There's a scene of him at prayer which becomes very Shakespearean – the PM as King Lear!

So: a talky drama, not slight but a bit slender (in spite of Churchill's Hitchcockian girth). The eve of a great moment in history. Authentic or not, this is stirring stuff.

Churchill is a British movie directed by Jonathan Teplitzky. It stars Brian Cox as Winston Churchill, and Miranda Richardson as his wife, Clementine Churchill. John Slattery portrays General Dwight Eisenhower.

The entire film takes place just before and just after the allied invasion of Normandy, which occurred on June 6, 1944. I'm not a history buff, and I always assumed that D-Day represented a stroke of true military genius. I was never aware that Churchill was vehemently opposed to landing troops in northern France. According to what I've read, Churchill believed that the allies would do better throwing everything they had into the Italian campaign.

In what is apparently historically correct, Churchill fought against the invasion, but he wasn't really in control of the battle against Hitler. Eisenhower was the supreme allied commander, and the ultimate decision was his.

Brian Cox sort of looks like Winston Churchill, and after a while I could believe it. However, I don't think John Slattery looks at all like Eisenhower, so that portrayal just didn't work for me.

Also, given that we all know that D-Day took place, there's not much tension in whether or not Churchill can stop it. So, what we see in the movie is Churchill ranting and raving, bullying his wife and his secretary, and praying that God sends a rainstorm to prevent the invasion from taking place.

What bothered me most is that, according to the movie, Churchill's opposition was based on his own terrible decision to invade Gallipoli in World War I. It's true that the invasion of Gallipoli is considered one of world military history's great blunders. It's true that Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty when that blunder took place. However, this was a different world war, and the conditions and nature of battle were different. It's hard to know, from the film, whether Churchill would have been equally opposed to D-Day if someone else had been First Lord of the Admiralty in World War I.

We saw this film at the excellent Little Theatre in Rochester, NY. Because there are no battle scenes and no shots of the D-Day armada, the movie should work as well on the small screen.

It's a must-see if you're interested in the history of WW II, or if you're interested in the role Churchill played towards the end of the war. If neither of these really matters to you, it probably won't work.

I don't think the movie is worth seeing just to see Brian Cox portraying Winston Churchill. He's very good, but I don't believe that the film is worth a special trip.

The movie "Churchill" chronicles the days before the invasion of Normandy in which the British Prime Minister finds himself no longer in control of the fate of his country. Ike Eisenhower is now in command of the allied invasion. The movie captures his extreme difficulty in letting go and placing his trust in the comparatively less experienced generals in charge of the invasion. Churchill feels that he, himself, must serve a vital role.

Beyond the historical backdrop of the movie, we are made to gaze upon a vital nuance of our humanity as well - the challenge to trust others.

On the basis that other reviewers have very adequately covered the glaring objections to this film I will keep this brief.

In an action packed life of 80 years involving 2 world wars and one other significant war (The Boer War), a momentous political career, a life filled with both failure as well phenomenal achievements, that the filmmakers should think it necessary to MAKE UP a story about Churchill seems like the pinnacle of perversity. It just defies any logic hitherto known to mankind.

"Poetic license" is nothing new in movie making. However this movie is more like a "license to kill", kill a man's reputation, kill the concept of history, and kill the truth. The preservation of actual history in the light of revisionism is difficult enough without the general public being exposed to downright lies to further confuse and deceive them.

I give this movie a 1 as a protest, in the probably forlorn hope that if enough people do the same to all movies that mess around with history, movie makers will get the message and steer their movies in a way that treats people and history responsibly.

Wow. What a waste of an opportunity to make a brilliant film. To summarise it in 5 words: BORING, INACCURATE, EMPTY, UNINSPIRING AND REPETITIVE.

What really makes me angry about this film is the thought of the thousands of people who know very little about Churchill who watched this to gain more insight into him. What they'll come away with is the sense that Churchill was a bumbling alcoholic, did nothing during WW2 and was a senile, absent leader. Of course, no such thing is true.

Shame on the writers of this abomination for taking 'artistic license' and redrawing history.

The very low budget shows, too. With a bizarre lack of any battle scenes despite the entire film being centred around one of the largest battles in military history. The film is also littered with needless time-wasting shots of Churchill getting into cars, getting out of cars, then back into cars and so on.

Cox's performance is good, but his accent irritatingly varies widely, particularly in shouty scenes, which ruins any sense of genuine character. This is the first film where I've sat in the theatre and honestly wished it would end sooner. For that reason, this is one of the most disappointing films I have ever sat through. AVOID AVOID AVOID.

We sometimes forget some of the greatest leaders in history suffered from the devil that is depression. While not focusing on it, his struggle with the 'Black Dog' is acknowledged within the plot.I suspect a reasonable amount of licence has been taken but the nub of the story I would imagine is true. The Churchill's, Eisenhowers, King George's and Clemintine's of this world are treated as real, fallible human beings and indeed often flawed, but wholly accepting of their duty. Brian Cox makes an excellent Churchill. I see a couple of people have given this a one star review? Really not sure what movie they were watching...Well acted, shot and produced...this movie is well worth your time.

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.

I have often thought I would like to again experience watching films such as Aliens, The Thing, Saving Private Ryan or Blade Runner for the first time. All were exciting and entertaining. What am I served up with now? This tripe. Never mind factual issues, it is just plain boring. Churchill is, possibly, one of the worst films I have watched (well, I stopped after 50 minutes - my jaw was nearly dislocated with yawning). Dreadful. How was this ever released?

I'll be honest, I don't feel the acting was as good as other reviews says it was. Not that I did not love watching Brian Cox do his thang on the big screen but I was not as impressed. It felt like I was watching a play as Cox performance seem heighten like he was on the stage, especially compared to the other actors around him who did not have the same gusto.  

Of course, I could be missing something. I know who Churchill is but I don't know any personal details of which the movie seems to have a lot as it refers to relationships between him and his wife played by Miranda Richardson. For all I know Churchill was that type of guy.

As a pseudo exploration of a complex character this film does ok as a creative art piece; as history it's a faded watercolour on cheap canvas. Well acted, but low budget revisionism trying tug at the heart strings.

The film presents a tightly focused, intimate examination of Winston Churchill in the days immediately preceding the D-Day invasion, choosing to delve deeply into the psychological and moral turmoil of leadership rather than depicting battlefield action or large-scale military operations. Cinematically, the film adopts a subdued color palette dominated by grays, muted browns, and misty blues, effectively conveying the oppressive atmosphere of wartime Britain and the isolation Churchill experiences as he confronts one of the most consequential decisions of the war. The cinematography often frames Churchill alone or physically separated from others within confined spaces, reinforcing the solitude and immense pressure that accompany his role as wartime leader. This stylistic emphasis on claustrophobic interiors and close, intimate shots aligns the film with other Churchill biopics such as Darkest Hour (2017) and The Gathering Storm (2002), both of which similarly explore the internal struggles of the same historical figure. However, unlike those films, this one tends toward a more theatrical, almost stage-bound intensity, which occasionally sacrifices subtlety in favor of overt dramatization.

Technically, the film is distinguished by its meticulous production design. The recreation of London's war rooms, political offices, and Churchill's personal spaces is detailed and authentic, contributing significantly to the immersive period atmosphere. Costume design likewise convincingly evokes Churchill's recognizable silhouette and persona. The sound design and musical score work well to heighten tension and underscore the gravitas of the unfolding drama without overwhelming the dialogue-heavy scenes. Yet, the film's pacing suffers under the weight of these extended, static political discussions; with virtually no scenes depicting combat or even the immediate aftermath of war events-save for some archival or photographic inserts referencing the Gallipoli disaster-the narrative risks becoming static and weighted toward a chamber-drama aesthetic rather than cinematic dynamism. This choice distinctly situates the film within the subgenre of political leadership dramas during WWII rather than the broader category of war films with frontline action.

The film's portrayal of Churchill himself is one of its most controversial aspects and merits close scrutiny. It depicts Churchill as hesitant, increasingly senile, and tormented by the moral dilemma of sending thousands of young soldiers into near-certain death. This portrayal repeatedly invokes the haunting memory of the Gallipoli campaign, a military failure in which Churchill played a significant role during World War I. While the recurrence of Gallipoli as a psychological motif adds a compelling layer of dramatic tension, historically this choice is problematic. By the time of D-Day in June 1944, the Allies had already executed several major amphibious landings-most notably in Sicily (July 1943), Salerno (September 1943), and Anzio (January 1944)-all of which had shaped operational thinking and provided precedents for Normandy. Thus, the moral hesitation that the film attributes to Churchill risks overstating his personal doubts and underrepresenting the strategic confidence shared among Allied leaders at this late stage. The narrative implication that Churchill's trauma from Gallipoli was a dominant factor in his pre-D-Day deliberations simplifies a far more complex and pragmatic leadership posture.

Moreover, the film commits a conspicuous historical inaccuracy by depicting Churchill physically present at the final planning meetings where Eisenhower, Montgomery, and other senior military commanders shaped the operational details of the invasion. Archival evidence and well-established historical records make clear that these military conferences were restricted largely to military personnel, with Churchill attending only select high-level strategic sessions and not the detailed planning meetings in question. This artistic license, presumably employed to amplify Churchill's direct involvement and heighten dramatic tension, unfortunately detracts from the film's credibility and oversimplifies the complex and compartmentalized command structure of Allied operations. The decision to insert Churchill into these military planning scenes, while narratively expedient, risks alienating viewers familiar with the historical record, as it conflates political leadership with frontline military strategy in a way that is not supported by facts.

Comparing the film to its closest peers, it is clear that it occupies a specific niche within the Churchill biopic subgenre. Darkest Hour (2017), for example, successfully balances the tension between political resolve and personal vulnerability, offering a Churchill who is flawed yet resilient, and supported by a nuanced script and dynamic performances. The Gathering Storm (2002), meanwhile, provides a broader, more comprehensive view of Churchill's wartime leadership and earlier political career, allowing space for complexity without resorting to overly reductive character traits. The film under review, while sharing the same historical figure and time frame, leans more heavily on the psychological drama of hesitation and doubt, but in doing so, it occasionally slips into a reductive portrayal that overshadows Churchill's strategic acumen and political courage.

Performance-wise, the lead actor is commendable for his physical transformation and vocal mimicry, convincingly capturing much of Churchill's iconic presence and mannerisms. However, the portrayal sometimes falls into the trap of cliché-the cigar-chomping, bulldog-voiced archetype-that limits emotional depth and complexity. Supporting roles, especially those portraying Churchill's political colleagues, tend to be broadly sketched and lack subtlety, with dialogue often veering into exposition-heavy territory. This approach reduces dramatic tension and diminishes the naturalism of the interpersonal dynamics, making some scenes feel more like reenactments than organic character interactions.

In terms of broader context, although the film's production date might not directly influence its reception, it inevitably reflects contemporary concerns about leadership, responsibility, and the costs of war. Its emphasis on Churchill's moral doubts and anxieties resonates with 21st-century audiences grappling with the ethical complexities of political and military decision-making, particularly in an era marked by rising populism and debates over national identity. This lends the film a modern interpretative lens that differentiates it from mid-20th-century war cinema, which often presented more heroic or propagandistic depictions of Churchill. Nonetheless, the film's heavy-handed approach to psychological tension, combined with its historical liberties, risks reducing its message to a simplistic meditation on fear and indecision rather than a balanced exploration of leadership under crisis.

The film is a technically proficient but uneven entry in the Churchill biopic subgenre. By prioritizing psychological drama and moral conflict over historical fidelity and cinematic energy, it creates a narrative that will appeal to viewers fascinated by the internal crises of wartime leadership but may disappoint purists seeking nuanced characterization and rigorous historical accuracy. This tendency toward dramatic invention, combined with its focus on a narrow temporal window, limits the film's scope and depth, positioning it more as a chamber piece than a sweeping wartime epic.

The director and screenwriter have courageously created a movie that shows Winston Churchill during one of his periods of deep depression. Brian Cox is impressive in the title role and the rest of the cast: excellent.

The cars of the period were beautifully polished and prominent but the number of times we saw VIPs getting in and out of these beautifully polished vehicles could've been cut back.

Although I'd question the historical accuracy of the film, the 105 minutes were great theatre. Unlike quite a few films nowadays, the actors' diction was clear – many in the cast were trained for the stage.

One of the best scenes is when Churchill finally realises his place in history is to use his skill as orator to maintain British morale and not to inhibit the work of the war generals and strategists. The final speech – after the troops had landed on the beaches of France - is truly uplifting.

Greetings again from the darkness. Well, well. The image to most of Winston Churchill is epitomized by his nickname, The Lion of Britain. Undeniably one of the most iconic historical figures of the last 150 years, there have been volumes of articles and books and movies documenting his important role in so many moments that shaped our modern world. Director Jonathan Teplitzky (The Railway Man) and writer Alex von Tunzelmann (she herself a British historian) take us behind the public façade and into the personal doubts and fears … even literally into his bedroom and the middle of his marital spats.

Brian Cox takes on the role of Churchill, and seems to relish more than the ever-present stogie and its lingering smoke. He captures many of the physical traits and movements, while employing his stage-trained voice in an exceptional reenactment of the infamous and impassioned D-Day radio speech. Complementing his performance is Miranda Richardson as Clemmie Churchill, the strong and diligent great woman behind the great man.

Most of the film takes place in the four days leading up to the June 6, 1944 Allied Forces invasion of Normandy, known of course as D-Day and Operation Overlord. At the time, Churchill was almost 70 years old, and what we see here is man teetering between past and present while cloaked in an almost paralyzing fear stemming from the 1915 Gallipoli debacle. He is presented as vehemently opposed to the Normandy invasion, though most documentation shows his initial resistance from (1941-43) had subsided, and he was fully on board by this time.

Although the ticking clock throughout the film leads to the invasion, this isn't a war movie per se, but rather a peek at the human side of leadership in a time of crisis. Ask yourself if you could readily order tens of thousands of young soldiers to face slaughter, especially after you had experienced such tragic results a still-fresh-on-the-conscience 29 years earlier.

John Slattery ("Mad Men") plays General Dwight Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander (and future President of the United States) and he more than holds his own in scenes with Cox/Churchill. Julian Wadham plays Bernard Montgomery, the Spartan General. He was over all Allied ground forces and accepted Germany's surrender in 1945. Taking on the role of British Field Marshal Jan Smuts (also the Prime Minister of South Africa) is Richard Durden. Having the thankless job of trying to keep Churchill on track, Smuts was the only person to sign the peace treaties for both WWI and WWII, and later established the League of Nations. James Purefoy does a really nice job as King George VI (replete with minor stutter), and Ella Purnell (Emma in Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children) shines as Churchill's bright-eyed new secretary, and invested British citizen.

The best scenes are between Winston and Clemmie, and those where he fine-tunes his remarkable speeches. At times the film veers into near-caricature mode, but manages to right itself thanks to the counsel and wisdom of two strong women. Later this year, Atonement director Joe Wright will present Darkest Hour, with the great Gary Oldman as Churchill, and it's likely to feature more politics and acts of state. Despite the blustering and sense of "losing it", all is well when the D-Day speech is delivered. It's so much more than words on the page. Well, well.

I have seen a lot of bad movies. I've seen a lot of movies that revise history. Never before in my life have I seen a movie that I deemed so atrocious and disgusting that I felt the need to write a user review on IMDb. Until now.

Churchill takes one of this century's greatest men and turns him into a caricature. For all the amazing, courageous, and poetic things Winston Churchill did in his life, this movie makes no mention. Instead, it portrays him as a senile buffoon who fights against the plans for D-Day as nothing more than a bumbling idiot, when in actuality he was one of the leading men trying to get it to take place. He was a hero, not just in Britain but all over the western free world. I imagine there will be a lot of people offended and deeply upset by this portrayal. That's not the sad part, though.

The sad part is that people who do not know actual history will go into this movie and watch it, and come out thinking this was the real man. This movie is a character, reputation, and legacy assassination of one of the greatest men this world has known, flawed as he was. Tell everyone you know that has seen this movie to research him on their own and draw their own conclusions about his life. I implore you. Don't let these awful writers ruin a man's legacy on a whim.

A bold biopic that tells the untold story of Churchill's opposition to operation overload - never retold by the man himself as he wrote his own history but is covered in Max Hastings book which this film has possibly drawn on. Brian Cox delivers a powerhouse performance and is in almost every scene - it's an uncompromising and brutal portrait that is warts and all. Watched this on the big screen at a preview and while some scenes play a little long and dusty the resolution is worth it - here was a man responsible for bringing peace to the world but with the weight of so many soldier's lives on his conscience - that so Tunzelman's script shows only came of age at the age of 70. When he finally realized his place in history was as the champion of the people and the British spirit - and not amongst the war generals and strategists. The film is beautifully photographed and Miranda Richardson delivers an awards worthy turn as Churchill's wife. Other supporting cast are strong even John Slattery with a bald head! A solid historical drama for fans of Kings Speech or The Iron Lady.

Hmmmm, I am in two minds. I was taken by surprise in the beginning because I thought it was going to be an honest 'warts and all' story but it slowly declined into the usual platform for Churchill dramas, in which a few true facts are heavily supported by a lot of sentimental and jingoistic fiction. Brian Cox played a credible role as Winston, however his facsimile wasn't a patch on Albert Finney's portrayal of Winston in Ridley Scott's, "The Gathering Storm" of 2002.

Most of the supporting cast were very good; Richard Durden was a great lookalike for General Smuts, who was played to perfection, Danny Webb was a convincing General Brooke; and there was a masterful portrayal of Clementine Churchill by Miranda Richardson. Her's was the best 'Clemmie' I have seen yet, and she probably acted out some scenes very like the original would have. The casting was let down by, John Slatterly playing the role of Eisenhower; he looked nothing like 'Ike' and therefore I found his scenes off-putting, although he gave his lines well.

Likewise the role of 'Monty' was badly portrayed by Julian Wadham in my opinion too. He neither looked like him, because he was far to heavily built and much taller, nor did Wadham speak like General Montgomery. Yes Monty was arrogant and lofty towards Winston towards the end of the war, but he was never discourteous or rude to him to his face, as was suggested in the film. In real life Monty lost almost all his friends when he retired, because he was such a pain in the neck; surprisingly one of the very few people to stick by him in his final years was Churchill, who often invited him to stay at Chartwell when no one else would.

I give this film 6.2, and this is largely because of some well acted roles; however the historical content would not pass many legitimacy tests. A great opportunity has been missed to address the wrong doing of decades of depicting Churchill as a great war hero; it was he himself who wrote, or fostered, most of the sentimental nonsense said about him; and films like this sadly still regurgitate it. Winston, who was ever the consummate actor, would instantly recognize this film for what it really is....pure theater.

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.