Les Heures sombres

I cannot remember the last time I was in a movie and I said, gee I wish this movie would keep going because it's just so damn good. I don't really have to say anything more about Oldman beyond what's already been said, that was brilliant Academy Award work. Despite being a literalist on history and not enjoying Hollywood embellishments/contrivances that didn't really happen, I will repeat something I said on another movie (Patton): I am okay where a fictional event is one that could have happened (or maybe happened out of time sequence) where it is used more to show the persona of the character than to establish an historical fact. Notwithstanding this, the subway scene may have been a little much. Strong cast throughout, including the portrayers of King George VI, Chamberlain, Halifax and Churchill's lovely secretary (James). A must see for WW II buffs and appreciators of good cinema everywhere.

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.

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.

It's a one man show about one of the towering figures of the 20th Century and what a show it is. Gary Oldman has been able to be Sid Vicious in "Sid And Nancy" with the same outstanding commitment and extraordinary results. Joe Wright, the gifted director of "Atonement" presents us with an irresistible version of Churchill through the magic powers of Oldman but sometimes he doesn't seem to trust the power of what he has in his hand. Eccentric cuts in the middle of a famous speech for instance and other stylistic distractions arrive with irritating frequency but that doesn't spoil. too much, the joy and fun of seeing Gary Olman in action. Also interesting to notice, Dunkirk provides a very moving moment for the second time this year.

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.