Au coeur de la tempête

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.

Continuing the storyline of ¨Gathering Storm¨ (2002) by Richard Loncraine, ¨Into the storm¨ by Thaddeus O'Sullivan is a look at the former British prime minister's life and career at the end of WWII. Winston (Brendan Gleeson) and Clemmie Churchill (Jane MacTeer) kept their strength and will united during WWII. Years ago, the couple experienced especially complicated moments when the politician became the only dissenting voice against the terrible threat of Hitler and the Nazi party against England. While the powerful Wehrmacht destroying the European armies and rampaging across the continent to Dunkirk, and an impeding encroachment over England by Nazis is nearly. As Churchill carries out ¨Dynamo Operation¨ to save the British army and French soldiers from Dunkirk siege and he will fight the Nazi enemy at whatever cost. And in 1940 the important "Battle of Britain" took place, in which the Nazi aviation, the Luffwaffe, tried to destroy the nation but was countered by the Royal Force, hence: Never have so few owed so much to so many. Germany was arming itself for war, but they didn't count on one man !. Never , never surrender¡ Never give up. Never give in! A relentless leader is the greatest weapon of war !.

Churchill was the Nazis' greatest obstacle during WWII. With his fearless and rhetorical authority he inspired millions of Britons and others around the world to fight Hitler to the end. The film covers historic moments such as the Yalta conference with Roosevelt and Stalin, Churchill's heart attack in the middle of the conflict - which was kept secret - his desire to accompany the troops on D-Day and the phrases that transformed him into one of the most recognized speakers of the 20th century.

The brothers Ridley and Tony Scott produced the previous film ¨Gathering Storm¨ by Richard Loncraine (focusing on Churchill's family life, and marriage troubles and as he had to explore a negotiated peace treaty with Nazi Germany or going on the war) , and this sequel ¨Into the Storm¨ by Thaddeus O'Sullivan, worthy of numerous awards. This is an exciting film based on facts with biographic elements about the turbulent life of the great Prime Minister Winston Churchill , a man who took a stand that changed history while his own Conservative Party was plotting against him . In ¨Gathering Storm¨and ¨Into the Storm¨ there are several historical happenings well developed and well paced. In May 1940 Neville Chamberlain is forced to resign due to the opposition Labour Party that accused being too weak in face the Nazi enemy, in fact he signed the useless Covenant of Munich in 1938 , then Churchill is appointed P. M. , along the way he manages to convince the different parlamentary forces , as well as he prepares Dynamo operation to rescue the European armies in Dunkirk .

Its protagonist is the late actor Brendan Gleeson, one of the most respected British actors of his generation, actor in notorious films such as Frankie (2019), The Guard (2011), Calvary (2014) and In Bruges (2008) , and sharing the stage on this occasion with the also prestigious Janet McTeer , who played Albert Nobbs (2011), Me Before You (2016) and Tumbleweeds (1999). The two great main actors are well accompanied by the best plethora of supporting British actors, such as: Donald Sumpter, Jack Shepherd, Bill Paterson, Robert Pugh, Clive Mantle, Adrian Scarborough, Andrew Havill, James D'Arcy, Patrick Malahide as Major General Bernard Montgomery, Iain Glen as King George VI and the American Len Cariou as Franklin D Roosevelt.

This professional filmmaker Thaddeus O'Sullivan has made a moving and decent biographic flick. Thaddeus is a good Brit craftsman who has directed good works displaying a long career both television and cinema, such as : December bride (1990), Nothing Personal (1995) , Stella Days (2011), Shetland (2016), Maigret (2017) , Citizen Lane, (2018), Silent Witness (2020), Miracle club (2023), among others. Rating: 7/10. Better than average. The flick will appeal to WWII enthusiasts.

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

Superficial. Talk about dumbing down! I suppose, to be fair, there are millions in Britain, and even more in America, who have no idea who Winston Churchill was and the service he performed. Doubtless these people need to have the basics spelled out. However, the result is a the equivalent of a Disney cartoon version of A Christmas Carol. As an English viewer I also could not escape the uneasy feeling that this was a slightly twee version of British history adapted for Americans.

Gleeson did not convince me as Churchill. As another reviewer has noted, he lacked the impish and self-deprecating humour which was such an important counterbalance to some of his less endearing qualities. Janet McTeer's part could have been played by almost anybody. And when did Attlee become a Scot? One of the most convincing bits was the actor they found for Stalin - surely one of the best lookalikes of all time. Otherwise I don't know how they managed to gather such a roster of top acting talent for insignificant roles.

Shame. It could have been good.