Darkest Hour

[italianjob1275]

Just seen this and really enjoyed it. A vastly superior film to Dunkirk in my opinion.

Cinema was rammed full too!

[WhisperingWasp]

Saw it today too. Was surprised to find there wasn’t a thread on it already.

I thought it was brilliant from beginning to end. Very powerful movie. And Gary Oldman as superb as the trailers suggested.

[Guffy]

I saw this last night and was surprised to see the cinema so busy, even the cheap seats at the front were taken.

I thought it was excellent, superb performances all round, although i actually prefer John Lithglow's 'Churchill' in The Crown.

8/10.

[TheGreatSoprendo]

Enjoyable film, although the tube scene was a bit daft! Was it me or did his accent keep slipping into a bit of a cockney twang?

I'd also recommend The Gathering Storm which covers the 10 years or so before the outbreak of war where Churchill was warning about the danger of the rise of Hitler and nobody wanted to listen. Albert Finney is outstanding as Churchill.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gatheri.../dp/B0000AZVHL/...

[mooseracer]

Watched it on Friday - excellent film. Though wasn't the darkest hour the blitz?

[Guffy]

TheGreatSoprendo said:

Was it me or did his accent keep slipping into a bit of a cockney twang?

Yes, i kept hearing his own accent from time to time which was a bit off putting.

[jinkster]

Absolutely brilliant !

[Vocal Minority]

I haven't seen it yet - and am torn.

I am told Oldman is outstanding. But it is a story that has been told about 1000 times in various forms.

I guess (and I prepare for being flamed for being in possession of this opinion on Pistonheads) I am worried it'll be a hagiography. A good old tub thump about isn't Britain super smashing wonderful and isn't Churchill flawless. Because frankly the intricacies of the situation are endlessly fascinating, but not the version of events the wider public find terribly palatable.

So - to everyone who has seen it....what does it bring to the table?

[Vocal Minority]

TheGreatSoprendo said:

I'd also recommend The Gathering Storm which covers the 10 years or so before the outbreak of war where Churchill was warning about the danger of the rise of Hitler and nobody wanted to listen. Albert Finney is outstanding as Churchill.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gatheri.../dp/B0000AZVHL/...

I very nice bit of tele that - plenty of faces in it.

Finney is excellent, Vanessa Redgrave is good, also has a young Tom Hiddlestone, Lena Heady (Cersei in game of thrones), ROnnie Barker, Celia Immery, Jim Broadbent, Hugh Bonneville, Derek Jacobi. Lots.


As an aside there is a (viable, but not wholly certain, in my opinion) argument that it wasn't because people in gov't didn't want to listen - Britain was re-arming from 1934, after Germany's withdrawal from the League of Nations caused a period of introspection, Mitchell and Camm didn't pull the Spitfire and Hurricane out of their arses in 1939....in fact the Gloster Meteor first took the sky in 1941.

However, the argument is that it was that standing up to Hitler was the proverbial starting a fight with Anthony Joshua over a spilled pint. Arguably they should have waded in after the Sudetenland crisis - but there is an argument that it was buying time until we were ready.

As I said it's not wholly provable - but they weren't blind to the fact - like popular folklore suggests.

Churchill stoked the fires certainly, and played an important role, but the myth has overtaken the reality to an extent.

Contemporary intelligence suggested Germany was stronger than it necessarily was. And Hitler's edict to withdraw from the Rhineland if met with any resistance is hindsight and hindsight only.

Edited by Vocal Minority on Friday 26th January 15:18

[Eric Mc]

I've spotted one technical inaccuracy in the trailer -

I am looking forward to seeing "Darkest Hour". However, as it is being held up as a paragon of accuracy compared to Dunkirk, I did notice in the trailer a scene where Churchill is seen leaving an RAF Douglas Dakota (DC-3/C-47).

That would have been impossible in 1940, as the RAF did not start operating Dakotas until 1942. Indeed, the DC-3 is shown in post 1942 markings and colours - again completely wrong for 1940. "Faux pas" like that will not spoil the film for me even though the film makers could have found a more appropriate aircraft for that scene and perhaps had it painted in more appropriate colours and markings..

[Vocal Minority]

Eric Mc said:

I've spotted one technical inaccuracy in the trailer -

However, as it is being held up as a paragon of accuracy

There is no such thing in Hollywood Eric....

[Eric Mc]

Vocal Minority said:

There is no such thing in Hollywood Eric....

Precisely.

[caiss4]

Eric Mc said:

I've spotted one technical inaccuracy in the trailer -

I am looking forward to seeing "Darkest Hour". However, as it is being held up as a paragon of accuracy compared to Dunkirk, I did notice in the trailer a scene where Churchill is seen leaving an RAF Douglas Dakota (DC-3/C-47).

That would have been impossible in 1940, as the RAF did not start operating Dakotas until 1942. Indeed, the DC-3 is shown in post 1942 markings and colours - again completely wrong for 1940. "Faux pas" like that will not spoil the film for me even though the film makers could have found a more appropriate aircraft for that scene and perhaps had it painted in more appropriate colours and markings..

I spotted that too when I saw the film but to be honest don't let that moment of artistic licence detract from what I thought was a damned good film.

[caiss4]

Vocal Minority said:

I haven't seen it yet - and am torn.

I am told Oldman is outstanding. But it is a story that has been told about 1000 times in various forms.

I guess (and I prepare for being flamed for being in possession of this opinion on Pistonheads) I am worried it'll be a hagiography. A good old tub thump about isn't Britain super smashing wonderful and isn't Churchill flawless. Because frankly the intricacies of the situation are endlessly fascinating, but not the version of events the wider public find terribly palatable.

So - to everyone who has seen it....what does it bring to the table?

Actually it depicts Churchill as being disliked by many of his party, being described as a potential disaster (following Gallipoli) and it was only Attlee's insistence that Churchill should lead the coalition that finally won the day. It also depicts Churchill as being a bit unsure how to proceed and how the US were positively obstructive to supporting us at that time.

Even so I'm sure there were parts of the plot that were pure Hollywood but overall I think it basically presents a very real picture of the events of that time.

[Vocal Minority]

Interesting....may have a butchers then.

(It always sounds like I'm anti-Churchill and I'm not - I'm just anti 'bed time story' version of events)

[motco]

Vocal Minority said:

TheGreatSoprendo said:

I'd also recommend The Gathering Storm which covers the 10 years or so before the outbreak of war where Churchill was warning about the danger of the rise of Hitler and nobody wanted to listen. Albert Finney is outstanding as Churchill.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gatheri.../dp/B0000AZVHL/...

I very nice bit of tele that - plenty of faces in it.

Finney is excellent, Vanessa Redgrave is good, also has a young Tom Hiddlestone, Lena Heady (Cersei in game of thrones), ROnnie Barker, Celia Immery, Jim Broadbent, Hugh Bonneville, Derek Jacobi. Lots.


As an aside there is a (viable, but not wholly certain, in my opinion) argument that it wasn't because people in gov't didn't want to listen - Britain was re-arming from 1934, after Germany's withdrawal from the League of Nations caused a period of introspection, Mitchell and Camm didn't pull the Spitfire and Hurricane out of their arses in 1939....in fact the Gloster Meteor first took the sky in 1941.

However, the argument is that it was that standing up to Hitler was the proverbial starting a fight with Anthony Joshua over a spilled pint. Arguably they should have waded in after the Sudetenland crisis - but there is an argument that it was buying time until we were ready.

As I said it's not wholly provable - but they weren't blind to the fact - like popular folklore suggests.

Churchill stoked the fires certainly, and played an important role, but the myth has overtaken the reality to an extent.

Contemporary intelligence suggested Germany was stronger than it necessarily was. And Hitler's edict to withdraw from the Rhineland if met with any resistance is hindsight and hindsight only.

Edited by Vocal Minority on Friday 26th January 15:18

'Into the Storm' TV film completes the pair alongside 'The Gathering Storm'.

[Eric Mc]

caiss4 said:

I spotted that too when I saw the film but to be honest don't let that moment of artistic licence detract from what I thought was a damned good film.

I'm sure it won't.

In 1940, Churchill was generally being ferried around in a De Havilland DH95 Flamingo. The number of surviving DH95s is precisely none - so the film makers would have been hard pushed to find one.

[Roofless Toothless]

Eric Mc said:

I've spotted one technical inaccuracy in the trailer -

I am looking forward to seeing "Darkest Hour". However, as it is being held up as a paragon of accuracy compared to Dunkirk, I did notice in the trailer a scene where Churchill is seen leaving an RAF Douglas Dakota (DC-3/C-47).

That would have been impossible in 1940, as the RAF did not start operating Dakotas until 1942. Indeed, the DC-3 is shown in post 1942 markings and colours - again completely wrong for 1940. "Faux pas" like that will not spoil the film for me even though the film makers could have found a more appropriate aircraft for that scene and perhaps had it painted in more appropriate colours and markings..

Actually Eric, I was more annoyed by the total lack of historical accuracy or credibility of the tube train episode. The last half hour ruined what was an interesting film up to that point.

Oh, and of course, the way the ash on the end of Churchill's cigar had a habit of getting longer and shorter as they cut between shots in some scenes. Continuity nowhere.

[jinkster]

Roofless Toothless said:

Oh, and of course, the way the ash on the end of Churchill's cigar had a habit of getting longer and shorter as they cut between shots in some scenes. Continuity nowhere.

I wonder how many cigars they through during the filming.

[nicanary]

Eric Mc said:

caiss4 said:

I spotted that too when I saw the film but to be honest don't let that moment of artistic licence detract from what I thought was a damned good film.

I'm sure it won't.

In 1940, Churchill was generally being ferried around in a De Havilland DH95 Flamingo. The number of surviving DH95s is precisely none - so the film makers would have been hard pushed to find one.

An Anson or Oxford would have at least been period. Surely some still exist in airworthy form? Just saying.