Darkest Hour reviewed by Mark Kermode 

I haven't seen it i'm just trying to understand what Mark might be suggesting in his review.

Stephen Taylor I liked it a lot! I gave it an 8.5/10

If you focus on Oldman as churchill, it's a great film. If you focus on the film as a whole, it's not.

Being a USA resident with no close ties to how much truth and fabrication was in this movie needs to be stated up front. That said, it was the most interesting and engaging movie I have viewed in the past two years. My parents were 9 and 4 years old at the time this movie takes place. I found it to be a look at how time was then. And what the British were facing. May be not completely accurate. But a 2017 retelling of the mess things were. Best movie I've viewed in ages.

I thought it was crap. Very little bearing on the truth. It’s just a myth about a man than most people think is a hero but in reality was a deeply flawed man. This movie is for the uncritical uneducated masses

@@decimustv4257 lmao virgin

....that's because it was'nt an Oscar bait movie? lmao wtf

nunouno001 I

nomoreheroes93 he's not really complaining about historical accuracy though, just that he doesn't think the scene makes sense

Ah yes, I am sure he used to wear sea Island poplin shirts, not sure the ones Oldman wore were - to be fair I know occasionally how being relatively knowledgeable in certain areas can expose inaccuracies and can become irritating I advise just get over it. Or you will never enjoy a film. All the best. All the brst

Bravo Mr Mott 🏆🇬🇧

@@nigelcarren I'm a sucker for a good pun (and quite a few bad ones).

Churchill never actually said that quote about "wiping out" the Japanese. Not sure where Burton got that from.

They didn't mention the famine. Which wasn't Churchill's fault anyway. They just mentioned his policy on Indian Independence and self rule.

David Bain I actually like Gary Oldmans portrayal just a little better

Mega MovieZ I will definitely check it out :)

I prefer Gary Oldmans performance. Lithgow had to act being an Englishman

Both are amazing performances but remember they are playing Churchill 14 to 20 years apart

Chazbot funny because Dillane plays Viscount Halifax in this film lol

The speech was essentially "written" by the subway passengers and the V gesture was developed by his secretary. It's basically a remake of The King's Speech (dreadful) with a focus on WC. A dud.

How is it a remake of that particular film?

Hopingover Leavesinfall it's not, but if two films have some vague similarities (like both being WW2 movies with the English king in them) ignorant people love to say things like "they're basically the same".

There was an overwhelming public opinion towards putting up a fight before the battle of Britain. I think movies have the right to use emotional artistic license in the case of the tube scene. It didn't ruin it for me. It really depends what a person expects from a movie like this lol

Check out Cox in 'Manhaunter', the first and arguably best 'Hannibal' film. No disrespect to Sir Anthony.

Churchill isn’t in dunkirk though tbf.

People muttering in the background - it sounds like they're saying 'rhubarb' over and over

something extras do to look like they're having conversation in the background of a shot is mouthing 'rhubarb', it's also a way of generating crowd noises.

Cheers both!

Rhys Thomas's 'A Year In The Life Of A Year 2017' had a load of extras in a period drama going 'fa fa fa' similarly!

It's an Aphex Twin song you can play for your granny. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_AWIqXzvX-U.html

Extras who are not supposed to be heard, but must look like they are talking, are often instructed to say "rhubarb" to each other. It's a great shortcut for getting their mouths to move without hearing them.

He IS Dracula. Then and forever.

They used artistic licence when they wrote and shot that scene for sure but Churchill was known to sometimes wander off on his own and talk to everyday people so there is at least an element of truth in that scene.

Yes, except that film is based on very little fact and truth. He never contemplated cancelling D-Day for example. It was delayed by 24 hours due to the weather. That was Eisenhower's call.

Realistic? It's full of inaccuracies.

Lionel Hutz Jack Nicholson as the joker

Perfect example - a big set-piece: SCENE 13: The Governor's Ball [OLIVIA and JAMES enter from stage left - at stage mid and rear, 38 guests are engaged in conversation, oblivious to their presence] If you're one of those 38 people, you can't talk out loud or you'll ruin the scene for the two stars. But you also have to look like you're talking in a fairly animated fashion. So you whisper "rhubarb" to each other using the kind of facial expressions that you might use in a genuine conversation. The effect is a bubbling of conversation that the stars can easily work against. The word "rhubarb" makes your mouth move in a convincing fashion that could be just about any words.

Thanks!

For his performance yes. The film doesn't have to get a best picture oscar, or even be nominated, for him to get a best actor oscar

Charlie Panayiotou Gary Oldman's performance is something special!!!

The King's Speech didn't deserve to beat The Social Network to the major Oscars, but it's still a very good film. It gets unfairly knocked by a lot of people.

I think some people expect "good" films in this genre to be challenging examinations of history, not sappy, masturbatory odes to allegedly glorious and noble bygone eras. Or an uncritical celebration of traditionalism and nationalism. Far too many of these movies get made and get undeserved critical acclaim.

Disagree, the technical elements of a film come second to the story, always. TSN was incredibly timely and culturally pertinent, it was a much more interesting examination of greed and capitalism than whatever TKS was. Like I literally could not give less of a damn about the poor old King and his speech impediment. It was the men and women on the ground that did the heavy lifting during WW2, nevermind that the Soviet Union did most of the work. The movie was literally a jerk, it's just feel good nonsense. If it's about entertainment then Toy Story 3 was far more enjoyable. There was nothing interesting or substantial about The King's Speech at all, all it did was glorify the monarchy during a time where there was just so much more going on in the world that's more important (not to mention it sanitized all the unsavory aspects of the UK at the time).

Jack Lines I was about to make this very same point, but would have written it more meanderingly. The backdrop adds scale and grandness, but the core is honest and very human. I however lack the courage to attack Fincher's film.

I'm not really a giant Fincher fan although I appreciate his movies, and I agree that TSN owed a lot to the script, but the movie really had something to say, and the implications are much more interesting/challenging than TKS. TKS was inspirational, but that's all it was. I mean I enjoyed it for what it was at the time, but like The Artist, TKS winning Best Picture is really the clearest indication about the cultural attitudes of the old, stuffy and reactionary Academy. TKS really was just glorification, there's nothing deep or critical to unpack about its story. TSN was very critical about its subject, academic elitism, greed and interpersonal relationships in the backdrop of the social media age.

MS He actually beat Daniel Day Lewis twice now! Once for Golden Globes and a second time for Critics Choice! He's a lock to win the Oscar!

Mega MovieZ They said same about Tinker Tailor and then Artist actor won instead the oscar.

MS But The Artist actor won all the other awards. Darkest Hour was Gary Oldmans first Golden Globe nomination. If he wins the SAG award he will win the Oscar because that determines the Oscar winner 99.9% of the time.

Jack Smith Well yeah but that's like a 1 in a million chance so it happens (like last year) but very rarely

EinSophistry Or even trash...... 😉

Hey, I was trying not to spook the natives.

Nick Nack he was completely against colonial rights. He spoke of natives as if they were a plague. He endorsed the massacres of native Australian & American people & was a fan of Mussolini. This myth he was anti-fascist is nonsense. He was all for it when it was about fighting Communism. He only turned against it when it threatened Britain & the Empire. He also opposed votes for women & was a Zionist.

He also orchestrated the gassing of the Kurd's, gave the army orders to shoot striking British workers, was in charge during the Indian famine that caused the death of 3 million people , described Indians, Palestinians and native Americans as vermin, was opposed to the creation of the NHS.

Has an awful reputation in Ireland for introducing the Black and Tans. An army formed of convict hauled out of prison that butchered many innocent people in Ireland. You can read other stuff on BBC website here: www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29701767

I've been going through "LONDON TO LADYSMITH VIA PRETORIA" by him where he displays his racism and opposition to black rights. There's a bit where he argues with his Boer capture which has been presented as him standing up for equal rights by some of his hack historian fanboys but read in context of the entire piece he seems to be doing the exact opposite. There's also this passage I've found "The Durham Light Infantry carried the hill at the point of the bayonet, losing seven officers and sixty or seventy men, and capturing five Boer prisoners, besides ten horses and some wounded, Most of the enemy, however, had retired before the attack, unable to endure the appalling concentration of artillery which had prepared it. Among those who remained to fight to the last were five or six armed Kaffirs, one of whom shot an officer of the Durhams. To these no quarter was given. Their employment by the Dutch in this war shows that while they furiously complain of Khama's defence of his territory against their raiding parties on the ground that white men must be killed by white men, they have themselves no such scruples. There is no possible doubt about the facts set forth above, and the incident should be carefully noted by the public." I've never seen this passage brought up before.

Richie 1138 How was him being a Zionist a slight? That's ridiculous.

Sy75D Then read up on some history instead of wanting it spelt out like in a kids film.

That's just it - it DOESN'T represent history - not even the big speech. If you listen to the REAL "fight them on the beaches" speech (and it will be up here somewhere) - it was delivered in a calm tone of voice throughout. Oldman makes his version super-dramatic. Not representing history at all. But then again, the dramatic liberties taken in this film are so bad that Joe Wright should get 6 points on his Dramatic Licence and a £200 fine! I wasn't at all a fan of Oldman's makeup either - he looked like the elephant man after some modern NHS treatment for his face. Surely they could have cast someone who didn't need any prosthetics. Compare Bruno Ganz as Hitler in "Downfall", for example, all they did was style his hair - most convincing Hitler ever! That film was pure speculation about Hitler's final days - but it was delivered so believably that you would swear it was all true.