Exactly Mark. What is the point of being a film critic if you can't criticise a film ?- In fact whats the point of having film critics at all if that's the case? The criticism of people who dislike a film more than others is absurd-it's their opinion. Weirdly there has been a bit of the reverse of that going on through Star Wars 8's theatrical release- where some idiots have been asking how can critics like what they perceive quite wrongly to be an awful film
To me it felt more like a made-for-TV film. It felt very much like a montage of moments that didn’t really tie together to form a narrative structure. The train sequence was an interesting idea, but it felt forced - as did the rest of the film, when I really think about it.
I personally would like to see a movie that portrays Churchill at 360 degrees: not just the usual bits that show what a huge motivator for the WW2 cause he was. Like, for example, how he was a huge Mussolini fan (right up to the point it was no longer convenient), that he wanted to see Gandhi trampled by elephants and how his strategic plans caused the death by starvation of millions of Indians (search for WW2 Bengal Famine and you'll see what I mean). As the great man himself put it in one of his best, though lesser known, quotes: "I know that, in the end, I can't be too mad at Hitler: it's thanks to him that I have a reputation as one of the Greatest Hero rather than the warmongering bastard which, deep down, I truly was!" - Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill (Speaking from beyond the grave of course).
Professicchio or a film about a British person who didn't do something impressive in the war? Or didn't own a giant house 150 years before I was born. That would be good
Motivator for WW2?What utter bollocks..what would you have prefered? to let the jackbooted hordes invade and destroy us without a fight?We came so close to being invaded and subjegated and every jew or opponent to Nazi rule liquidated.You ought to be careful what you wish for..Churchill stood alone against the Quislings and appeasers because to agree with them would have meant the weak annihilation of Britian and the yoke of a thousand year reich.
Same with ''The Kings Speech''. Terrific when you're doing the ironing on a Sunday Afternoon. It plays best as an up-market TV movie. Not a film for people who really want something to chew over. (pause) *puts on shouty ''Jock voice'' ''Bladerunner 2049 for the win!!!''
I'm not a fan of character-centric biopic films either. It always comes across as a poorly concealed revisionist PR for the person they are about. The exceptions are those biopics, that aren't really about the central character at all, but bigger themes, like Lawrence Of Arabia, Amadeus, The Social Network, The Elephant Man and others. Those are masterpieces.
(Credentials before I begin - film writer for 4 years, bylines in TimeOut/BFI, blogger for the Prince Charles, also front of house for Picturehouse/Everyman cinemas for 4+ years. Also, BA (hons) in English Literature. I think Mark’s use of “flying the flag” is the crux here. A thread running through the aforementioned The Queen, Darkest Hour, and a slew of films released recently such as Victoria & Abdul, Viceroy’s House, (to a lesser extent Dunkirk) is there reticence to address and portray the *not positive* negative affects and actions of important parts of British imperial history/British identity. It’s easy to write each of these films off as light fluff “an easy watch”, but taken cumulatively they present an airbrushed, sanitised history which often leads to these films scrambling for “depth”, “drama”, or legitimate engaging characters etc. Even with an Oldman or a Streep at the helm, the listlessness in mainstream British culture to ask us (British public) to do more than empathise with our lauded cultural heroes and preciously treasured historical narratives is what’s leading critics like Mark to feel they are “talking the country down” or “being unpatriotic” when criticising films like Darkest Hour. Currently, the UK (and its film industry) are more interested in preserving its constructed narratives of empire, monarchy, wars etc than preserving the actual country and its people. Tl;dr - Britain has a giant empire-shaped elephant in all of its rooms, and film critics (with their eye both on the world the film creates and the world the film is being shown in) shouldn’t be intimidated into pointing at it and shouting “There might be some issues with this…” Claim to fame - second ever time at weekly press screenings I saw The Good Doctor before a showing of Need For Speed, and sheepishly asked him to sign a copy of his book Hatchet Job.
I've seen the whole movie and I quite agree with you... It is an over-the-top performance. I thought Kristin Scott-Thomas did a much more convincing and subtle work as Churchill's wife. And overall I much preferred Richard Cox and Miranda Richardson's performances!
It looks trite and cliched, to be honest. I always laugh at the trailers, especially the bit where he's walking out of an erupting Parliament in "cool guys don't look at explosions" mode. I could, in fact, see it for free. I shan't be doing so.
I'm sick of films (and TV) about Churchill (multiple times) and Thatcher, Dunkirk, The Royal Family past and present, Aristocrats, anyone who went to Oxbridge and was a spy or something. There have been some great films amongst these categories but ENOUGH. If you want heritage history for over forties - watch BBC4
Stephen Henderson “Heritage Britain” sells very well in America and other countries. Stephen Fry, in an interview with Simon Mayo, said he was told by a Russian distributor: “We’re not interested in your modern dramas. When it comes to your films, we want to see butlers, Rolls Royces, and country homes.”
Sir, you are absolutely spot on & as brill Mark says, better not say anything unpatriotic. Wonder if they'll ever make a film about him urging the shooting of Welsh miners???!!!
I'm now thinking they may as well give Jennifer Saunders a BAFTA for Grandpa's Great Escape because she managed to speak with a lot of prosthetics on too (in her double role as Miss Dandy and the vicar)!
I've heard Mark criticize films for 'being on the nose' a few times in recent months. What does he mean by this? To me is seems like a cop out answer. Anyone willing to explain?
That's a strange but special, immersive film. I get it if people don't particularly want to be transported into that world. I get it if people find it slow etc.
TTSS is visually striking and has a fine cast but, overall, I find it to be quite inferior to the BBC series with Alec Guinness and the novel. Not everyone who is indifferent to it feels that way because of its pace. I do wish they'd try and adapt The Honourable Schoolboy, though :(
Never a fan of Joe Wright’s work and this proved no exception. Thought Oldman gave a prime slice of ham and his portrayal in no way matched Finney’s definitive Winnie. The Film had all the right credentials but considering the momentous subject matter was curiously inert. The music got right royally on my pip and was incredibly intrusive, whatever happened to letting the drama speak for itself? Max Steiner would be proud.
I agree with you ! I'm a huge Gary Oldman fan, and am willing him to the Oscar, BUT this is just a case of a great performance in an average film (and the mockney tube scene is terrible)
I've had a lot of films in the last year that everyone seems to praise as being tremendous, best of the genre type of stuff that I've just been utterly underwhelmed by. And this isn't even amidst hype, I've just disliked them or had nothing about them affect me in any emotional fashion whatsoever, but many people seem to have this blanket, universal belief that everyone simply loves said films unequivocally.
The best thing any critic can do is remain truthful to their critique. Darkest Hour is a stroke job on one of the worst people to live same with the Queen celebrating an institution which is disgusting good for you Mark, still find your love of Minions a black mark on you though
The interesting thing is that you needed to watch it to know this. I could have told you that from the trailer, from the poster even.Can we stop mining the war and move on now. It’s been done.
This is what I call the Star Wars paradox. The first new one, directed by JJ was bad, a bad copy of the first Star Wars movie. You were definately not allowed to rate it lower than awesome. And now, critics tell us why the new one (ep 8 or did I lose count?) is better than The Force Awakens. Where were you then, critics?
not gonna lie, haven't seen the film, but that clip in the intro reminded me of Peter Serafinowicz's impression of Ralph Fiennes, i.e. Leonard Rossiter (look it up if you haven't seen it, it's fantastic)
I know the feeling. I have criticised some well-loved films in the past and it is like you're not allowed to have these opinions. To each, their own I say.
I absolutely agree. It’s as if just about every ounce of energy that went into making the movie, went into Gary Oldman to make that performance one the greatest there’s ever been, with not much left for anything else. Kristin Scott Thomas is a case in point. Her performance as Clementine Churchill seemed flat by comparison. Vanessa Redgrave in the same role in The Gathering Storm is a much better rounded performance. Indeed, I prefer The Gathering Storm overall, even though Albert Finney’s performance, as great as it is, isn’t as good as Gary Oldman’s.
Loved this movie! But mark Kermode is usually right on the nail. If he doesn't like a movie, then you can usually see his point. Strange to thing that so many American critics liked it. I thought I would be in the minority.
Glad to hear you had the sack to stand your ground to Mirren - I doubt I would fair better. Darkest Hour is the focus of a lot of discussion among my film critique peers - some saying that Oldman's political views and off camera behaviour make rooting for him in this role at this time problematic, and that may well be true. Others (my wife included) point to Churchill as an extremely flawed individual whose impact on history was not a total net positive, and that may well be true as well. But to me, the film is the thing. A great performance might improve a mediocre film, but if a film isn't more than the sum of its parts, one good turn is rarely enough for me.
I was bored of chest-thumping "Our finest hour" ahistorical semi-propagandist self-regarding pap of the kind which Darkest Hour looks to resemble very closely years ago. And the "but it's British and it's great" reaction only makes me more hostile. The whole point of critical opinion is to set that kind of emotional infancy aside. Mark, please carry on with my full support
Well said Mark: grateful for a critic's honesty and well reasoned thoughts knowing that said critic may simply be dismissed as a party pooper. I don't think it's a great film by any stretch of the imagination which left me feeling a bit confused when I left the cinema: before I saw it I spoke to a couple people, whom I usually respect on such matters, who remarked on how good it was- it really wasn't a disaster, but hardly good film. Glad to hear- and a relief too- that others are also skeptical about the film as well.
It's too safe a film. It whitewashes Churchill and that time period. I rolled my eyes at the train scene when the sole black character was treated absolutely no differently by all present on the train, including by the known racist Churchill himself. I think the film would have achieved greater heights if the writer and director gave the film some teeth. Showed more of the troubling side of Churchill. More of the backstabbing of politics. And generally more of how back then it all wasn't smelling of roses. After watching the film you'd be forgiven for thinking 1940s Britain was barely any different from today. It is a 1940s period piece made with 2017 sensibilities. The thing is, using those sensibilities should allow us to better analyse and critique past events to greater effect. Not actually transplant those sensibilities into the past and rewrite history.
Agree with Mark (Tube scence was ludicrous) but at least it was considerably better than Dunkirk which had about 5 mins of drama spread over 106 minutes - it's clearly treasonous to criticise Dunkirk
I liked the queen but I hated darkest hour. Strangely enough the scene where he's talking to all the citizens on the train was the only scene I liked. Because it felt like I was watching a movie for once. Instead of a lifeless slog whose only goal was to get to the speech at the end
Some of the most insipid cinematography I've ever seen. "Let's throw the camera around everywhere for no reason. Let's put everyone's face RIGHT up agains the lens. That makes it a movie." ^_^
Thanks. Curious to see this first class performance from a first class actor. Might see it as you say film is ok not bad. Also I don't like The Queen for two reasons, it's okay as a film as you say, and I just don't like the portrayal of the Queen (gosh shock horror). Having seen documentaries of Queen Elizabeth II, I don't think the script or the performance pays the amazing human being the Queen is any respect. Mirren is a great actress but I just don't like this Frears/Mirren performance.
Nothing wrong with an actor winning awards for a "meh film". Lincoln and The Revenant spring to mind. Both Oscar worthy best actor awards. Not particularly good films.
Its such a oscar bait movie. Oldman is great in pretty much anything he does. Im getting tired of these "oscar made movies". Plenty of great movies every year get overlooked.
I liked the film, as in it was OK. The underground scene was jarring, cinematically and storytelling wise can see why did it but not believable and took you out of film. Gary O is great though.
I won't be watching either. They feel like products of a country that doesn't who what it wants to say or what it even is. So we retell stories from a past time in which we have been told we were great in. Eddie izzard described british films as people walking in and out of rooms saying sorry to each other, that was more than 20 years ago.
Could not agree more...its a very silly, badly lit, badly written film. Gary is great, Gary is wonderful, when is Gary Oldman bad in anything? Never! The film itself is pants
3 Billboards was made as if it were based upon a true story but it wasn't. It was all fake emotion and unrealistic events. Seems like another step on the road to Idiocracy
