Movie Review: Darkest Hour

Some liberties were taken with the facts in this biopic of Winston Churchill in 1940, to the degree that part of the closing paragraph of a recent biography of Marie Laveau comes to mind:

As a mirror, Marie tells us more about the era from which she is observed than she does about herself.

And that is precisely the problem with Darkest Hour.  It colors the events of 1940 – when Great Britain's back was hard against the wall and some of her leaders were considering a peace treaty with Nazi Germany – with a wash of today's emphasis on popular leadership and blurted-out sound bite rhetoric.  Instead of the morally resolute statesman who was willing to listen to and consider his opposition's views, he is depicted as a vacillating politician who is only convinced his path is right after a bracing interview with random Londoners on a brief Underground car ride.  Hm.

Now having bashed this film in about the worst way possible, I have to note that there are some redeeming aspects.  The desperate situation Britain, and indeed all of Western Europe, faced is shown in a manner that Americans frequently under-appreciate.  The casting, acting, sets, wardrobe, and special effects are all top-notch.  Finally and best of all, Gary Oldman's transformation into Winston Churchill is truly astonishing and fully credible:

By all means, go see this film if you can't wait, or see it at home if you can.  But keep in mind, this is a story told from a current film industry viewpoint.  Try to see past that, and enjoy the rest.

Overall rating: 2.5 stars out of 4.

Bonus linkage: What's Fact and What's Fiction in Darkest Hour, over at Slate.  From a historian at Case Western, this will help you sort things out.  Probably worth a read before you see the movie.