This film may make a good story but it doesn't make good history.It is true to say that the casualties on the first day in Normandy equalled those on the first day of the Battle of the Somme.However it is difficult to give much credence to the notion of the film.Churchill would have been aware of the threat posed by the V rockets and the prospect that if nothing were done eventually the whole of Europe would have been overrun by Stalin's Soviet army.Also by this time Churchill had very little say in things and he was aware of this.He was not senile,which the film implies,but he was haunted by depression,which the film chooses not to mention.All told this is a film which is totally unworthy of the great man's memory.
190 Reviews
Drab and unconvincing
neil-4769 May 2018
Warning: Spoilers
In the days leading up to the D-Day landing, Prime Minister Winston Churchill is desperate to get Operation Overlord shut down, as he fears it will lead to a disaster on the scale of Gallipolli.
Brian Cox plays Churchill in this dramatic reconstruction. The trouble is that it's not that dramatic, and it's not that accurate either, in that Churchill was not disposed to try to undermine his Chiefs of Staff in the run-up to D-Day. And as for the characterisation of Churchill is concerned - he was a man of many facets, but I doubt that interfering busybody with borderline senility was one of them.
All of which might not have mattered had there been enough in the film to hold your attention. But despite being set at one of the most dramatic moments in recent history, and despite some beautiful cinematography, this film is boring from start to finish. It appears to think it is important - it isn't - and it is packed full of lingering closeups, and leisurely focus-pulls and dissolves, all of which serve little purpose other than to make the thing longer.
Brian Cox plays Churchill in this dramatic reconstruction. The trouble is that it's not that dramatic, and it's not that accurate either, in that Churchill was not disposed to try to undermine his Chiefs of Staff in the run-up to D-Day. And as for the characterisation of Churchill is concerned - he was a man of many facets, but I doubt that interfering busybody with borderline senility was one of them.
All of which might not have mattered had there been enough in the film to hold your attention. But despite being set at one of the most dramatic moments in recent history, and despite some beautiful cinematography, this film is boring from start to finish. It appears to think it is important - it isn't - and it is packed full of lingering closeups, and leisurely focus-pulls and dissolves, all of which serve little purpose other than to make the thing longer.
Doesn't do Churchill or his incredible story justice
TheLittleSongbird3 July 2017
It's not like this viewer watched 'Churchill' expecting or wanting to hate it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Actually very much wanted 'Churchill' to succeed, considering that it is based on an important historical figure and his incredible story. Also very much like historical dramas and the cast is enough to draw anybody in.
'Churchill' turned out to be a real disappointment. Not one of the year's worst, it's nowhere near as bad as 'The Mummy' or 'Transformers: The Last Knight', but it's one of the most disappointing. It has been remarked that the representation of Churchill and his story is grossly inaccurate to the point of perversity. This is true, but 'Churchill' has more wrong with it than just historical inaccuracy and for now will be judged on its own as a film.
Let's start with the good things. The best thing about it is the magnificent performance of Brian Cox, a blistering portrayal and also a nuanced one that never resorts to mimicry, caricature or imitation. He may not sound like Churchill but man did he do his work. Faring best in support is an imperious Miranda Richardson and the two work very well together.
Jonathan Teplitzsky directs with some degree of dignity and the production values are spot on meticulous, beautifully photographed and with production and costume design that's atmospheric, sumptuous and evocative. The make-up for Churchill is well done.
Unfortunately, 'Churchill' is let down primarily by a thinly sketched, melodramatic and contrived script and a plodding over-stretched story that feels muddled in tone and focus. Most of the support acting doesn't work, John Slattery lacks the gravitas for Eisenhower and James Purefoy is in every sense one of the grossest miscasts for any film personally seen recently.
Pacing is leaden, and this is coming from somebody who is quick to defend deliberately paced films criticised for being "boring" (one of his most hated words as of now), too often and the music score is far too intrusive to an annoying degree.
Overall, disappointing but not a complete disaster. 5/10 Bethany Cox
'Churchill' turned out to be a real disappointment. Not one of the year's worst, it's nowhere near as bad as 'The Mummy' or 'Transformers: The Last Knight', but it's one of the most disappointing. It has been remarked that the representation of Churchill and his story is grossly inaccurate to the point of perversity. This is true, but 'Churchill' has more wrong with it than just historical inaccuracy and for now will be judged on its own as a film.
Let's start with the good things. The best thing about it is the magnificent performance of Brian Cox, a blistering portrayal and also a nuanced one that never resorts to mimicry, caricature or imitation. He may not sound like Churchill but man did he do his work. Faring best in support is an imperious Miranda Richardson and the two work very well together.
Jonathan Teplitzsky directs with some degree of dignity and the production values are spot on meticulous, beautifully photographed and with production and costume design that's atmospheric, sumptuous and evocative. The make-up for Churchill is well done.
Unfortunately, 'Churchill' is let down primarily by a thinly sketched, melodramatic and contrived script and a plodding over-stretched story that feels muddled in tone and focus. Most of the support acting doesn't work, John Slattery lacks the gravitas for Eisenhower and James Purefoy is in every sense one of the grossest miscasts for any film personally seen recently.
Pacing is leaden, and this is coming from somebody who is quick to defend deliberately paced films criticised for being "boring" (one of his most hated words as of now), too often and the music score is far too intrusive to an annoying degree.
Overall, disappointing but not a complete disaster. 5/10 Bethany Cox
A Master Class in Acting
JamesHitchcock29 June 2017
Despite the title, "Churchill" is not a comprehensive biopic of the British wartime leader. It concentrates upon a very brief, limited period in his career, the few days leading up to the D-Day landings in June 1944. Moreover, its take on these events is an astonishing, almost incredible one. It alleges that Winston Churchill, haunted by memories of the bloody Gallipoli landings in Turkey during the First World War, became convinced that D-Day would be a disastrous failure and desperately, but unsuccessfully, tried to persuade Eisenhower, Montgomery and other Allied generals to cancel the plan. He argued instead that the Allies should concentrate about on their offensive in Italy and fight a multi-front war by launching new operations in Norway, the Balkans and the Bordeaux area of western France. When overruled, Churchill insists that he should sail in person on board one of the ships accompanying the invasion fleet, and only abandons this idea when ordered to do so by King George VI.
Needless to say, this line has been criticised by historians and biographers as historically inaccurate. The decision to land in Normandy in the summer of 1944 had been taken at the highest political level long before; it Churchill had wanted to challenge it he would have needed to raise his objections at a much earlier stage with Roosevelt rather than Eisenhower. (And possibly with Stalin as well). The film-makers do not seem to appreciate what an enormous political storm would have been raised had the British Prime Minister attempted to cancel, at the very last minute, the greatest Allied offensive of the war.
Despite this criticism, I have given the film a relatively high mark because of the quality of some of the acting involved, although not all the performances are equally convincing. Julian Wadham as Monty and Richard Durden as Jan Smuts are both instantly recognisable, but the same cannot be said of John Slattery as Eisenhower or James Purefoy as the King, as neither actor looks anything like the man he is supposedly portraying. Miranda Richardson, however, is excellent as Churchill's wife Clementine, the one person with the courage to speak common sense to the great leader. In looks, as well as in the forthright, no-nonsense style of her acting, Richardson reminded me of Judi Dench, or at least of Dame Judi as she was twenty years ago.
The best performance, however, comes from Brian Cox as the great man himself. Cox, admittedly, does not bear much physical resemblance to Churchill, although the make-up people have done a good job in this respect, but he has clearly studied his subject in depth and mastered his voice and mannerisms well enough to enable him to give a fine impersonation and to deliver his speeches with an authentically Churchillian ring. The storyline may be historically doubtful, but in psychological terms Cox's portrayal of an elderly wartime leader exhausted by his gargantuan efforts and suffering under the burden of self-doubt (and possibly also of guilt over his own part in the Gallipoli affair) is strikingly convincing. It is hardly surprising that the critics, even when they were less than enthusiastic about the film as a whole, singled him out for praise. "Rolling Stone" called his performance "a master class in acting" and "Time Out" said he was "rudely magnificent". My own verdict would be similar; Cox lifts what would otherwise be an indifferent movie into the category of something well worth watching. 7/10
Needless to say, this line has been criticised by historians and biographers as historically inaccurate. The decision to land in Normandy in the summer of 1944 had been taken at the highest political level long before; it Churchill had wanted to challenge it he would have needed to raise his objections at a much earlier stage with Roosevelt rather than Eisenhower. (And possibly with Stalin as well). The film-makers do not seem to appreciate what an enormous political storm would have been raised had the British Prime Minister attempted to cancel, at the very last minute, the greatest Allied offensive of the war.
Despite this criticism, I have given the film a relatively high mark because of the quality of some of the acting involved, although not all the performances are equally convincing. Julian Wadham as Monty and Richard Durden as Jan Smuts are both instantly recognisable, but the same cannot be said of John Slattery as Eisenhower or James Purefoy as the King, as neither actor looks anything like the man he is supposedly portraying. Miranda Richardson, however, is excellent as Churchill's wife Clementine, the one person with the courage to speak common sense to the great leader. In looks, as well as in the forthright, no-nonsense style of her acting, Richardson reminded me of Judi Dench, or at least of Dame Judi as she was twenty years ago.
The best performance, however, comes from Brian Cox as the great man himself. Cox, admittedly, does not bear much physical resemblance to Churchill, although the make-up people have done a good job in this respect, but he has clearly studied his subject in depth and mastered his voice and mannerisms well enough to enable him to give a fine impersonation and to deliver his speeches with an authentically Churchillian ring. The storyline may be historically doubtful, but in psychological terms Cox's portrayal of an elderly wartime leader exhausted by his gargantuan efforts and suffering under the burden of self-doubt (and possibly also of guilt over his own part in the Gallipoli affair) is strikingly convincing. It is hardly surprising that the critics, even when they were less than enthusiastic about the film as a whole, singled him out for praise. "Rolling Stone" called his performance "a master class in acting" and "Time Out" said he was "rudely magnificent". My own verdict would be similar; Cox lifts what would otherwise be an indifferent movie into the category of something well worth watching. 7/10
A hit piece pure and siple
slamshirts30 October 2018
It's hard to understand the motivation of the makers of this movie in producing such an appalling and deliberate distortion of the facts. It is nothing but a hit piece intended to defame a great man. Don't waste one minute of your life on it.
Cigar-smoking man
davidgee24 June 2017
The critics have not taken very kindly to this 4-day biopic, but I found much to admire. It's June 1944, in the week before D-Day, and Prime Minister Winston Churchill (Brian Cox) is having grave doubts about the Normandy landings. World War One saw a similar beachhead go catastrophically wrong at Gallipoli, and Churchill took much of the blame for the disaster. Generals Eisenhower and Montgomery (John Slattery and Julian Wadham) are gung-ho for a great victory, and even King George (James Purefoy) is quietly optimistic. Clementine, Mrs Churchill (Miranda Richardson), worries about her husband's stress – and his drinking. She doesn't seem to worry about his smoking: we hardly ever see him without a cigar.
This is something of a 'chamber piece', more like a play than a movie, all talk and little action. There are no battle scenes; the Blitz is in the past; London is more or less a safe place in which to be planning a mighty campaign to defeat Hitler and Nazism. Brian Cox is made up to be a very believable Winston and he does a splendid job with the great man's voice without lapsing into caricature. Only the cigars are overdone.
The rest of the cast are convincing, although Ms Richardson could have done with some sharper lines: her Clemmie is a bit like a Jane Austen mumsical matriarch. Cox is well-served by the script, although critics and historians are claiming that Churchill never actually had the four dark days of doubt and despair pictured here. There's a scene of him at prayer which becomes very Shakespearean – the PM as King Lear!
So: a talky drama, not slight but a bit slender (in spite of Churchill's Hitchcockian girth). The eve of a great moment in history. Authentic or not, this is stirring stuff.
This is something of a 'chamber piece', more like a play than a movie, all talk and little action. There are no battle scenes; the Blitz is in the past; London is more or less a safe place in which to be planning a mighty campaign to defeat Hitler and Nazism. Brian Cox is made up to be a very believable Winston and he does a splendid job with the great man's voice without lapsing into caricature. Only the cigars are overdone.
The rest of the cast are convincing, although Ms Richardson could have done with some sharper lines: her Clemmie is a bit like a Jane Austen mumsical matriarch. Cox is well-served by the script, although critics and historians are claiming that Churchill never actually had the four dark days of doubt and despair pictured here. There's a scene of him at prayer which becomes very Shakespearean – the PM as King Lear!
So: a talky drama, not slight but a bit slender (in spite of Churchill's Hitchcockian girth). The eve of a great moment in history. Authentic or not, this is stirring stuff.
Churchill vs. Eisenhower before D-Day
Red-1253 June 2017
Churchill is a British movie directed by Jonathan Teplitzky. It stars Brian Cox as Winston Churchill, and Miranda Richardson as his wife, Clementine Churchill. John Slattery portrays General Dwight Eisenhower.
The entire film takes place just before and just after the allied invasion of Normandy, which occurred on June 6, 1944. I'm not a history buff, and I always assumed that D-Day represented a stroke of true military genius. I was never aware that Churchill was vehemently opposed to landing troops in northern France. According to what I've read, Churchill believed that the allies would do better throwing everything they had into the Italian campaign.
In what is apparently historically correct, Churchill fought against the invasion, but he wasn't really in control of the battle against Hitler. Eisenhower was the supreme allied commander, and the ultimate decision was his.
Brian Cox sort of looks like Winston Churchill, and after a while I could believe it. However, I don't think John Slattery looks at all like Eisenhower, so that portrayal just didn't work for me.
Also, given that we all know that D-Day took place, there's not much tension in whether or not Churchill can stop it. So, what we see in the movie is Churchill ranting and raving, bullying his wife and his secretary, and praying that God sends a rainstorm to prevent the invasion from taking place.
What bothered me most is that, according to the movie, Churchill's opposition was based on his own terrible decision to invade Gallipoli in World War I. It's true that the invasion of Gallipoli is considered one of world military history's great blunders. It's true that Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty when that blunder took place. However, this was a different world war, and the conditions and nature of battle were different. It's hard to know, from the film, whether Churchill would have been equally opposed to D-Day if someone else had been First Lord of the Admiralty in World War I.
We saw this film at the excellent Little Theatre in Rochester, NY. Because there are no battle scenes and no shots of the D-Day armada, the movie should work as well on the small screen.
It's a must-see if you're interested in the history of WW II, or if you're interested in the role Churchill played towards the end of the war. If neither of these really matters to you, it probably won't work.
I don't think the movie is worth seeing just to see Brian Cox portraying Winston Churchill. He's very good, but I don't believe that the film is worth a special trip.
The entire film takes place just before and just after the allied invasion of Normandy, which occurred on June 6, 1944. I'm not a history buff, and I always assumed that D-Day represented a stroke of true military genius. I was never aware that Churchill was vehemently opposed to landing troops in northern France. According to what I've read, Churchill believed that the allies would do better throwing everything they had into the Italian campaign.
In what is apparently historically correct, Churchill fought against the invasion, but he wasn't really in control of the battle against Hitler. Eisenhower was the supreme allied commander, and the ultimate decision was his.
Brian Cox sort of looks like Winston Churchill, and after a while I could believe it. However, I don't think John Slattery looks at all like Eisenhower, so that portrayal just didn't work for me.
Also, given that we all know that D-Day took place, there's not much tension in whether or not Churchill can stop it. So, what we see in the movie is Churchill ranting and raving, bullying his wife and his secretary, and praying that God sends a rainstorm to prevent the invasion from taking place.
What bothered me most is that, according to the movie, Churchill's opposition was based on his own terrible decision to invade Gallipoli in World War I. It's true that the invasion of Gallipoli is considered one of world military history's great blunders. It's true that Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty when that blunder took place. However, this was a different world war, and the conditions and nature of battle were different. It's hard to know, from the film, whether Churchill would have been equally opposed to D-Day if someone else had been First Lord of the Admiralty in World War I.
We saw this film at the excellent Little Theatre in Rochester, NY. Because there are no battle scenes and no shots of the D-Day armada, the movie should work as well on the small screen.
It's a must-see if you're interested in the history of WW II, or if you're interested in the role Churchill played towards the end of the war. If neither of these really matters to you, it probably won't work.
I don't think the movie is worth seeing just to see Brian Cox portraying Winston Churchill. He's very good, but I don't believe that the film is worth a special trip.
OK, but not great.
subxerogravity14 June 2017
I'll be honest, I don't feel the acting was as good as other reviews says it was. Not that I did not love watching Brian Cox do his thang on the big screen but I was not as impressed. It felt like I was watching a play as Cox performance seem heighten like he was on the stage, especially compared to the other actors around him who did not have the same gusto.
Of course, I could be missing something. I know who Churchill is but I don't know any personal details of which the movie seems to have a lot as it refers to relationships between him and his wife played by Miranda Richardson. For all I know Churchill was that type of guy.
Of course, I could be missing something. I know who Churchill is but I don't know any personal details of which the movie seems to have a lot as it refers to relationships between him and his wife played by Miranda Richardson. For all I know Churchill was that type of guy.
The height of perversity
p-seed-889-18846923 June 2017
On the basis that other reviewers have very adequately covered the glaring objections to this film I will keep this brief.
In an action packed life of 80 years involving 2 world wars and one other significant war (The Boer War), a momentous political career, a life filled with both failure as well phenomenal achievements, that the filmmakers should think it necessary to MAKE UP a story about Churchill seems like the pinnacle of perversity. It just defies any logic hitherto known to mankind.
"Poetic license" is nothing new in movie making. However this movie is more like a "license to kill", kill a man's reputation, kill the concept of history, and kill the truth. The preservation of actual history in the light of revisionism is difficult enough without the general public being exposed to downright lies to further confuse and deceive them.
I give this movie a 1 as a protest, in the probably forlorn hope that if enough people do the same to all movies that mess around with history, movie makers will get the message and steer their movies in a way that treats people and history responsibly.
In an action packed life of 80 years involving 2 world wars and one other significant war (The Boer War), a momentous political career, a life filled with both failure as well phenomenal achievements, that the filmmakers should think it necessary to MAKE UP a story about Churchill seems like the pinnacle of perversity. It just defies any logic hitherto known to mankind.
"Poetic license" is nothing new in movie making. However this movie is more like a "license to kill", kill a man's reputation, kill the concept of history, and kill the truth. The preservation of actual history in the light of revisionism is difficult enough without the general public being exposed to downright lies to further confuse and deceive them.
I give this movie a 1 as a protest, in the probably forlorn hope that if enough people do the same to all movies that mess around with history, movie makers will get the message and steer their movies in a way that treats people and history responsibly.
Pulls everything together for the public's eye
annuskavdpol27 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This movie shows Winston Churchill in a panic mode and a politician that is basing his decisions on history (i.e. War World I and the loss of British soldiers) and his own personal fear and guilt. The movie Churchill 2017 is somewhat similar to Oliver Stone's movie called Nixon about Richard Nixon who shows his weakness to the audience but then more or less pulls everything together for the public's eye.
Terrible beyond belief - a massive distortion of history and a slandering of one of history's greatest figures
grantss14 January 2018
June 1944. The Allied invasion of German-occupied France is due to take place within the next few days. All the plans are set and the operation is ready to go. However, Prime Minister Winston Churchill has grave misgivings for the invasion, fearing that it will be a monumental disaster. He tries to have it stopped, but runs into resistance from the Allied military top brass.
Terrible. Historically inaccurate at every turn. So inaccurate that you figure the writer did no research at all for the screenplay, simply making stuff up as she went along, all for the sake of melodrama. A list of the inaccuracies would run the length of the movie, so are impossible to list in a concise review. Just the thought that Churchill opposed the Normandy landings is bad enough, but that is just the top of the tip of the iceberg.
Even more infuriating is that the movie portrays Churchill as a doddering, indecisive, ignorant, meddling, even senile, old man. An outrageous slander of one of the key figures of the winning of WW2, and one of the greatest figures in history.
Even as a fictional drama, this movie doesn't work. The military side is woefully inaccurate, eg Churchill sending the location of the Allied invasion in a telegram, a Navy officer is part of the 2nd wave of the invasion.
Plus the movie is incredibly repetitive. Churchill gives several monologues about his reasons for opposing the invasion, all saying the same thing. It is just empty melodrama.
Brian Cox and Miranda Richardson deserve a whole lot better than this. Most importantly, Winston Churchill deserves far better than this, and his descendants an apology from the film-makers.
Terrible. Historically inaccurate at every turn. So inaccurate that you figure the writer did no research at all for the screenplay, simply making stuff up as she went along, all for the sake of melodrama. A list of the inaccuracies would run the length of the movie, so are impossible to list in a concise review. Just the thought that Churchill opposed the Normandy landings is bad enough, but that is just the top of the tip of the iceberg.
Even more infuriating is that the movie portrays Churchill as a doddering, indecisive, ignorant, meddling, even senile, old man. An outrageous slander of one of the key figures of the winning of WW2, and one of the greatest figures in history.
Even as a fictional drama, this movie doesn't work. The military side is woefully inaccurate, eg Churchill sending the location of the Allied invasion in a telegram, a Navy officer is part of the 2nd wave of the invasion.
Plus the movie is incredibly repetitive. Churchill gives several monologues about his reasons for opposing the invasion, all saying the same thing. It is just empty melodrama.
Brian Cox and Miranda Richardson deserve a whole lot better than this. Most importantly, Winston Churchill deserves far better than this, and his descendants an apology from the film-makers.
Churchill
cultfilmfan24 June 2017
The new film Churchill, is an account of several days during Winston Churchill's role as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and it especially takes place when the United States and other allied countries decide to set up an attack as this is right during the second world war and yet Churchill himself wants to be a great leader and put an end to this war, but at the same time he does not know if the plans laid out for defeating the Germans are perhaps the best laid plans, so he struggles both inwardly and outwardly in the course of a couple of days to make a decision not only for himself, but for the people who put him into office and the rest of the world. I always love a good political, or historical biography and over the past ten years, or so, I would definitely say that this film could be counted among the best of them. The film has several things that really propel the film along and one of the best things it has going for it is Brian Cox's portrayal of the man in question. I have always admired the acting of Brian Cox over the years and sometimes you see him in so many films, but unfortunately you often forget what you have seen him in because he is more of a character actor who usually plays supporting roles, but he almost always is great in the roles he has been assigned and as his role as Churchill, he plays the role to perfection. I am quite sure that there was some makeup and facial reconstructing to get Cox to look as close to Churchill as possible and that was pulled off quite well I think, but other than at times looking like the man, he also seems to embody him with his strong screen presence in this movie as a man who is often very passionate about what he believes in which can lead to him sometimes turning off those around him, or often there are scenes where Winston is shown ranting and raving, but it is the farthest thing possible from any kind of lunacy, but instead is because of how deeply this current second war as well as the first has affected him and how his leadership of the country is not just something he puts on the back burner and lets someone else decide the big decisions for him, but instead he wants an opinion and decision on each and every thing that is going on and you can safely say that it was his life's mission to put the people first and to do what was right for them while in office. Cox's passionate performance elevates and accentuates a powerful and very passionate man who was known for fits of rage and truly being steadfast and sometimes stubbornly unmovable when it comes to the things that he believes in. You will often see Winston walking around, sometimes pacing back and forth with a large cigar in his mouth and he is deeply perplexed and sometimes troubled to the very core of his being as to what to do about situations, with the war being the biggest thing, or one of the biggest challenges he has ever had to face in his years as a prime minister. His wife sometimes gets completely exasperated with him and you can tell that it is not a perfect marriage in any way, often because Winston seems to put his job ahead of the jobs and duties of being a husband and in this regard he truly does put his wife secondary and often himself as well to the various things going on at the time. Churchill's mannerisms and overall social behaviour could be described as a little rough around the edges, but as the saying goes I think that often his bark was worse than his bite. The film does play out quite in a fascinating way both as a character study, a work of history and world events and also the world of politics and geopolitical goings on. I have heard and read some feedback where people have claimed that this new film has taken on quite a few artistic and other liberties with the events they depict in the film and even with Churchill himself. As to all the nitty gritty and deep historical facts to the film and the events and people they are based on, I truly have to play dumb as a lot of this is stuff from grade school history class that I would need a refresher course on to say how accurate, or inaccurate it is. As a film though and as a piece of entertainment it passes with all flying colours and is a great achievement in the field of acting as well as depicting a public figure and history and making it riveting and truly memorable and that is at least worth the price of admission.
Well, well
ferguson-64 June 2017
Greetings again from the darkness. Well, well. The image to most of Winston Churchill is epitomized by his nickname, The Lion of Britain. Undeniably one of the most iconic historical figures of the last 150 years, there have been volumes of articles and books and movies documenting his important role in so many moments that shaped our modern world. Director Jonathan Teplitzky (The Railway Man) and writer Alex von Tunzelmann (she herself a British historian) take us behind the public façade and into the personal doubts and fears
even literally into his bedroom and the middle of his marital spats.
Brian Cox takes on the role of Churchill, and seems to relish more than the ever-present stogie and its lingering smoke. He captures many of the physical traits and movements, while employing his stage-trained voice in an exceptional reenactment of the infamous and impassioned D-Day radio speech. Complementing his performance is Miranda Richardson as Clemmie Churchill, the strong and diligent great woman behind the great man.
Most of the film takes place in the four days leading up to the June 6, 1944 Allied Forces invasion of Normandy, known of course as D-Day and Operation Overlord. At the time, Churchill was almost 70 years old, and what we see here is man teetering between past and present while cloaked in an almost paralyzing fear stemming from the 1915 Gallipoli debacle. He is presented as vehemently opposed to the Normandy invasion, though most documentation shows his initial resistance from (1941-43) had subsided, and he was fully on board by this time.
Although the ticking clock throughout the film leads to the invasion, this isn't a war movie per se, but rather a peek at the human side of leadership in a time of crisis. Ask yourself if you could readily order tens of thousands of young soldiers to face slaughter, especially after you had experienced such tragic results a still-fresh-on-the-conscience 29 years earlier.
John Slattery ("Mad Men") plays General Dwight Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander (and future President of the United States) and he more than holds his own in scenes with Cox/Churchill. Julian Wadham plays Bernard Montgomery, the Spartan General. He was over all Allied ground forces and accepted Germany's surrender in 1945. Taking on the role of British Field Marshal Jan Smuts (also the Prime Minister of South Africa) is Richard Durden. Having the thankless job of trying to keep Churchill on track, Smuts was the only person to sign the peace treaties for both WWI and WWII, and later established the League of Nations. James Purefoy does a really nice job as King George VI (replete with minor stutter), and Ella Purnell (Emma in Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children) shines as Churchill's bright-eyed new secretary, and invested British citizen.
The best scenes are between Winston and Clemmie, and those where he fine-tunes his remarkable speeches. At times the film veers into near-caricature mode, but manages to right itself thanks to the counsel and wisdom of two strong women. Later this year, Atonement director Joe Wright will present Darkest Hour, with the great Gary Oldman as Churchill, and it's likely to feature more politics and acts of state. Despite the blustering and sense of "losing it", all is well when the D-Day speech is delivered. It's so much more than words on the page. Well, well.
Brian Cox takes on the role of Churchill, and seems to relish more than the ever-present stogie and its lingering smoke. He captures many of the physical traits and movements, while employing his stage-trained voice in an exceptional reenactment of the infamous and impassioned D-Day radio speech. Complementing his performance is Miranda Richardson as Clemmie Churchill, the strong and diligent great woman behind the great man.
Most of the film takes place in the four days leading up to the June 6, 1944 Allied Forces invasion of Normandy, known of course as D-Day and Operation Overlord. At the time, Churchill was almost 70 years old, and what we see here is man teetering between past and present while cloaked in an almost paralyzing fear stemming from the 1915 Gallipoli debacle. He is presented as vehemently opposed to the Normandy invasion, though most documentation shows his initial resistance from (1941-43) had subsided, and he was fully on board by this time.
Although the ticking clock throughout the film leads to the invasion, this isn't a war movie per se, but rather a peek at the human side of leadership in a time of crisis. Ask yourself if you could readily order tens of thousands of young soldiers to face slaughter, especially after you had experienced such tragic results a still-fresh-on-the-conscience 29 years earlier.
John Slattery ("Mad Men") plays General Dwight Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander (and future President of the United States) and he more than holds his own in scenes with Cox/Churchill. Julian Wadham plays Bernard Montgomery, the Spartan General. He was over all Allied ground forces and accepted Germany's surrender in 1945. Taking on the role of British Field Marshal Jan Smuts (also the Prime Minister of South Africa) is Richard Durden. Having the thankless job of trying to keep Churchill on track, Smuts was the only person to sign the peace treaties for both WWI and WWII, and later established the League of Nations. James Purefoy does a really nice job as King George VI (replete with minor stutter), and Ella Purnell (Emma in Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children) shines as Churchill's bright-eyed new secretary, and invested British citizen.
The best scenes are between Winston and Clemmie, and those where he fine-tunes his remarkable speeches. At times the film veers into near-caricature mode, but manages to right itself thanks to the counsel and wisdom of two strong women. Later this year, Atonement director Joe Wright will present Darkest Hour, with the great Gary Oldman as Churchill, and it's likely to feature more politics and acts of state. Despite the blustering and sense of "losing it", all is well when the D-Day speech is delivered. It's so much more than words on the page. Well, well.
Not a Churchillian Portrayal.
comps-784-3826522 June 2017
Yet another film where they feel the audience is too stupid to have any knowledge of the subject, so must dumb it all down into patronising pap.
Not happy with insulting us already, they then take historical facts and rewrite them totally for no other reason than they can. Then slip in the old adage "Based On A True Story" which like so many films, claiming to be 'Based on a true story' is actually code for a load of B.S. pretending to be factual.
Churchill was one of the greatest, complex and most flawed characters of recent history.
Instead of going with truth (and therefore being much much more interesting) they went for a Hollywood horrible caricature full of errors and downright lies.
I'm not surprised the writer has no other credits shown on IMDb. This is atrocious pap. Insulting to a great man, who we were privileged for him to give 'the lions roar' for us, in the face of evil.
People watch films like this and others e.g. 'The Imitation Game' and think they are portraying factual history. They leave the theatre feeling they have learned something, instead it varies from gross distortion of the truth to out and out lie.
The irony is, the true story is so much more interesting. But it means the writers would have to put a lot of work in portraying it. Hence it's more convenient to serve us this pap and pass it off as 'historical'.
the reviews saying this is an 'Insight into Churchill' etc, shows real ignorance and how Hollywood rewrites history.
Not happy with insulting us already, they then take historical facts and rewrite them totally for no other reason than they can. Then slip in the old adage "Based On A True Story" which like so many films, claiming to be 'Based on a true story' is actually code for a load of B.S. pretending to be factual.
Churchill was one of the greatest, complex and most flawed characters of recent history.
Instead of going with truth (and therefore being much much more interesting) they went for a Hollywood horrible caricature full of errors and downright lies.
I'm not surprised the writer has no other credits shown on IMDb. This is atrocious pap. Insulting to a great man, who we were privileged for him to give 'the lions roar' for us, in the face of evil.
People watch films like this and others e.g. 'The Imitation Game' and think they are portraying factual history. They leave the theatre feeling they have learned something, instead it varies from gross distortion of the truth to out and out lie.
The irony is, the true story is so much more interesting. But it means the writers would have to put a lot of work in portraying it. Hence it's more convenient to serve us this pap and pass it off as 'historical'.
the reviews saying this is an 'Insight into Churchill' etc, shows real ignorance and how Hollywood rewrites history.
A good story
Gordon-1130 September 2017
This film tells the story of the war efforts of Winston Churchill, who holds the opposite opinion of how to go about the war compared to the army generals.
The story gets quite touching in the end, with the very strong speech by Winston Churchill on the radio. Powerful speeches like this gives people hope and unify the people. Though in the middle of the film Winston acts like a spoilt brat who is oppositional against the army generals, the reason for his behavior is revealed at the end. It is a good story, and I liked it.
The story gets quite touching in the end, with the very strong speech by Winston Churchill on the radio. Powerful speeches like this gives people hope and unify the people. Though in the middle of the film Winston acts like a spoilt brat who is oppositional against the army generals, the reason for his behavior is revealed at the end. It is a good story, and I liked it.
This film is saved by Brian Cox's acting
jonnithomas9 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
The acting of Brian Cox is quite quite stunning. He portrays Churchill as a man haunted by his failure in WWI and the many lives lost. The high costs England paid in young lives was horrendous and unsuccessful in Gallipoli against the Ottomans . That cross would be enough for anyone to carry without also suffering from visits by the black dog.
It is only this performance that gains the film 7 out of 10 in my eyes. Those issues plus his heavy drinking are well known about, documented and should be shown in any film about him.
However, any film of this nature should attempt to be historically accurate and not written for Hollywood and the American market.
This is an attempt by a poor writer to gain notoriety and success in Hollywood.She attempts to do this by standing on the shoulders of a great but flawed man. This is a despicable act as it shows Churchill as a failing tragic character and not one that gained high awards many years later for his own intellectual abilities as a writer. In fact he led his own political party until his 80s. The Conservative party are not know for accepting weakness in their leaders for very long and certainly not decades.
So watch this film but don't believe its accuracy. It isn't based on many facts apart from that D Day was a success.
It is only this performance that gains the film 7 out of 10 in my eyes. Those issues plus his heavy drinking are well known about, documented and should be shown in any film about him.
However, any film of this nature should attempt to be historically accurate and not written for Hollywood and the American market.
This is an attempt by a poor writer to gain notoriety and success in Hollywood.She attempts to do this by standing on the shoulders of a great but flawed man. This is a despicable act as it shows Churchill as a failing tragic character and not one that gained high awards many years later for his own intellectual abilities as a writer. In fact he led his own political party until his 80s. The Conservative party are not know for accepting weakness in their leaders for very long and certainly not decades.
So watch this film but don't believe its accuracy. It isn't based on many facts apart from that D Day was a success.
A great leader and a most unpleasant man
paul-allaer10 June 2017
"Churchill" (2017 release from the UK; 105 min.) is a movie about Winston Churchill. As the movie opens, we are reminded it is "June 1944", and we see Churchill walking on the beach, thinking back to the horrors of a WWI amphibian attack that went horribly wrong. The action then movies to "Downing Street Annexe", where Churchill is seemingly practicing lines for an upcoming speech--we later learn that it is for a tete-a-tete with King George during one of the last briefings before D Day. At this point we're 10 min. into the movie but to tell you more of the plot would spoil your viewing experience, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out.
Couple of comments: this is the latest movie from Australian director Jonathan Teplitzky. Here he brings a snapshot of Winston Churchill to the big screen. Don't call it a biopic as only the days leading up to D Day are covered. And what we see isn't a pretty picture. Churchill comes across as a cranky old man who is petulant and aloof. As the movie ends, the end titles inform us that "Churchill is viewed by many as the greatest Briton ever", and while it certainly is true that he was a great WWII leader, if what we see here reflects reality, Churchill also was a most unpleasant man. That makes the task of director Teplitzky much harder to make a movie that is compelling. I watched most of the movie simply being annoyed at Churchill. I can't imagine that was the intent of the film... Veteran UK actor Brian Cox does a fantastic job in the title role, but of course he cannot make Churchill into a sympathetic figure. I must wonder whether what we see in the film is an accurate reflection of what happened in the days leading up to D Day. Did Churchill really battle Eisenhower and Montgomery to stop D Day from happening? I have no idea. Given all the commotion that is portrayed, the movie is surprisingly flat-footed.
The movie opened recently at my local art-house theater here in Cincinnati. The Friday evening screening where I saw this at was attended okay but not great (I'd guess about 15 people). If you are interested in WWII history or perhaps Churchill himself, I'd suggest you check this out, be it in the theater, on VOD, or eventually on DVD/Blu-ray. Just don't expect a riveting movie, or a pleasant man.
Couple of comments: this is the latest movie from Australian director Jonathan Teplitzky. Here he brings a snapshot of Winston Churchill to the big screen. Don't call it a biopic as only the days leading up to D Day are covered. And what we see isn't a pretty picture. Churchill comes across as a cranky old man who is petulant and aloof. As the movie ends, the end titles inform us that "Churchill is viewed by many as the greatest Briton ever", and while it certainly is true that he was a great WWII leader, if what we see here reflects reality, Churchill also was a most unpleasant man. That makes the task of director Teplitzky much harder to make a movie that is compelling. I watched most of the movie simply being annoyed at Churchill. I can't imagine that was the intent of the film... Veteran UK actor Brian Cox does a fantastic job in the title role, but of course he cannot make Churchill into a sympathetic figure. I must wonder whether what we see in the film is an accurate reflection of what happened in the days leading up to D Day. Did Churchill really battle Eisenhower and Montgomery to stop D Day from happening? I have no idea. Given all the commotion that is portrayed, the movie is surprisingly flat-footed.
The movie opened recently at my local art-house theater here in Cincinnati. The Friday evening screening where I saw this at was attended okay but not great (I'd guess about 15 people). If you are interested in WWII history or perhaps Churchill himself, I'd suggest you check this out, be it in the theater, on VOD, or eventually on DVD/Blu-ray. Just don't expect a riveting movie, or a pleasant man.
Churchill may have acting as powerful as the titular leader, but bathes in melodramatic blood.
TheMovieDiorama7 April 2018
Often referred to as the lesser of the two Churchill films of 2017 (the other being 'Darkest Hour'), this historic drama chooses to focus more on Winston's conflict with other powerful leaders to determine the best possible course for Operation Overlord. Bolstered by a stunning central performance from Cox, this is all about the acting. Every other cinematic element is sidelined to ensure that Cox, Richardson and the rest of the supporting cast dominate the screen. The utter ferocity and ruthlessness of Cox's impersonation was highly believable and may just be one of his best performances to date. He is able to portray the internal struggle for power and authority within Winston by showing signs of fatigue. Illustrating the fragility of a towering prime minister who has an entire country on his shoulders. Richardson was good and had a commanding presence, although some more screen time would've been beneficial in establishing the regressing relationship between these two individuals. The story is told very linearly and heavy handedly, which is ultimately the film's downfall. It's as if Churchill himself is holding your hand informing you of everything that is about to happen and what he must do, which unfortunately does allow boredom to settle in. The screenplay was also rather cumbersome where perhaps less is more. The characters just kept on talking as they try to convey meaningful dialogue, but it's all blah blah blahhhh. However, I appreciated the broody undertone. It's a very serious narrative that is incredibly melodramatic (perhaps too much...) which in turn feels more like a historical reenactment than a cinematic film. Certainly informative, which will appeal to WWII buffs, but others may lose interest rapidly. I still enjoyed it nonetheless, and I would certainly give Cox a cigar because that performance was smoking.
Good Biography movie
christian-larson2 July 2017
Churchill stars Brian Cox and its the story of how the prime minister copes with the plan of D-day. This movie has a very movie-like plot and has very movie-like characters, but it still works. It may be clichéd and it may be very obvious, but what really elevates this movie are the performances. All of them are great. Brian Cox delivers an astounding performance, he was so in the moment and real. He was completely in his character and his accent was well made. His character is well- developed enough that we can care about him, and his main motivation is really clear as his past haunts him and it makes him think twice about his decisions. He really deserves an Oscar nomination. The script is good, but it could be better. There are a lot of great scenes throughout the movie that really stand out, but then there are other scenes that are really flawed and predictable. I literally predicted 2 lines in one scene. The cinematography is gorgeous. A lot of wide and long takes of the wilderness and the beach. The production design and the sound was also great with a lot of references to the past and of the time period. The direction is good but it could be much better. There really isn't a style in this movie, and if the direction had made more unique and original choices, this movie wouldn't have been clichéd. The story is engaging, riveting and it really makes you think behind the decisions made before soldiers step on enemy soil and it makes you sympathize with the characters since the decisions made in the story are really brave. I had a good time with this movie and its a really good biography about a man that really made a huge difference in the world. 7/10
I will never surrender. I will also never see this film again.
EthanBJones_0328 June 2017
'CHURCHILL' was directed by Jonathan Teplitzky and stars Brian Cox, Miranda Richardson and John Slattery. ?Fearful of repeating the invasion of Gallipoli in 1915, Winston Churchill attempts to stop the planned invasion of Normandy in 1944. Only the support of Churchill's wife, Clementine, can halt the prime minister's physical and mental collapse.
I desperately wanted to love this movie. I really did. This is a fascinating period of our history and would have loved to see a great depiction of Churchill's perception of it on our screens for the world to enjoy. Alas, I did not. It's a melodramatic mess that has Brian Cox's unfathomable acting ability keeping it barely alive. The only other positive I can conceive is the splendid speech at the end because the rest of the movie was messy, incoherent and, the worst sin of all, boring.
This movie's structure is were it falters greatly for me. While the plot and point are clear, it doesn't feel like one flowing narrative. The scenes feel messy and out of place(when they aren't) and it overall doesn't appear like much effort went into the creation of the story for this film.
I wouldn't usually do an entire section of a review on the direction but that is the main way this movie falters, at least for me. 90% of the scenes in this movie are shot, acted and scored in the fashion that makes it seem like the fate of the universe rests in these characters words and makes the whole movie stupidly melodramatic. This style works for brief moments in the film but fails overall. A much less dramatic, more relaxed style that still displayed Churchill's eccentric nature would have sufficed but instead they opted for a melodramatic mess,
Brian Cox was honestly great in this movie and I bought every second of his performance. I don't agree that he reaches Oscar levels but I do believe he gets quite close. Miranda Richardson and John Slattery both do fine as Clementine Churchill and Dwight Eisenhower respectively but neither of them come close to Cox's undeniable skill.
The costume and set design for this movie was really good and felt genuine to the era. The cinematography is a very strange subject. On the one hand, it is overly dramatic and feels very weird in scenes that don't require the world to be resting on them. On the other hand, there are a few scenes, like the masterfully written speech, where this format works stupidly well and is very, very effective. So I am pretty torn with this format of cinematography but I feel that it is pretty weak as a whole package.
As good as Cox and the speech are, this movie is probably not worth your time overall. I don't recommend you watch it and I'll rate it a measly 3 Glasses of Scotch out of 10.
I desperately wanted to love this movie. I really did. This is a fascinating period of our history and would have loved to see a great depiction of Churchill's perception of it on our screens for the world to enjoy. Alas, I did not. It's a melodramatic mess that has Brian Cox's unfathomable acting ability keeping it barely alive. The only other positive I can conceive is the splendid speech at the end because the rest of the movie was messy, incoherent and, the worst sin of all, boring.
This movie's structure is were it falters greatly for me. While the plot and point are clear, it doesn't feel like one flowing narrative. The scenes feel messy and out of place(when they aren't) and it overall doesn't appear like much effort went into the creation of the story for this film.
I wouldn't usually do an entire section of a review on the direction but that is the main way this movie falters, at least for me. 90% of the scenes in this movie are shot, acted and scored in the fashion that makes it seem like the fate of the universe rests in these characters words and makes the whole movie stupidly melodramatic. This style works for brief moments in the film but fails overall. A much less dramatic, more relaxed style that still displayed Churchill's eccentric nature would have sufficed but instead they opted for a melodramatic mess,
Brian Cox was honestly great in this movie and I bought every second of his performance. I don't agree that he reaches Oscar levels but I do believe he gets quite close. Miranda Richardson and John Slattery both do fine as Clementine Churchill and Dwight Eisenhower respectively but neither of them come close to Cox's undeniable skill.
The costume and set design for this movie was really good and felt genuine to the era. The cinematography is a very strange subject. On the one hand, it is overly dramatic and feels very weird in scenes that don't require the world to be resting on them. On the other hand, there are a few scenes, like the masterfully written speech, where this format works stupidly well and is very, very effective. So I am pretty torn with this format of cinematography but I feel that it is pretty weak as a whole package.
As good as Cox and the speech are, this movie is probably not worth your time overall. I don't recommend you watch it and I'll rate it a measly 3 Glasses of Scotch out of 10.
Essential in early WW2....expendable at final!!!
elo-equipamentos23 February 2019
I've many movies from Churchill's life during the WW2 and almost them has a slight insight that this picture is true, Churchill was essential as leadership during the early conflit on this war, but when the allies turn the game all others leaders as Roosevelt, Charles de Gaule, and J. Stalin gave the powers to their military commanders as Dwight Eisenhower and the very famous british General Montgomery to lead and planning the operation Overlord, so Churchill realized that is no longer was a voice to be heard in this time, in fact he didn't has any agreement with Stalin who was treated by him as potential enemy, as out of the cards Churchill becames a stone in the shoe and slowly he was in fact totally unplugged by the main leaders due his ideas were outdated and disconnected by reality, somewhat strong to Churchill's legacy but in fact very likely....to confirm this point the british people turned down him in upcoming elections, that are the facts to whom this may hurts!!!
Resume:
First watch: 2019 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 7
Resume:
First watch: 2019 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 7
Really poorly-researched and written
JeremyHDent22 November 2017
This is a shambolic mess of a film with a one-sided view of Churchill, factual inaccuracies and appalling errors. The scriptwriter obviously did not read Field Marshal Alanbrooke's diaries or the many biographies of Churchill.
Even basic military details were so wrong, it is farcical. Couldn't the budget stretch to a military adviser? Monty addressing 20 or so soldiers? He went round addressing brigades, thousands of soldiers at a time.
The way that the characters addressed each other, the salutations, the lack of an equerry for the King, no PPS for Churchill...all utter rubbish.
Even basic military details were so wrong, it is farcical. Couldn't the budget stretch to a military adviser? Monty addressing 20 or so soldiers? He went round addressing brigades, thousands of soldiers at a time.
The way that the characters addressed each other, the salutations, the lack of an equerry for the King, no PPS for Churchill...all utter rubbish.
an unsubtle but beautifully produced character study of Winston Churchill
CineMuseFilms21 June 2017
While historians debate facts audiences judge movies on expressive qualities, human insight and entertainment value. The beautifully produced Churchill (2017) is being criticised for its interpretation of history, leaving the film's considerable cinematic qualities overlooked. Historical bio-pics are necessarily selective and reductive, and many are less than complimentary when heroic icons like Winston Churchill are put under the cinematic microscope. The opening scenes set the background for this version of the Churchill legend. Alone on a sweeping beach in June 1944, Churchill (Brian Cox) is deeply troubled by Allied Command plans to launch a massive military force onto the beaches of Normandy. It is a high-risk strategy to drive the Nazis out of France and turn the tide of the war. He watches the incoming waves, seeing them turn the colour of blood. The screen then turns to black and white as he walks across the beach that has suddenly turned into a battlefield strewn with the fallen of the First World War. Although ham-fisted, this imagery quickly sets the context of Churchill's state of mind: the haunting fears and failures of the disastrous 1915 Gallipoli Campaign. The rest of the film examines the political machinations of Churchill, Eisenhower and Montgomery during the frenetic six days leading to the landing at Normandy. Throughout this critical period, the chain-smoking Churchill is shown as suffering from depression, alcoholism and the tensions of a long-strained marriage. Like in many historical dramas, a young love story is incorporated to offset the imposing and cantankerous Churchill. But it is neither significant nor distracting. The entire impact of this film rests on Brian Cox's interpretation of the man still most revered by Britain. A spent-looking 70-year old, he is portrayed as a man still fighting the last war and ill-suited for military strategy in 1944. Both the British and American high commanders show little respect or tolerance for Churchill's meddling in the invasion plans, and even King George VI countermands his plan to be on board a naval ship close to the battle. His ever-patient wife Clementine (Miranda Richardson) was more nurse than companion as she used all her influence in focusing Churchill on what he did best: inspire the nation with a Prime Ministerial speech that remains a classic in poetically pugnacious war rhetoric. The small six-day window of history through which this film peers means that the story is compressed into an unsubtle and limited character study of Churchill and his relationship with Clementine. While the support cast are excellent, the performances by Cox and Richardson are outstanding and their synergy extraordinary. If there is a higher-order message in the film it may be that greatness and vulnerability can co-exist in equal measure: even the most inspiring leaders suffer the frailties of being human. Historians have every right to point and sneer, but this film should be judged as cinema, not history. And it is fine cinema indeed.
An Alternative If Inaccurate Portrayal Of Winston Churchill
sddavis6312 March 2018
Was Winston Churchill the the greatest Briton who ever lived? That's the claim of the closing credits of the movie. It's hard to say. That's a lot of history and a lot of historical figures to go through. And I'm aware of his shortcomings. And I'm aware that many today want to tear down the memory of historical figures of the past by looking at them through today's eyes and judging them by today's standards - and many of them, by our current sense of morality, don't stand up well. I understand all that. But, as far as Winston Churchill is concerned, even acknowledging all his shortcomings, one also has to acknowledge that in many ways he did save Britain. Taking office as Prime Minister at one of the darkest times in Britain's history, he inspired the British people. With defeat facing Britain squarely in the face, he inspired the British people to believe that they could beat the Nazis. "We shall fight them ... We will never surrender."
That was in 1940. This movie picks up four years later. Britain has not surrendered. Britain has fought on. And now it's June of 1944, just a few days from D-Day, the Allied invasion of France. The once confident Churchill who said "we will never surrender" is now beset with doubts. He's tormented by memories of Gallipoli in the First World War - a bloody Allied defeat that he took the blame for. He believes D-Day will be another Gallipoli. He's hesitant; even afraid. He opposes the plan. He argues with Montgomery, he argues with Eisenhower, he lashes out at all around him who want him to basically mind his own business, do the work of a politician and let the generals handle the military decisions. He feels pushed aside; marginalized. Frankly, he feels sorry for himself. It's a very interesting take on a very complicated man.
Brian Cox's performance as Churchill grew on me over the course of the movie. When it opened, I wasn't really taken with him in the role. By the time it ended, I thought his performance had been very good. I'd make the same observation about John Slattery's work as Eisenhower. Julian Wadham impressed me as Field Marshall Montgomery, while John Purefoy didn't strike home with me at all as King George VI. But the one who really impressed me was Miranda Richardson as Churchill's wife Clementine. She did seem to capture the role of Churchill's long-suffering wife. She loves him, but she's also very aware of his weaknesses and she's the only one who really seems able to get him under control.
One thing that intrigued me in the movie was the very prominent role it suggested for South African Prime Minister Jan Smuts, who was based in London during the war and sat in on meetings of the Cabinet. The movie portrays Smuts as a very close and intimate advisor to Churchill. Whether he was as influential over Churchill as portrayed I'm not sure. I do know that many have criticized the movie's accuracy - especially the primary point of the whole thing: Churchill's opposition to Operation Overlord. Many reputable historians who have studied World War II dismiss that as nonsense, and while in the end the movie does hold Churchill up (making that claim that he is the greatest Briton who ever lived) it at times does seem to do its best to tear him down, and not always accurately.
Historical problems aside, this is a worthwhile movie, if only because it does present an alternative view of Churchill. (7/10)
That was in 1940. This movie picks up four years later. Britain has not surrendered. Britain has fought on. And now it's June of 1944, just a few days from D-Day, the Allied invasion of France. The once confident Churchill who said "we will never surrender" is now beset with doubts. He's tormented by memories of Gallipoli in the First World War - a bloody Allied defeat that he took the blame for. He believes D-Day will be another Gallipoli. He's hesitant; even afraid. He opposes the plan. He argues with Montgomery, he argues with Eisenhower, he lashes out at all around him who want him to basically mind his own business, do the work of a politician and let the generals handle the military decisions. He feels pushed aside; marginalized. Frankly, he feels sorry for himself. It's a very interesting take on a very complicated man.
Brian Cox's performance as Churchill grew on me over the course of the movie. When it opened, I wasn't really taken with him in the role. By the time it ended, I thought his performance had been very good. I'd make the same observation about John Slattery's work as Eisenhower. Julian Wadham impressed me as Field Marshall Montgomery, while John Purefoy didn't strike home with me at all as King George VI. But the one who really impressed me was Miranda Richardson as Churchill's wife Clementine. She did seem to capture the role of Churchill's long-suffering wife. She loves him, but she's also very aware of his weaknesses and she's the only one who really seems able to get him under control.
One thing that intrigued me in the movie was the very prominent role it suggested for South African Prime Minister Jan Smuts, who was based in London during the war and sat in on meetings of the Cabinet. The movie portrays Smuts as a very close and intimate advisor to Churchill. Whether he was as influential over Churchill as portrayed I'm not sure. I do know that many have criticized the movie's accuracy - especially the primary point of the whole thing: Churchill's opposition to Operation Overlord. Many reputable historians who have studied World War II dismiss that as nonsense, and while in the end the movie does hold Churchill up (making that claim that he is the greatest Briton who ever lived) it at times does seem to do its best to tear him down, and not always accurately.
Historical problems aside, this is a worthwhile movie, if only because it does present an alternative view of Churchill. (7/10)
Melodramatic nonsense
robertclark-15 June 2017
Warning: Spoilers
All evidence points to Churchill being the main actor behind the idea of the Normandy landings. He pushed for it for over two years with increasing impatience, trying to persuade Roosevelt to agree. The second front was seen in Britain as an absolute necessity in order to prevent Hitler defeating the Russians, consolidating their mainland European forces, and gaining the resources they needed, including oil from the Caucasus, to mount a full-scale attack on England. After the Russian victory at Stalingrad, it was seen as necessary to shorten the war, and to stop the Russians becoming too dominant on the continent.
As the noted historian Martin Gilbert notes: "It was Roosevelt, not Churchill, who postponed, the Second Front for a full two years. In the long run-up to D-Day, Churchill was convinced that a cross-Channel landing was the way to Germany's defeat."
Churchill was the inspiration behind the floating Mulberry harbours needed for unloading heavy weaponry and equipment from ships - hollow concrete, floating blocks that were towed across the Chanel by tugs. He was also intrigued by, and personally oversaw, the projects to modify tanks specially developed for tackling the particular difficulties of landing in sea water and mounting beach defenses. Far from being out-of-touch and stuck in ideas held in the previous war, as falsely portrayed in the film, he was a very strong advocate of modern, technical solutions to the problems of the defeat of Germany.
Again, according to Gilbert: "In the last months of 1942 Churchill was still seeking August or September 1943 as the date of the cross-Channel landing. At a Staff Conference on 16 December 1943, however, the three British Chiefs of Staff, headed by General Sir Alan Brooke, told him that it could not be done." Brooke, the very man portrayed in the film as resenting Churchill's 'reservations' and 'fears' about the landing.
On the History Today site you can read: "Addressing a joint session of Congress, Churchill warned that the real danger at present was the "dragging-out of the war at enormous expense" because of the risk that the Allies would become "tired or bored or split"—and play into the hands of Germany and Japan. He pushed for an early and massive attack on the "underbelly of the Axis." And so, to "speed" things up, the British prime minister and President Roosevelt set a date for a cross-Channel invasion of Normandy, in northern France, for May 1, 1944, regardless of the problems presented by the invasion of Italy, which was underway. It would be carried out by 29 divisions, including a Free French division, if possible."
On the evening before the landings, Churchill happily phoned Stalin to tell him the attack was finally on.
The film's basic premise seems to have been conjured out of a remark that was recorded in Churchill's wife's diary, when, again, on the night before the attack, she writes that he "lamented that by morning 20,000 young soldiers would be dead." Of course he was concerned about the loss of life, but not in the way that the film shows as being a debilitating condition, almost suggesting senility, and such an obstruction to his generals.
None of this would matter so much if the film were a dramatic success. Unfortunately, it is a tawdry, over-sentimentalised bore, with contrived emotional, schmaltzy scenes, and quiet, tinkly fairy music in the background. The scene (also historically inaccurate) between Cox (Churchill), and Purefoy (the King) is played so gauchely that at one moment I thought, as the gentle music started to rise and Purefoy moved forward, that Purefoy would kiss Churchill.
That scene distorts a much more interesting reality, turning something that in reality was actually very clever into fictional schmultz; a case of fiction being much less interesting than reality. Churchill did insist to Eisenhower that he wanted to sail on D Day on HMS Belfast, even insisting, if necessary, that he would obtain a naval commission to do so. Churchill did not ask the King to go with him. In fact it was the King, on being told of Churchill's plans, who cleverly insisted he would go along too. This put Churchill into an interesting difficulty since he saw the King's gesture as a foolhardy and an unacceptable risk to a far too important symbolic figure, and so Churchill refused to countenance it, seeing at the same time that he would also have to abandon his own foolhardy plan.
Other scenes, especially those between Churchill and his assistant, were typical, overblown, and contrived set pieces for the sake of some 'stirring' rhetoric, with about as much subtlety and nuance as a party political broadcast.
Good actors, some good performances, some terrible casting (Purefoy) but really, who wrote this drivel?
As the noted historian Martin Gilbert notes: "It was Roosevelt, not Churchill, who postponed, the Second Front for a full two years. In the long run-up to D-Day, Churchill was convinced that a cross-Channel landing was the way to Germany's defeat."
Churchill was the inspiration behind the floating Mulberry harbours needed for unloading heavy weaponry and equipment from ships - hollow concrete, floating blocks that were towed across the Chanel by tugs. He was also intrigued by, and personally oversaw, the projects to modify tanks specially developed for tackling the particular difficulties of landing in sea water and mounting beach defenses. Far from being out-of-touch and stuck in ideas held in the previous war, as falsely portrayed in the film, he was a very strong advocate of modern, technical solutions to the problems of the defeat of Germany.
Again, according to Gilbert: "In the last months of 1942 Churchill was still seeking August or September 1943 as the date of the cross-Channel landing. At a Staff Conference on 16 December 1943, however, the three British Chiefs of Staff, headed by General Sir Alan Brooke, told him that it could not be done." Brooke, the very man portrayed in the film as resenting Churchill's 'reservations' and 'fears' about the landing.
On the History Today site you can read: "Addressing a joint session of Congress, Churchill warned that the real danger at present was the "dragging-out of the war at enormous expense" because of the risk that the Allies would become "tired or bored or split"—and play into the hands of Germany and Japan. He pushed for an early and massive attack on the "underbelly of the Axis." And so, to "speed" things up, the British prime minister and President Roosevelt set a date for a cross-Channel invasion of Normandy, in northern France, for May 1, 1944, regardless of the problems presented by the invasion of Italy, which was underway. It would be carried out by 29 divisions, including a Free French division, if possible."
On the evening before the landings, Churchill happily phoned Stalin to tell him the attack was finally on.
The film's basic premise seems to have been conjured out of a remark that was recorded in Churchill's wife's diary, when, again, on the night before the attack, she writes that he "lamented that by morning 20,000 young soldiers would be dead." Of course he was concerned about the loss of life, but not in the way that the film shows as being a debilitating condition, almost suggesting senility, and such an obstruction to his generals.
None of this would matter so much if the film were a dramatic success. Unfortunately, it is a tawdry, over-sentimentalised bore, with contrived emotional, schmaltzy scenes, and quiet, tinkly fairy music in the background. The scene (also historically inaccurate) between Cox (Churchill), and Purefoy (the King) is played so gauchely that at one moment I thought, as the gentle music started to rise and Purefoy moved forward, that Purefoy would kiss Churchill.
That scene distorts a much more interesting reality, turning something that in reality was actually very clever into fictional schmultz; a case of fiction being much less interesting than reality. Churchill did insist to Eisenhower that he wanted to sail on D Day on HMS Belfast, even insisting, if necessary, that he would obtain a naval commission to do so. Churchill did not ask the King to go with him. In fact it was the King, on being told of Churchill's plans, who cleverly insisted he would go along too. This put Churchill into an interesting difficulty since he saw the King's gesture as a foolhardy and an unacceptable risk to a far too important symbolic figure, and so Churchill refused to countenance it, seeing at the same time that he would also have to abandon his own foolhardy plan.
Other scenes, especially those between Churchill and his assistant, were typical, overblown, and contrived set pieces for the sake of some 'stirring' rhetoric, with about as much subtlety and nuance as a party political broadcast.
Good actors, some good performances, some terrible casting (Purefoy) but really, who wrote this drivel?
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
