← Back to Reviews
 


For what it's worth, Darkest Hour will be remembered as the film that got Gary Oldman the Oscar, as itís shown in history classes for years to come (you know, that "boring one.") If I wanted to watch fat, white people drone on about stories that I've already heard about, I could just watch home movies from my familyís past Thanksgivings. This was beyond dull.

The fast, willfully intense pace attempts to make the film more interesting, and somehow, it makes everything feel more monotonous. Also, Itís presentation feels pretentious, resulting in a hollow cinematic experience. Those empty visuals are exemplified when a plane flies over a child, only for the camera to focus on the aforementioned adolescentís hand, as it curls and tightens the view of the hovercraft. It signifies that war ends badly for many fighting it. What is the director trying to state here? I see nothing different or profound in anything the filmmakers behind the lenses are trying to convey. Itís empty drivel; all style, and no substance. And, the cinematography, while competently shot, becomes headache inducing when the color palette looks like a wet, paper-towel in a school bathroom. Itís just so ugly to look at. Especially with Melting Churchillís face in every frame. A decent portion of this film is nothing but showboating, and the Directorís constant use of extreme close-ups on Oldmanís face didn't help.

Speaking of which, Oldman is pretty solid as Winston Churchill. It's a performance that such a marvelous talent like himself, could do in his sleep. And while you could just bite the meat off the screen whenever he screams at his war cabinet, it honestly borders on being one-note. Once again, this is mostly the Directorís fault. His primary aim behind the camera is to tilt the film into Oldmanís favor, in an attempt to make his performance the key for the audience to appreciate Churchill. Thereís nothing to hold onto with our protagonist. But hey, what else would you expect in straightforward Oscar Bait; a lack of an arc shouldn't be surprising. Every figure who opposes Churchill, is so dull and undeveloped that any suspense surrounding a political face off is meaningless.

As expected with these kind of movies, the filmmakers blatantly altered (and even fabricated) some of the events that actually took place. I would excuse that if it were warranted to benefit the film, and make it more enticing for the viewer. But none of it is. The screenplay by Anthony McCarten is pedestrian, at best. The continuous arguing and shouting matches only exist (once again) for Gary Oldman, so that he doesnít suffocate under numerous pounds of latex. When a train full of civilians, and a five year old girl convince Winston Churchill to have Britain stand its ground, in a corny terribly-written sequence: Iím going to have a problem, with your little history fabrication. It's borderline insulting, and not just for the sake of history. It's insulting for trying to be emotionally manipulative, in an attempt to the make the audience care when It's not warranted, given the underdeveloped psyche of Churchill. Joe Wright attempts to show you what he's feeling, tell you what he's thinking, but none of what he presents is even remotely passable for the viewer to full understand or feel anything. It's overly dramatic and cookie cutter.

Darkest Hour, while moderately entertaining in aspects, unfortunately has nothing else to offer but unabashed love for Churchill, as it falls under the common tropes many one-note biopics do: devoid of any complexities that are usually required to make these films even remotely interesting, in the slightest.