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)