User Reviews

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.

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.

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.

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?