Synkin hetki

If Joe Wright could tell a story as effectively as he directs, Darkest Hour would be a much less painful viewing experience. Unfortunately, the ambitious British filmmaker again proves to be a great purveyor of kitsch, for whom the main thing is that every scene looks good and is not boring at all costs, not that it has meaningful content and is somehow helpful to the narrative. Visual gimmicks such as shots from a bird’s-eye perspective, slow-motion shots and close-ups of the second hand on a clock mainly give the impression of being manifestations of an almost panicky fear of being ordinary, which I would rather expect from a debut filmmaker trying to demonstrate what he learned at film school. The rather ordinary scenes, relying solely on well-chosen composition and Oldman’s acting (very solid, but you still can’t escape thinking that you are watching a thin actor under a fat mask) are much more impressive, because the ideas in them are not concealed by effects. Besides the occasional victory of form over content, the film is hindered by its unbalanced rhythm (after the brisk first hour, the pace slows significantly before Operation Dynamo), breaking history down to key decisions of great and infallible men, the desperate lack of sound judgment (even if the scene in the underground is based on reality, that does not change the fact that it is terribly unconvincingly constructed and written – I don’t remember seeing anything so dumb even in British interwar propaganda films, where it would be more at home) and insulting leading of the viewer. Through the supporting characters (especially the frightened secretary), the film constantly tells us how we should see Churchill, what to think about him, so that we don’t start to doubt his genius. There is a whiff of believability in the scenes of Churchill with his wife, which the screenplay does not prescribe, only for her to marvel at his penetrating intellect and laugh at his bon mots. Unfortunately, the better work of the actors and makeup artists (and costume and set designers) cannot save what the screenwriter (Anthony McCarten also wrote The Theory of Everything, which suffers from similar shortcomings) and the director neglected. Darkest Hour is an empty, naïve and fake lesson in patriotism, which for two hours laboriously tries to convey the same message that Christopher Nolan was able to put across with much greater impact in the last ten minutes of Dunkirk. 45% (11.01.2018)

It is an exemplary Oscar drama. If only the film screened in any different time, but it has to appear at the beginning of January, the typical date for the release of Oscar movies. It doesn’t get more obvious than this. And of course, Gary Oldman is awesome in it. It is even more fascinating if you have seen him in films like Lost in Space, which is over twenty years old, and then you see him play the role of Winston Churchill. Of course, it looked like Churchill was played by Churchill himself. That traditionally stands out over everything else in the movie, which always happens with films like this. (31.01.2018)

A great comedy about obesity and a wonderful drama about the fact that sometimes it is necessary to change perspective so that even the most stubborn person can believe his own convictions. For the first time, Wright's calligraphy doesn't seem to be an extra aspect to me. The brutally cut scene with a phone call when someone is on the toilet is one of its highlights. The amazing Mendelsohn and Oldman. The screenplay is very thesis-based, but somehow it has punch even in weaker moments. Wright mobilizes film language and tells perhaps a simple, but impressive message of an unwavering spirit. (13.03.2020)

An engineering film, perhaps for the target audience of naive naturalised university students who feel that a degree is the holy grail and the key to good results. In a figurative sense, this is the same Joe Wright, director of the 11-year-old and brilliantly polished Atonement. He tries to make every scene formally, aesthetically and dialogically perfect so that the charge, juice and density of the story actually slips through his fingers like a knife through butter with nonchalant elegance. But the ending is way off the mark. If it is supposed to be Oscar bait, it was not very successful. If the film worked as a mere vehicle to highlight Gary Oldman's makeup and acting, then OK. (28.02.2018)

The excellent Gary Oldman (he is not lost at all under the mask, in fact acting not only with his eyes, but also his vocal cords, all his chins, and so on) and other actors headed by Kristin Scott Thomas and Ben Mendelsohn, Wright's direction adorned with a number of attractive shots... And at times, sadly, a bit of a boring script with a rather tacky scene on the subway that would have been even worse without Oldman. I admit that was expecting “second Lincoln" from Darkest Hour, the subject matter is very similar, but even though I didn't get that, it was definitely a good two hours. (17.01.2018)

Are convincing sets, a skilled cinematographer, and one awesome actor enough for a thought-provoking historical reconstruction and Oscar fanfare? Not really... Gary Oldman is deservedly polishing his precious bald statue, and I enjoyed his speech a hell of a lot, but this time Joe Wright showed himself to be an uninteresting routine artist who may be able to put pictures together nicely and play an engaging charade with the viewer, but he uses rather inferior gimmicks and shortcuts. As a TV project it would have been great, but as an ambitious star-studded drama it comes off as simplistic, with supporting characters that are as flat as Cara Delevingne's chest, and a narrative that moves mechanically towards its stated goal without trying to add anything enlivening or believably human – and when it does try, it comes off as a major filmmaking and plot dud (the subway). Thanks to Churchill, whose charisma is enough to sell the film, it works well on a motivational level and the story is whole, but Wright is simply not Spielberg, whose Lincoln reaches an incomparably stronger catharsis at the end through a much more thoughtful interweaving of the private and political lines. As something easygoing to watch once, though, it’s more than OK. (18.03.2018)

It was almost palpable to feel my fabled generosity slipping away from me as the running time grew longer. A film in general is meant to be a representation rather than a description, no matter what historical variable it’s working with, so I don't mind the lavish begging for attention and auteur shortcuts. But I have a hard time with auteur extensions, and here they are not tactfully incorporated in any way; on the contrary, they are horrible, kitschily tasteless and easily exposed. Yes, I'm looking at you, you ten-meter braking distance on the tube between Piccadilly and Westminster stop. And you're not alone. It's clearly discernible from the outset that the character of the (of course) young, pretty secretary only exists in the film because the film is otherwise desperately lacking a female character (besides, her real-life counterpart didn't work for Churchill until a year later). The studio itself admitted that the scene in the tube was an offering to contemporary audiences who might not have filled the seats on the grounds that we're really just watching a story of old rich white men changing the world. That may be true, but it wasn’t my idea for you to make a film about 1940s British politics. Besides, the level of cheesiness of these injected scenes is a throwback to the wartime agitations where the crowd chants the hero's point of view in unison, underscored by the steady gaze of a cutely confident kid who will never let the country fall into enemy hands. To keep my pain at bay, the foreign posters have shielded themselves with a lengthy testimonial taken from a Washington Post review that reads: "The movie we need right now. This is the portrait of leadership at its most brilliant, thoughtful and morally courageous." But Churchill is far from a historically unambiguous, universally positive figure. As monumental as his contribution was to the outcome of World War II, many of his other historical moments are highly problematic, whether it be the Boer War, the management of the colonies, or his tendencies towards racism. An uncritical glorification of him as a lovable, stubborn commentator with plenty of human failings but his heart always in the right place is to some extent responsible for the current cult of the swashbuckling ruler with a minimum of empathy but plenty of witty catchphrases up his sleeve, the fruits of which we may have been enjoying here for years. (11.04.2018)

Winston Churchill is a very controversial figure for me. The film deals with his becoming the Prime Minister at a time when everything seemed to be lost, and it’s true that it was he who managed to galvanize Britain to fight on. However, as the war progressed, his interfering with the decisions concerning war operations often proved counter-productive (Force Z, Mers el-Kebir, trying to open up the front in the Balkans, etc.). Gary Oldman in the role of Churchill was good; I liked John Lithgow in The Crown better, though. I wasn't bored for a single moment, I've always found British politics interesting, especially war politics. Like many other users, I was disappointed by the massive load of political correctness. All that was missing after the tanned young man said the last words of the poem was to casually mention that he was a renowned surgeon and sang opera in his spare time. Oh well... (06.07.2018)

On the one hand, Darkest Hour is primarily a one-actor film, and Gary Oldman proves his mastery here. On the other hand, it's also a film about a time that was very unpleasant, but in which people still lived and wanted to live, and it can even be presented in a funny way. Churchill was a strong personality and deserved a film like this. (28.01.2018)