The Darkest Hour, for me, is better than most Oscar bait. Joe Wright really knows how to bring his own sense of style. The film was surprisingly fast paced, funny, and intense. And Gary Oldman was great of course.
Being a USA resident with no close ties to how much truth and fabrication was in this movie needs to be stated up front. That said, it was the most interesting and engaging movie I have viewed in the past two years. My parents were 9 and 4 years old at the time this movie takes place. I found it to be a look at how time was then. And what the British were facing. May be not completely accurate. But a 2017 retelling of the mess things were. Best movie I've viewed in ages.
I thought it was crap. Very little bearing on the truth. It’s just a myth about a man than most people think is a hero but in reality was a deeply flawed man. This movie is for the uncritical uneducated masses
Agree with Kermode here. - Great performance by Oldman and nice performances all round by the cast. - A couple of very stylish visual shots (the red room, the opening sequence) - Enough pace to the film not to be plodding and dull. BUT - Incredibly inaccurate beyond the realm of artistic license - Bad expository dialogue at times and theatrical - Awful underground metro scene which had me curling into a ball and cringing.
Just to be clear at the time the film's set in (outbreak of WW2), the Indian famine in Bengal caused to a large part by Churchill's refusal to countenance food supplies to be sent there had not occurred - it occurred in 1943. However Churchill had already displayed his irrational levels of hostility to any idea of a independent India, even as a Dominion member of the Empire and saw the Quit India movement as a form of betrayal.
Spot on review. Oldman (and his make up) was very good but everything going on around him seemed like it had been lifted straight from that scene where Wonder Woman meets the British Establishment in WW1 which was fine for Wonder Woman but not really here. Too much Basil Exposition and as Mark says 'Rhoobarbing' also that awful cor blimey guvnor London Underground scene. May I also be the first to point out that only District line trains serviced Westminster station at the time. The deep level tube trains - the type Churchill appears to be on would not have been servicing the station.
Ah yes, I am sure he used to wear sea Island poplin shirts, not sure the ones Oldman wore were - to be fair I know occasionally how being relatively knowledgeable in certain areas can expose inaccuracies and can become irritating I advise just get over it. Or you will never enjoy a film. All the best. All the brst
Gary Oldman was great but I do not feel the same could be said for the rest of the film. Parts of it seemed rather corny and contrived. I think its a subject which could have been covered much better . It deserved a more serious script and less stereotyped characters.
Richard Burton (yes that one), wrote for the NYT: " In the course of preparing myself . . . I realized afresh that I hate Churchill and all of his kind. I hate them virulently. They have stalked down the corridors of endless power all through history. . . . What man of sanity would say on hearing of the atrocities committed by the Japanese against British and Anzac prisoners of war, “We shall wipe them out, every one of them, men, women, and children. There shall not be a Japanese left on the face of the earth”? Such simple-minded cravings for revenge leave me with a horrified but reluctant awe for such single-minded and merciless ferocity. "
I'd love it if when Mark said "I remember talking to John Hurt in the Isle of Man ...", Simon interrupted him and said "I think you'll find it's pronounced 'Elephant Man'".
Entertainment wise, it’s a really great film. In terms of historical accuracy, the tube scene ruins it. It never happened, nothing like it happened, there is no ‘emotional truth’ and it goes way beyond any expected artistic licence. Kermode is right, it’s preposterous, and ruins what is otherwise a great film.
The speech was essentially "written" by the subway passengers and the V gesture was developed by his secretary. It's basically a remake of The King's Speech (dreadful) with a focus on WC. A dud.
Hopingover Leavesinfall it's not, but if two films have some vague similarities (like both being WW2 movies with the English king in them) ignorant people love to say things like "they're basically the same".
There was an overwhelming public opinion towards putting up a fight before the battle of Britain. I think movies have the right to use emotional artistic license in the case of the tube scene. It didn't ruin it for me. It really depends what a person expects from a movie like this lol
I also think that the tube scene was weak and felt extremely artificial. It felt pretty unbelievable that the public would really care that much about beating Hitler at that point. It was very cheesy. And it felt like a very 2017 addition to make it a point to have one of the passengers be a young educated, well dressed black man, even though this is a London metro in the 1930s.
Gary Oldman, Kristin Scott-Thomas and Ben Mendelsohn were all terrific. The script was hit and miss. Still a good film but it could have been a genuinely great film.
Great review Mark, I feel exactly the same. I can't believe I went to watch a second film about Churchill this year, if it wasn't played by two actors that I love I wouldn't've gone, and I guess comparison is inevitable at this stage, the physical appearance and the demeanor of Churchill was done better by Mr BC, if he was given the same material that GO was given he would've edge him in my opinion, it looks like it's going to be GO's year for an academy award although I wish it would be Joaquin Phoenix if his latest film appeals to the academy, if it goes to GO I will be disappointed but not as much as I was when he was ripped off and lost to DDL's Lincoln with his masterful performance in the Master.
The movie was a great. Regardless of the moments where context had to be provided to the viewer, so that said viewer wouldn't be lost as to who a particular individual in the movie was, the movie was great. Little things like that do not ruin a movie for me, especially since I did not know who Halifax was, though, I could go either way with it, in the sense of I don't HAVE to know exactly what role a character played in a particular time in real history. I do not intentionally look for things to pick apart about any movie. It may be the jobs of some to partake in such action, though I am glad it's not mine, for to me, it would be pointless to even watch a movie.
Honestly the beginning of the movie was great. Oldman was allowed to play a very quircky version churchill. The interactions with the wife and secretary and king were all great and actually kind of funny. But about the point the movie starts to get overly serious and winston starts to get depressed about having to consider peace terms the movie just absolutely loses me. It's way to overly dramatic and cliche, all the fun of gary oldmans performance was sucked out of the movie, and god...that fucking train scene. I don't think I could find a thicker slice of cheese at my local grocery store. After that the movie was just about ruined for me and ontop of that oldman had to overreact the hell out of the final speech. Gary Oldmans performance was still great 95% of the time but unfortunately about 65% of this movie is a snooze fest. Shame to waste such a good performance.
I haven't seen the film but the trailers didn't convince me at all. The fake lighting and plasticky look of it just puts me off. Mark's right, there really is a sheen of artifice to this all and I believe it even extends to the way Gary Oldman portrays it. Tonnes of prosthetics, very wiggy, very shouty. "LOOK AT THIS AAAAAAHAAAAAKATING!!!!" The whole thing screams of Oscar bait.
I'm strongly disagree! I think the movie is fantastic in itself! - and of course, it gets extra fantastic with Gary Oldman's performance! But I just love it! And for god's sake, Gary Oldman have to win that Oscar!
Just watched this at the local world of cine...typical by the numbers solid filmmaking, I can see what they were trying to do with the underground but it added to a, at times, jarring tone and a great performance from Oldman
I'm really glad to hear this, I thought I was taking crazy pills when i saw the reviews. I think this is a solid prestige picture with great acting and all of that. I enjoyed it. But it could have been more. It seems like the creative decisions made regarding the story and script were not the strongest. I'll just be one of those people who say that "The Crown" knows how to deal with these historical characters and stories in an effective way. That's not the only way to do it but they do it very well.
Shame that Mark isn’t enamoured by this movie. Apart from the foolish tube scene, I felt the movie was excellent. Edge of the seat stuff despite the viewer knowing the conclusion. I recommend it.
I was enjoying it until the same scene. It doesn't just feel forced, it also probably wouldn't be that true. The reverence we hold for Churchill today is because he won the war, defeated the Nazis, but he was not revered at the time, and he never went with popular opinion. He was opposing Hitler, and suggesting action in 1934 when most of the country didn't want another war and wanted him to shut up.
The truth is, I think "getting public opinion" resonates with people today, since so many feel like they are NOT being heard. I am sure that the fighting spirit that Churchill had finds its way into this film, and yes "on the nose" so that people my age can wake up and stand up for stuff they believe in, not just tweet it and go to bed.
Justin Lee 1 second ago Churchill had the Ministry of Information constantly taking polling data on the mood of the country. He got constant updates on what the people thought and the mood of the country. This was a fictional representation of that data. It certainly worked better than a very dry scene of a bloke reading out statistical data which would have been the alternative to the tube station scene. Believe it or not the mood of the country was very different from many within the Government. Churchill was indeed almost a lone voice even after he became PM. Halifax plotted all the way to the end of 1940 to try and get a negotiated peace. To the extent that even ministers within the Foreign Office became fed up and embarrassed with him
I agree with this 100%: over expository and very little thematic depth. The tube scene was worse than cringeworthy. The whole narrative seemed engineered to give Churchill as much gravitas as possible rather than the more subtle and plaintive version of Churchill in the Crown. By the way, can someone please explain what Mark means by rhubarbing?
Extras who are not supposed to be heard, but must look like they are talking, are often instructed to say "rhubarb" to each other. It's a great shortcut for getting their mouths to move without hearing them.
People should check out the fanedit "Finest Hour" which combines parts of this movie with parts of Christopher Nolan's "Dunkirk". I my humble opinion it improves both movies as it shows the political challenges at home with the personal struggles of the soldiers in Dunkirk.
Spot on Mark and Simon. Good cast, ordinary script but pretty poor film. The scene on the Underground was toe curling, just dreadful. Like Mark I never felt immersed in the film; my head was in my hands full too often for me ever to feel lost in the film. I admire Churchill, exactly the right man for the time and Gary O did his part with a fine performance but the excessively “dramatic“ style of the film plus a heavy-handed script, actually took the drama out of the story. And that scene on the Tube!! A bad film.
everything that kermode disliked about the film affirmed my faith in it, especially the tube scene. it did seem silly, and certainly didnt happen, but as a plot device it's perfect. makes the audience feel closer to churchill, as you see him interact with people he would otherwise never speak to, as well as gives them an understanding of what's happening in his head. a moment of clarity before the shitstorm he could be facing.
They used artistic licence when they wrote and shot that scene for sure but Churchill was known to sometimes wander off on his own and talk to everyday people so there is at least an element of truth in that scene.
This was one of the most formulaic films I've seen in a long time. I couldn't even make it past the first 30 minutes. It's like the director was following a guide on how to make a film, and some of the dialog was so terrible I was shocked they actually put it in. Pure Oscar bait.
I felt the same way i did with Iron Lady in the sense that the performance was better than the film. Not to say the film was bad it just wasnt great. It was a great performance from Oldman though
something extras do to look like they're having conversation in the background of a shot is mouthing 'rhubarb', it's also a way of generating crowd noises.
The film’s terrifically acted, well directed, realistic, well crafted & has one of leading actor Gary Oldman’s best performances. (89%) (4.5/5 stars) (positive)
Agree with Mark completely - weak film saved by Oldman’s performance (ably supported by Scott-Thomas and James) which means it is entertaining for the couple of hours - but lacks realism and real drama. The underground scene was ridiculous.
Suddenly his wife said, they were broke. And his house and room was also not really impressive. I found that odd that such a famous person lived almost poor. Perhaps it was the projection of his character where he had a dark, desolate soul too.
What annoys me most about it was the whole way in which Churchill decides to reject the peace option and to instead fight on is based on a completely fictional creation. Also the key relationship in the film with his secretary is again completely made up since they didnt meet until after the film ends in 1940. So pretty much so many of the key scenes never happened. Why does a true story need changing to be made into a conventional screenplay.
If it wasn't for oldman, this film would be a huge huge letdown. Oldman does a great job of capturing churchills personality but the actual movie is moved from its central storyline to easily with transitions that don't make alot of sense. For example, the dunkirk story ends abruptly and leaves viewers, who esentially don't know what happened there, in the dark. Sometimes, the movie felt like it was reliant upon how the viewer felt toward opposition characters (i.e chamberlain) rather than focusing on some of the really difficult and dark decisions Churchill really had to make. Absolutely disgusted that the movie never even mentioned what is quite possibly Churchill's most controversial decision and thay was the ordering of the annihilation of the remaining french navy that had surrendered itself to germany. I don't know, but the movie just felt like a large jigsaw with multiple pieces missing that could have made it a masterpiece.
Great film with a terrific lead performance. Lots better than the overrated Dunkirk which, while being visually spectacular, is completely cold emotionally with a bunch of bland characters that you don't care a slightest bit about. And a completely different situation here where even the secondary characters are so well written and portrayed that you always care and feel for them. A first-class work!
Yes, except that film is based on very little fact and truth. He never contemplated cancelling D-Day for example. It was delayed by 24 hours due to the weather. That was Eisenhower's call.
CHURCHILL's DARKEST HOUR V's HITLER's DOWNFALL. Darkest Hour is a film made for the small minded, and 'very' inaccurate - the tube scene is a terrible example of this - it's so embarrassing. The only performance I enjoyed was by Ronald Pickup who played Chamberlain. I think the scenes with Chamberlain, which were the only serious scenes of the film, left me wanting to know more about 'him' and 'his' struggle rather than watch two hours of Churchill cliches . When you compare this film with Downfall, the equivalent film of Hitler's 'Darkest Hour', 'Downfall' would win on every front; it is accurate, intense and very frightening, it's far more provocative, realistic and immediately puts the audience into one of the most darkest moments in history.
There are too many films and TV shows featuring real life characters who occupied a rarefied space coming down to meet with the great unwashed. Darkest Hour contains one of those scenes and, to use a word that hasn't travelled too far from the Home Counties, it's frightfully bad.
Another Churchill movie? I get world war two movies are easier to make than say midevil times. And we can't have movies about the war against Japan cause of lack of famous Japanese actors and yellow face isn't an option. But why can't we have a film about Yugoslavia in world war two? it could be about Tito s struggle against the Chetniks and Ustache. Or a horror movie or an exploration of hate and racism and nationalism if it's about or has a scene set in the Jasinovic camp. They made a movie about Stalingrad so why not Yugoslavia? British and Americans playing Slavs isn't an issue. I don't get it. It be really intersteing and have tension since most audiences won't know exactly what will happen like they will in movies like this.
"I loved Brian Cox playing Churchill". The worst and most ridiculous performance from Mr Cox ever on film. Sadly having watched the reviews of MK for some years, I've finally come to realise he has such a peculiar view on Movies, I cannot agree or watch his reviews anymore. Churchill is a great film, with a phenomenal Oldman performance yet here's 9 minutes of waffle about why he 'doesn't believe' the film. He must have mixed up the labels with this and Brian Cox's embarrassing Churchill.
I think some of the exposition was necessary, I saw it with a friend who isn't especially knowledgeable but loves biographies. He would not of kept up had it not been for it being a bit blatant.
I hope people won't look at this film the way they look at King's Speech these days; an Oscar bait with no artistic value (an assessment I strongly disagree with). The trailer got me riled up and I absolutely can't wait to hear Oldman deliver some rousing speeches. Really hoping Mark is wrong on this one.
The King's Speech didn't deserve to beat The Social Network to the major Oscars, but it's still a very good film. It gets unfairly knocked by a lot of people.
I think some people expect "good" films in this genre to be challenging examinations of history, not sappy, masturbatory odes to allegedly glorious and noble bygone eras. Or an uncritical celebration of traditionalism and nationalism. Far too many of these movies get made and get undeserved critical acclaim.
Disagree, the technical elements of a film come second to the story, always. TSN was incredibly timely and culturally pertinent, it was a much more interesting examination of greed and capitalism than whatever TKS was. Like I literally could not give less of a damn about the poor old King and his speech impediment. It was the men and women on the ground that did the heavy lifting during WW2, nevermind that the Soviet Union did most of the work. The movie was literally a jerk, it's just feel good nonsense. If it's about entertainment then Toy Story 3 was far more enjoyable. There was nothing interesting or substantial about The King's Speech at all, all it did was glorify the monarchy during a time where there was just so much more going on in the world that's more important (not to mention it sanitized all the unsavory aspects of the UK at the time).
Jack Lines I was about to make this very same point, but would have written it more meanderingly. The backdrop adds scale and grandness, but the core is honest and very human. I however lack the courage to attack Fincher's film.
I'm not really a giant Fincher fan although I appreciate his movies, and I agree that TSN owed a lot to the script, but the movie really had something to say, and the implications are much more interesting/challenging than TKS. TKS was inspirational, but that's all it was. I mean I enjoyed it for what it was at the time, but like The Artist, TKS winning Best Picture is really the clearest indication about the cultural attitudes of the old, stuffy and reactionary Academy. TKS really was just glorification, there's nothing deep or critical to unpack about its story. TSN was very critical about its subject, academic elitism, greed and interpersonal relationships in the backdrop of the social media age.
Oldman's performance great but the film itself is dreadful. Would have much rather have seen Oldman as Churchill in a film adaptation of Ben Brown's Three Days in May, focusing much more on the cabinet debates and cut out the rubbish like that toe curling London Underground scene.
I don't know why people had a problem with the subway/car scene lol. What is "cringe" about it? Would you have just stayed in your corner of the car when the British PM was speaking and discussing? xD
Joe Wright directed this? If Mark is correct, it confirms my feeling that he is a director without subtlety. He only ever seems time have a surface-level understanding of the material he's handling.
Perfect example - a big set-piece: SCENE 13: The Governor's Ball [OLIVIA and JAMES enter from stage left - at stage mid and rear, 38 guests are engaged in conversation, oblivious to their presence] If you're one of those 38 people, you can't talk out loud or you'll ruin the scene for the two stars. But you also have to look like you're talking in a fairly animated fashion. So you whisper "rhubarb" to each other using the kind of facial expressions that you might use in a genuine conversation. The effect is a bubbling of conversation that the stars can easily work against. The word "rhubarb" makes your mouth move in a convincing fashion that could be just about any words.
The tube scene was fantastic. Very powerful and emotional. Probably one of the best scenes of the whole film. So great it was, that at the moment of the scene I was actually thinking about rating the film higher than I did in the end.
Come on, Mark! Please don't pick on the Tube scene. There was stuff in "Darkest Hour" I'd seen and heard in "The Gathering Storm" over a decade ago, which annoyed me a whole lot more, e.g. "Don't interrupt me while I am trying to interrupt you", Winston bathing while dictating to secretary, Winston promising to cut down on the champagne or wine because Clemmie says they're living beyond their means. The Tube scene was inspired as a bit of artistic licence to represent Winston's huge dilemma. It was also handled a lot less toe-curlingly than it might have been. If I want historical accuracy, I'll go to a lecture. I certainly won't rewatch the Cox film. Apart from plodding along like a tortoise with sciatica, it serves up a constantly whinging, whining Winston! I mean, come on!! Also, as a run-up-to-D-day film, you'd do much better to check out the New Zealand Tom Selleck starrer "Ike: Countdown to D-day." As a great representation of Churchill? I've seen better, and I don't mean Oldman. What about Albert Finney in, yes, "The Gathering Storm" again, or Brendan Gleeson in "Into the Storm"? Here are two guys who do much better than Cox to show the essence of the character with limited or zero prosthetics.
Nick Nack he was completely against colonial rights. He spoke of natives as if they were a plague. He endorsed the massacres of native Australian & American people & was a fan of Mussolini. This myth he was anti-fascist is nonsense. He was all for it when it was about fighting Communism. He only turned against it when it threatened Britain & the Empire. He also opposed votes for women & was a Zionist.
He also orchestrated the gassing of the Kurd's, gave the army orders to shoot striking British workers, was in charge during the Indian famine that caused the death of 3 million people , described Indians, Palestinians and native Americans as vermin, was opposed to the creation of the NHS.
Has an awful reputation in Ireland for introducing the Black and Tans. An army formed of convict hauled out of prison that butchered many innocent people in Ireland. You can read other stuff on BBC website here: www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29701767
I've been going through "LONDON TO LADYSMITH VIA PRETORIA" by him where he displays his racism and opposition to black rights. There's a bit where he argues with his Boer capture which has been presented as him standing up for equal rights by some of his hack historian fanboys but read in context of the entire piece he seems to be doing the exact opposite. There's also this passage I've found "The Durham Light Infantry carried the hill at the point of the bayonet, losing seven officers and sixty or seventy men, and capturing five Boer prisoners, besides ten horses and some wounded, Most of the enemy, however, had retired before the attack, unable to endure the appalling concentration of artillery which had prepared it. Among those who remained to fight to the last were five or six armed Kaffirs, one of whom shot an officer of the Durhams. To these no quarter was given. Their employment by the Dutch in this war shows that while they furiously complain of Khama's defence of his territory against their raiding parties on the ground that white men must be killed by white men, they have themselves no such scruples. There is no possible doubt about the facts set forth above, and the incident should be carefully noted by the public." I've never seen this passage brought up before.
Didn't like the subway scene? Out of sync with the movie? Did we see the same movie? Churchill was befuddled, losing his will. Enters the Subway. Speaks to the people. Listens. Comes back recharged to Parliament. Delivers one of the world's greatest speeches. Right out of a John Ford or Frank Capra movie. Movie magic. To paraphrase the line from Godot: "CRITIC!" Heal thyself!
MS But The Artist actor won all the other awards. Darkest Hour was Gary Oldmans first Golden Globe nomination. If he wins the SAG award he will win the Oscar because that determines the Oscar winner 99.9% of the time.
There have been too many hagiographic flicks of Churchill. It's comforting to know that it isn't worth watching. On the other hand, I never intended to.
Mark Kermode reminds me so much of Fraser Crane. Pompous, fond of believing that using florid language equates to intelligence, and pedantic. A fine example of life imitating art.
That's just it - it DOESN'T represent history - not even the big speech. If you listen to the REAL "fight them on the beaches" speech (and it will be up here somewhere) - it was delivered in a calm tone of voice throughout. Oldman makes his version super-dramatic. Not representing history at all. But then again, the dramatic liberties taken in this film are so bad that Joe Wright should get 6 points on his Dramatic Licence and a £200 fine! I wasn't at all a fan of Oldman's makeup either - he looked like the elephant man after some modern NHS treatment for his face. Surely they could have cast someone who didn't need any prosthetics. Compare Bruno Ganz as Hitler in "Downfall", for example, all they did was style his hair - most convincing Hitler ever! That film was pure speculation about Hitler's final days - but it was delivered so believably that you would swear it was all true.
So basically this is The Iron Lady mark 2 as far as Dr K is concerned. An average okay film with an outstanding lead performance.
I haven't seen it i'm just trying to understand what Mark might be suggesting in his review.
Stephen Taylor I liked it a lot! I gave it an 8.5/10
If you focus on Oldman as churchill, it's a great film. If you focus on the film as a whole, it's not.
The Darkest Hour, for me, is better than most Oscar bait. Joe Wright really knows how to bring his own sense of style. The film was surprisingly fast paced, funny, and intense. And Gary Oldman was great of course.
Being a USA resident with no close ties to how much truth and fabrication was in this movie needs to be stated up front. That said, it was the most interesting and engaging movie I have viewed in the past two years. My parents were 9 and 4 years old at the time this movie takes place. I found it to be a look at how time was then. And what the British were facing.
May be not completely accurate. But a 2017 retelling of the mess things were. Best movie I've viewed in ages.
I thought it was crap. Very little bearing on the truth. It’s just a myth about a man than most people think is a hero but in reality was a deeply flawed man. This movie is for the uncritical uneducated masses
@@decimustv4257 lmao virgin
....that's because it was'nt an Oscar bait movie? lmao wtf
Agree with Kermode here.
- Great performance by Oldman and nice performances all round by the cast.
- A couple of very stylish visual shots (the red room, the opening sequence)
- Enough pace to the film not to be plodding and dull.
BUT
- Incredibly inaccurate beyond the realm of artistic license
- Bad expository dialogue at times and theatrical
- Awful underground metro scene which had me curling into a ball and cringing.
Just to be clear at the time the film's set in (outbreak of WW2), the Indian famine in Bengal caused to a large part by Churchill's refusal to countenance food supplies to be sent there had not occurred - it occurred in 1943. However Churchill had already displayed his irrational levels of hostility to any idea of a independent India, even as a Dominion member of the Empire and saw the Quit India movement as a form of betrayal.
Spot on review. Oldman (and his make up) was very good but everything going on around him seemed like it had been lifted straight from that scene where Wonder Woman meets the British Establishment in WW1 which was fine for Wonder Woman but not really here. Too much Basil Exposition and as Mark says 'Rhoobarbing' also that awful cor blimey guvnor London Underground scene. May I also be the first to point out that only District line trains serviced Westminster station at the time. The deep level tube trains - the type Churchill appears to be on would not have been servicing the station.
Ah yes, I am sure he used to wear sea Island poplin shirts, not sure the ones Oldman wore were - to be fair I know occasionally how being relatively knowledgeable in certain areas can expose inaccuracies and can become irritating I advise just get over it. Or you will never enjoy a film.
All the best.
All the brst
Gary Oldman was great but I do not feel the same could be said for the rest of the film. Parts of it seemed rather corny and contrived. I think its a subject which could have been covered much better . It deserved a more serious script and less stereotyped characters.
I honestly confused this movie for the actual Churchill movie, I just thought they renamed it for the US release.
nunouno001 I
nomoreheroes93 he's not really complaining about historical accuracy though, just that he doesn't think the scene makes sense
Richard Burton (yes that one), wrote for the NYT: " In the course of preparing myself . . . I realized afresh that I hate Churchill and all of his kind. I hate them virulently. They have stalked down the corridors of endless power all through history. . . . What man of sanity would say on hearing of the atrocities committed by the Japanese against British and Anzac prisoners of war, “We shall wipe them out, every one of them, men, women, and children. There shall not be a Japanese left on the face of the earth”? Such simple-minded cravings for revenge leave me with a horrified but reluctant awe for such single-minded and merciless ferocity. "
Churchill never actually said that quote about "wiping out" the Japanese. Not sure where Burton got that from.
I'd love it if when Mark said "I remember talking to John Hurt in the Isle of Man ...", Simon interrupted him and said "I think you'll find it's pronounced 'Elephant Man'".
Bravo Mr Mott 🏆🇬🇧
@@nigelcarren I'm a sucker for a good pun (and quite a few bad ones).
Entertainment wise, it’s a really great film. In terms of historical accuracy, the tube scene ruins it. It never happened, nothing like it happened, there is no ‘emotional truth’ and it goes way beyond any expected artistic licence.
Kermode is right, it’s preposterous, and ruins what is otherwise a great film.
The speech was essentially "written" by the subway passengers and the V gesture was developed by his secretary. It's basically a remake of The King's Speech (dreadful) with a focus on WC. A dud.
How is it a remake of that particular film?
Hopingover Leavesinfall it's not, but if two films have some vague similarities (like both being WW2 movies with the English king in them) ignorant people love to say things like "they're basically the same".
There was an overwhelming public opinion towards putting up a fight before the battle of Britain. I think movies have the right to use emotional artistic license in the case of the tube scene. It didn't ruin it for me. It really depends what a person expects from a movie like this lol
"Theatre-y..."
Not theatrical, then...
I also think that the tube scene was weak and felt extremely artificial. It felt pretty unbelievable that the public would really care that much about beating Hitler at that point. It was very cheesy. And it felt like a very 2017 addition to make it a point to have one of the passengers be a young educated, well dressed black man, even though this is a London metro in the 1930s.
Gary Oldman, Kristin Scott-Thomas and Ben Mendelsohn were all terrific. The script was hit and miss. Still a good film but it could have been a genuinely great film.
Great review Mark, I feel exactly the same. I can't believe I went to watch a second film about Churchill this year, if it wasn't played by two actors that I love I wouldn't've gone, and I guess comparison is inevitable at this stage, the physical appearance and the demeanor of Churchill was done better by Mr BC, if he was given the same material that GO was given he would've edge him in my opinion, it looks like it's going to be GO's year for an academy award although I wish it would be Joaquin Phoenix if his latest film appeals to the academy, if it goes to GO I will be disappointed but not as much as I was when he was ripped off and lost to DDL's Lincoln with his masterful performance in the Master.
The movie was a great. Regardless of the moments where context had to be provided to the viewer, so that said viewer wouldn't be lost as to who a particular individual in the movie was, the movie was great. Little things like that do not ruin a movie for me, especially since I did not know who Halifax was, though, I could go either way with it, in the sense of I don't HAVE to know exactly what role a character played in a particular time in real history. I do not intentionally look for things to pick apart about any movie. It may be the jobs of some to partake in such action, though I am glad it's not mine, for to me, it would be pointless to even watch a movie.
So well said it! I watched it only to see Gary Oldman's performance, but for all its technical brilliance I found it rather arid, and superficial.
He will do very well to get anyway near John Lithgow's portrayal of Churchill in The Crown.
David Bain I actually like Gary Oldmans portrayal just a little better
Mega MovieZ I will definitely check it out :)
I prefer Gary Oldmans performance. Lithgow had to act being an Englishman
Both are amazing performances but remember they are playing Churchill 14 to 20 years apart
Chazbot funny because Dillane plays Viscount Halifax in this film lol
This film tried. It really did. But it never quite struck a chord with me as much as I would have liked it to.
Honestly the beginning of the movie was great. Oldman was allowed to play a very quircky version churchill. The interactions with the wife and secretary and king were all great and actually kind of funny. But about the point the movie starts to get overly serious and winston starts to get depressed about having to consider peace terms the movie just absolutely loses me. It's way to overly dramatic and cliche, all the fun of gary oldmans performance was sucked out of the movie, and god...that fucking train scene. I don't think I could find a thicker slice of cheese at my local grocery store. After that the movie was just about ruined for me and ontop of that oldman had to overreact the hell out of the final speech. Gary Oldmans performance was still great 95% of the time but unfortunately about 65% of this movie is a snooze fest. Shame to waste such a good performance.
I haven't seen the film but the trailers didn't convince me at all. The fake lighting and plasticky look of it just puts me off. Mark's right, there really is a sheen of artifice to this all and I believe it even extends to the way Gary Oldman portrays it. Tonnes of prosthetics, very wiggy, very shouty. "LOOK AT THIS AAAAAAHAAAAAKATING!!!!" The whole thing screams of Oscar bait.
I'm strongly disagree! I think the movie is fantastic in itself! - and of course, it gets extra fantastic with Gary Oldman's performance! But I just love it! And for god's sake, Gary Oldman have to win that Oscar!
Film doesn't appeal to me but Gary Oldman is an outstanding actor!
Give him an Oscar for Dracula! :D
He IS Dracula. Then and forever.
Just watched this at the local world of cine...typical by the numbers solid filmmaking, I can see what they were trying to do with the underground but it added to a, at times, jarring tone and a great performance from Oldman
I'm really glad to hear this, I thought I was taking crazy pills when i saw the reviews. I think this is a solid prestige picture with great acting and all of that. I enjoyed it. But it could have been more. It seems like the creative decisions made regarding the story and script were not the strongest. I'll just be one of those people who say that "The Crown" knows how to deal with these historical characters and stories in an effective way. That's not the only way to do it but they do it very well.
I love this man! The tube scene kind of ruined it for me too. It was too forceful in its effort to make us feel strong emotions
Shame that Mark isn’t enamoured by this movie. Apart from the foolish tube scene, I felt the movie was excellent. Edge of the seat stuff despite the viewer knowing the conclusion. I recommend it.
Yes but in Cox's Churchill film, most of the plot was made up. This one looks like it's closer to actual history.
Gary Oldman best actor Oscar?
I was enjoying it until the same scene. It doesn't just feel forced, it also probably wouldn't be that true. The reverence we hold for Churchill today is because he won the war, defeated the Nazis, but he was not revered at the time, and he never went with popular opinion. He was opposing Hitler, and suggesting action in 1934 when most of the country didn't want another war and wanted him to shut up.
The truth is, I think "getting public opinion" resonates with people today, since so many feel like they are NOT being heard. I am sure that the fighting spirit that Churchill had finds its way into this film, and yes "on the nose" so that people my age can wake up and stand up for stuff they believe in, not just tweet it and go to bed.
They mentioned the indian famine in the movie, which, in movie time, was going to happen 3 years after
They didn't mention the famine. Which wasn't Churchill's fault anyway. They just mentioned his policy on Indian Independence and self rule.
The modern day equivalents of Lord Halifax are Dominic Grieve, Hilary Benn, Rory Stewart, Yvette Cooper and Ian Blackford.
Justin Lee
1 second ago
Churchill had the Ministry of Information constantly taking polling data on the mood of the country. He got constant updates on what the people thought and the mood of the country. This was a fictional representation of that data. It certainly worked better than a very dry scene of a bloke reading out statistical data which would have been the alternative to the tube station scene. Believe it or not the mood of the country was very different from many within the Government. Churchill was indeed almost a lone voice even after he became PM. Halifax plotted all the way to the end of 1940 to try and get a negotiated peace. To the extent that even ministers within the Foreign Office became fed up and embarrassed with him
I agree with this 100%: over expository and very little thematic depth. The tube scene was worse than cringeworthy. The whole narrative seemed engineered to give Churchill as much gravitas as possible rather than the more subtle and plaintive version of Churchill in the Crown.
By the way, can someone please explain what Mark means by rhubarbing?
Extras who are not supposed to be heard, but must look like they are talking, are often instructed to say "rhubarb" to each other. It's a great shortcut for getting their mouths to move without hearing them.
People should check out the fanedit "Finest Hour" which combines parts of this movie with parts of Christopher Nolan's "Dunkirk". I my humble opinion it improves both movies as it shows the political challenges at home with the personal struggles of the soldiers in Dunkirk.
Spot on Mark and Simon. Good cast, ordinary script but pretty poor film. The scene on the Underground was toe curling, just dreadful. Like Mark I never felt immersed in the film; my head was in my hands full too often for me ever to feel lost in the film.
I admire Churchill, exactly the right man for the time and Gary O did his part with a fine performance but the excessively “dramatic“ style of the film plus a heavy-handed script, actually took the drama out of the story. And that scene on the Tube!! A bad film.
Seems a lot like The Iron Lady. A great central performance let down by a middling film around it.
"Why has Mark got a fire extinguisher in font of him at the ready?" I thought for a worrying number of seconds.
Dunkirk, Churchill and Darkest Hour within a year. What's up with that?
Churchill isn’t in dunkirk though tbf.
everything that kermode disliked about the film affirmed my faith in it, especially the tube scene. it did seem silly, and certainly didnt happen, but as a plot device it's perfect. makes the audience feel closer to churchill, as you see him interact with people he would otherwise never speak to, as well as gives them an understanding of what's happening in his head. a moment of clarity before the shitstorm he could be facing.
They used artistic licence when they wrote and shot that scene for sure but Churchill was known to sometimes wander off on his own and talk to everyday people so there is at least an element of truth in that scene.
The book 5 Days In London by Stephen Lucas based on the civil service taken cabinet minutes, gives the account of what really occured better
This was one of the most formulaic films I've seen in a long time. I couldn't even make it past the first 30 minutes. It's like the director was following a guide on how to make a film, and some of the dialog was so terrible I was shocked they actually put it in. Pure Oscar bait.
100 % hate that Tube scene, before that the movie was good but that scene lost me. He is right, that scene is totally preposterous.
Oldman's good in it most of the time but in the bunker scenes he starts to overact like crazy
I felt the same way i did with Iron Lady in the sense that the performance was better than the film. Not to say the film was bad it just wasnt great. It was a great performance from Oldman though
What is rhubarbing?
People muttering in the background - it sounds like they're saying 'rhubarb' over and over
something extras do to look like they're having conversation in the background of a shot is mouthing 'rhubarb', it's also a way of generating crowd noises.
Cheers both!
Rhys Thomas's 'A Year In The Life Of A Year 2017' had a load of extras in a period drama going 'fa fa fa' similarly!
It's an Aphex Twin song you can play for your granny.
ruclips.net/video/_AWIqXzvX-U/видео.html
The film’s terrifically acted, well directed, realistic, well crafted & has one of leading actor Gary Oldman’s best performances. (89%) (4.5/5 stars) (positive)
Realistic? It's full of inaccuracies.
Agree with Mark completely - weak film saved by Oldman’s performance (ably supported by Scott-Thomas and James) which means it is entertaining for the couple of hours - but lacks realism and real drama. The underground scene was ridiculous.
Suddenly his wife said, they were broke. And his house and room was also not really impressive. I found that odd that such a famous person lived almost poor. Perhaps it was the projection of his character where he had a dark, desolate soul too.
What annoys me most about it was the whole way in which Churchill decides to reject the peace option and to instead fight on is based on a completely fictional creation. Also the key relationship in the film with his secretary is again completely made up since they didnt meet until after the film ends in 1940. So pretty much so many of the key scenes never happened. Why does a true story need changing to be made into a conventional screenplay.
Gary Oldman shouts again
If it wasn't for oldman, this film would be a huge huge letdown. Oldman does a great job of capturing churchills personality but the actual movie is moved from its central storyline to easily with transitions that don't make alot of sense. For example, the dunkirk story ends abruptly and leaves viewers, who esentially don't know what happened there, in the dark. Sometimes, the movie felt like it was reliant upon how the viewer felt toward opposition characters (i.e chamberlain) rather than focusing on some of the really difficult and dark decisions Churchill really had to make. Absolutely disgusted that the movie never even mentioned what is quite possibly Churchill's most controversial decision and thay was the ordering of the annihilation of the remaining french navy that had surrendered itself to germany. I don't know, but the movie just felt like a large jigsaw with multiple pieces missing that could have made it a masterpiece.
Great film with a terrific lead performance. Lots better than the overrated Dunkirk which, while being visually spectacular, is completely cold emotionally with a bunch of bland characters that you don't care a slightest bit about. And a completely different situation here where even the secondary characters are so well written and portrayed that you always care and feel for them. A first-class work!
Fantastic film, but like Mark I preferred Brian Cox to Oldman.
Yes, except that film is based on very little fact and truth. He never contemplated cancelling D-Day for example. It was delayed by 24 hours due to the weather. That was Eisenhower's call.
CHURCHILL's DARKEST HOUR V's HITLER's DOWNFALL. Darkest Hour is a film made for the small minded, and 'very' inaccurate - the tube scene is a terrible example of this - it's so embarrassing. The only performance I enjoyed was by Ronald Pickup who played Chamberlain. I think the scenes with Chamberlain, which were the only serious scenes of the film, left me wanting to know more about 'him' and 'his' struggle rather than watch two hours of Churchill cliches . When you compare this film with Downfall, the equivalent film of Hitler's 'Darkest Hour', 'Downfall' would win on every front; it is accurate, intense and very frightening, it's far more provocative, realistic and immediately puts the audience into one of the most darkest moments in history.
There are too many films and TV shows featuring real life characters who occupied a rarefied space coming down to meet with the great unwashed. Darkest Hour contains one of those scenes and, to use a word that hasn't travelled too far from the Home Counties, it's frightfully bad.
Brian Cox rule?
Check out Cox in 'Manhaunter', the first and arguably best 'Hannibal' film. No disrespect to Sir Anthony.
Oldman's performance will have to be something special to be better than Timothee Chalamet was in Call Me By Your Name
Charlie Panayiotou Gary Oldman's performance is something special!!!
Another Churchill movie? I get world war two movies are easier to make than say midevil times. And we can't have movies about the war against Japan cause of lack of famous Japanese actors and yellow face isn't an option.
But why can't we have a film about Yugoslavia in world war two? it could be about Tito s struggle against the Chetniks and Ustache. Or a horror movie or an exploration of hate and racism and nationalism if it's about or has a scene set in the Jasinovic camp. They made a movie about Stalingrad so why not Yugoslavia? British and Americans playing Slavs isn't an issue. I don't get it. It be really intersteing and have tension since most audiences won't know exactly what will happen like they will in movies like this.
"I loved Brian Cox playing Churchill". The worst and most ridiculous performance from Mr Cox ever on film. Sadly having watched the reviews of MK for some years, I've finally come to realise he has such a peculiar view on Movies, I cannot agree or watch his reviews anymore. Churchill is a great film, with a phenomenal Oldman performance yet here's 9 minutes of waffle about why he 'doesn't believe' the film. He must have mixed up the labels with this and Brian Cox's embarrassing Churchill.
I don't get what's so great about the GO performance.
I think some of the exposition was necessary, I saw it with a friend who isn't especially knowledgeable but loves biographies. He would not of kept up had it not been for it being a bit blatant.
I hope people won't look at this film the way they look at King's Speech these days; an Oscar bait with no artistic value (an assessment I strongly disagree with). The trailer got me riled up and I absolutely can't wait to hear Oldman deliver some rousing speeches. Really hoping Mark is wrong on this one.
The King's Speech didn't deserve to beat The Social Network to the major Oscars, but it's still a very good film. It gets unfairly knocked by a lot of people.
I think some people expect "good" films in this genre to be challenging examinations of history, not sappy, masturbatory odes to allegedly glorious and noble bygone eras. Or an uncritical celebration of traditionalism and nationalism. Far too many of these movies get made and get undeserved critical acclaim.
Disagree, the technical elements of a film come second to the story, always. TSN was incredibly timely and culturally pertinent, it was a much more interesting examination of greed and capitalism than whatever TKS was. Like I literally could not give less of a damn about the poor old King and his speech impediment. It was the men and women on the ground that did the heavy lifting during WW2, nevermind that the Soviet Union did most of the work. The movie was literally a jerk, it's just feel good nonsense. If it's about entertainment then Toy Story 3 was far more enjoyable. There was nothing interesting or substantial about The King's Speech at all, all it did was glorify the monarchy during a time where there was just so much more going on in the world that's more important (not to mention it sanitized all the unsavory aspects of the UK at the time).
Jack Lines I was about to make this very same point, but would have written it more meanderingly. The backdrop adds scale and grandness, but the core is honest and very human.
I however lack the courage to attack Fincher's film.
I'm not really a giant Fincher fan although I appreciate his movies, and I agree that TSN owed a lot to the script, but the movie really had something to say, and the implications are much more interesting/challenging than TKS. TKS was inspirational, but that's all it was. I mean I enjoyed it for what it was at the time, but like The Artist, TKS winning Best Picture is really the clearest indication about the cultural attitudes of the old, stuffy and reactionary Academy. TKS really was just glorification, there's nothing deep or critical to unpack about its story. TSN was very critical about its subject, academic elitism, greed and interpersonal relationships in the backdrop of the social media age.
Magnificent masterpiece!!!!!!!
I actually think gary will win i just cant sit through 3 hours or so paying attention to ww2
Great movie , just the scenes that didnt happen in reality kinda ruin it unfortunately...
That scene on the tube was the sort of plot device that a Hollywood blockbuster would resort to, it was cringeworthy.
mayo has it right
Always love a bit of Revisionist History. Churchill was a wonderful Anti Semitic, Warmongering friend of the Coalminers...
Should an actor get an oscar if the film isn't very good?
For his performance yes. The film doesn't have to get a best picture oscar, or even be nominated, for him to get a best actor oscar
Well, the first thing to say is...
Oldman's performance great but the film itself is dreadful. Would have much rather have seen Oldman as Churchill in a film adaptation of Ben Brown's Three Days in May, focusing much more on the cabinet debates and cut out the rubbish like that toe curling London Underground scene.
artifice, yes, the best word for the film. great performance but not natural.
I don't know why people had a problem with the subway/car scene lol. What is "cringe" about it? Would you have just stayed in your corner of the car when the British PM was speaking and discussing? xD
a beautifully shot film but over all, not for me
Never rub another man’s rhubarb.
Lionel Hutz
Jack Nicholson as the joker
are they promoting Trump through Churchill
after BREXIT UK goes DUNKIRK DARKEST HOUR even WONDER WOMAN IS ALL about UK vs GERMANY
LOL
Joe Wright directed this? If Mark is correct, it confirms my feeling that he is a director without subtlety. He only ever seems time have a surface-level understanding of the material he's handling.
what the hell is 'theatrical rhubarbing'?
Perfect example - a big set-piece:
SCENE 13: The Governor's Ball
[OLIVIA and JAMES enter from stage left - at stage mid and rear, 38 guests are engaged in conversation, oblivious to their presence]
If you're one of those 38 people, you can't talk out loud or you'll ruin the scene for the two stars. But you also have to look like you're talking in a fairly animated fashion.
So you whisper "rhubarb" to each other using the kind of facial expressions that you might use in a genuine conversation.
The effect is a bubbling of conversation that the stars can easily work against.
The word "rhubarb" makes your mouth move in a convincing fashion that could be just about any words.
Thanks!
The trailers they've been showing over here in the States really make this film look like rubbish.
EinSophistry Or even trash...... 😉
Hey, I was trying not to spook the natives.
The tube scene was fantastic. Very powerful and emotional. Probably one of the best scenes of the whole film. So great it was, that at the moment of the scene I was actually thinking about rating the film higher than I did in the end.
Don't tell me your problems..😁
Come on, Mark! Please don't pick on the Tube scene. There was stuff in "Darkest Hour" I'd seen and heard in "The Gathering Storm" over a decade ago, which annoyed me a whole lot more, e.g. "Don't interrupt me while I am trying to interrupt you", Winston bathing while dictating to secretary, Winston promising to cut down on the champagne or wine because Clemmie says they're living beyond their means. The Tube scene was inspired as a bit of artistic licence to represent Winston's huge dilemma. It was also handled a lot less toe-curlingly than it might have been. If I want historical accuracy, I'll go to a lecture. I certainly won't rewatch the Cox film. Apart from plodding along like a tortoise with sciatica, it serves up a constantly whinging, whining Winston! I mean, come on!! Also, as a run-up-to-D-day film, you'd do much better to check out the New Zealand Tom Selleck starrer "Ike: Countdown to D-day." As a great representation of Churchill? I've seen better, and I don't mean Oldman. What about Albert Finney in, yes, "The Gathering Storm" again, or Brendan Gleeson in "Into the Storm"? Here are two guys who do much better than Cox to show the essence of the character with limited or zero prosthetics.
Oldman is great in it but the film is painfully boring
Does the movie glorify Churchill, or does it make some effort to show how terrible a person he actually was?
Nick Nack he was completely against colonial rights. He spoke of natives as if they were a plague. He endorsed the massacres of native Australian & American people & was a fan of Mussolini. This myth he was anti-fascist is nonsense. He was all for it when it was about fighting Communism. He only turned against it when it threatened Britain & the Empire.
He also opposed votes for women & was a Zionist.
He also orchestrated the gassing of the Kurd's, gave the army orders to shoot striking British workers, was in charge during the Indian famine that caused the death of 3 million people , described Indians, Palestinians and native Americans as vermin, was opposed to the creation of the NHS.
Has an awful reputation in Ireland for introducing the Black and Tans. An army formed of convict hauled out of prison that butchered many innocent people in Ireland.
You can read other stuff on BBC website here: www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29701767
I've been going through "LONDON TO LADYSMITH VIA PRETORIA" by him where he displays his racism and opposition to black rights. There's a bit where he argues with his Boer capture which has been presented as him standing up for equal rights by some of his hack historian fanboys but read in context of the entire piece he seems to be doing the exact opposite.
There's also this passage I've found "The Durham Light Infantry carried the hill at the point of the bayonet, losing seven officers and sixty or seventy men, and capturing five Boer prisoners, besides ten horses and some wounded, Most of the enemy, however, had retired before the attack, unable to endure the appalling concentration of artillery which had prepared it. Among those who remained to fight to the last were five or six armed Kaffirs, one of whom shot an officer of the Durhams. To these no quarter was given. Their employment by the Dutch in this war shows that while they furiously complain of Khama's defence of his territory against their raiding parties on the ground that white men must be killed by white men, they have themselves no such scruples. There is no possible doubt about the facts set forth above, and the incident should be carefully noted by the public."
I've never seen this passage brought up before.
Richie 1138 How was him being a Zionist a slight? That's ridiculous.
I love You!
One of the worst, most cringeworthy films I've seen in years.
Didn't like the subway scene? Out of sync with the movie? Did we see the same movie? Churchill was befuddled, losing his will. Enters the Subway. Speaks to the people. Listens. Comes back recharged to Parliament. Delivers one of the world's greatest speeches. Right out of a John Ford or Frank Capra movie. Movie magic. To paraphrase the line from Godot: "CRITIC!" Heal thyself!
In before DDL wins it for Phantom Thread.
MS He actually beat Daniel Day Lewis twice now! Once for Golden Globes and a second time for Critics Choice! He's a lock to win the Oscar!
Mega MovieZ They said same about Tinker Tailor and then Artist actor won instead the oscar.
MS But The Artist actor won all the other awards. Darkest Hour was Gary Oldmans first Golden Globe nomination. If he wins the SAG award he will win the Oscar because that determines the Oscar winner 99.9% of the time.
Jack Smith Well yeah but that's like a 1 in a million chance so it happens (like last year) but very rarely
Tapped into me Emotionally as a Brit. That's enough for me to label it as one of my personal favourite films.
There have been too many hagiographic flicks of Churchill. It's comforting to know that it isn't worth watching. On the other hand, I never intended to.
Mark Kermode reminds me so much of Fraser Crane. Pompous, fond of believing that using florid language equates to intelligence, and pedantic. A fine example of life imitating art.
Kermode likes Prometheus. Can't take him seriously.
He has seen too many films and is cynical.
It has to be explanatory because most of the people who watch it, probably have no idea about history at all. Most people aren't as ancient as you.
Sy75D Then read up on some history instead of wanting it spelt out like in a kids film.
That's just it - it DOESN'T represent history - not even the big speech.
If you listen to the REAL "fight them on the beaches" speech (and it will be up here somewhere) - it was delivered in a calm tone of voice throughout.
Oldman makes his version super-dramatic. Not representing history at all.
But then again, the dramatic liberties taken in this film are so bad that Joe Wright should get 6 points on his Dramatic Licence and a £200 fine!
I wasn't at all a fan of Oldman's makeup either - he looked like the elephant man after some modern NHS treatment for his face.
Surely they could have cast someone who didn't need any prosthetics.
Compare Bruno Ganz as Hitler in "Downfall", for example, all they did was style his hair - most convincing Hitler ever!
That film was pure speculation about Hitler's final days - but it was delivered so believably that you would swear it was all true.