Search
Darren (1599 KP) rated 28 Days Later (2002) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Verdict: Modern Zombie Gem
Story: 28 Days Later starts by showing a group of activists breaking into a laboratory where chimps are forced to watch some of the most gruesome sites in human history. This was designed to create pure rage and when the chimps are released an epidemic starts. 28 Days Later (title drop) we meet Jim (Murphy) who wakes up in a hospital, alone he searches looking for help but the hospital, streets and everywhere is empty. Wonder around the empty London Jim finds a church filled with infected that chase him before getting save by Mark (Huntley) and Selena (Harris) who also fill in the blanks of what happened.
Jim finds out the harsh reality of the world now but meeting Frank (Gleeson) and his daughter Hannah (Burns) gives them a chance to go to a radio signal left by the military. The group soon find the military holding up in a mansion lead by Major Henry West (Eccleston) but not everything is as it seems.
28 Days Later brings the modern infected zombie film to life in one of the best story ideas we have seen. It is good to see a story that the infection can only be spread rather than you turn when you die which is big change to all we have seen. The journey itself is been there seen that but what we get is a revenge film with infected around once we meet the military. This shows us that the enemy could come from all direction and our characters are never going to be safe in the world now. This is easily one of the best zombie based films in recent years. (9/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Cillian Murphy: Jim waking up alone in a hospital he wonders the empty city before being found by other survivors, with a group he heads to the military safe zone where he ends up having to fight to save the rest of his group from not only infected but the soldiers. Cillian gives a great performance and this put him on the map for bigger roles. (9/10)
jim
Naomie Harris: Selena the nonsense survivor who takes no prisoners which we see from the moment her fellow survivor gets infected. Naomie gives a good performance showing that she was always going to be in bigger films. (8/10)
Brendan Gleeson: Frank caring father who has waited for support before taking his daughter to a radio signal he has been hearing. This character may only be a supporting character but his final moments are one of the most memorable turns in this genre history. Brendan does a good job in what is just a supporting performance. (8/10)
Christopher Eccleston: Major Henry West who is running the military unit that has been calling for the survivors but his motives are not what they seem. Christopher gives a good performance in the role. (7/10)
Support Cast: 28 Days Later doesn’t have the biggest supporting cast we have a couple of other survivors as well as the soldiers in the military unit. They all help as they show us what the characters are capable off.
Director Review: Danny Boyle – Danny does a great job directing this zombie classic that is easily one of the best in the genre. (9/10)
Horror: 28 Days Later uses plenty of horror elements with survival horror shinning through. (10/10)
Music: 28 Days Later uses brilliant scores to build the tension up through the scenes. (9/10)
Settings: 28 Days Later uses the settings really well to show how empty busy places could be when the world comes to an end. (9/10)
Special Effects: 28 Days Later uses great special effects with the infected creation. (9/10)
Suggestion: 28 Days Later is one to watch for every horror fan out there. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: Suspense building.
Worst Part: Nothing
Action Scene Of The Film: Jim breaks into the mansion
REPORT THIS AD
Kill Of The Film: Frank
Scariest Scene: Jim’s returns home
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Has one sequel with talks of another always around.
Post Credits Scene: There is the alternative ending
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $82 Million
Budget: $8 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 53 Minutes
Tagline: His fear began when he woke up alone. His terror began when he realised he wasn’t.
Trivia: The scene where Jim and Selena celebrate with Frank and Hannah was shot on September 11, 2001. Danny Boyle said it felt extremely strange to shoot a celebratory scene on that particular day.
Overall: Brilliant Infected Film
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/03/14/28-days-later-2002/
Story: 28 Days Later starts by showing a group of activists breaking into a laboratory where chimps are forced to watch some of the most gruesome sites in human history. This was designed to create pure rage and when the chimps are released an epidemic starts. 28 Days Later (title drop) we meet Jim (Murphy) who wakes up in a hospital, alone he searches looking for help but the hospital, streets and everywhere is empty. Wonder around the empty London Jim finds a church filled with infected that chase him before getting save by Mark (Huntley) and Selena (Harris) who also fill in the blanks of what happened.
Jim finds out the harsh reality of the world now but meeting Frank (Gleeson) and his daughter Hannah (Burns) gives them a chance to go to a radio signal left by the military. The group soon find the military holding up in a mansion lead by Major Henry West (Eccleston) but not everything is as it seems.
28 Days Later brings the modern infected zombie film to life in one of the best story ideas we have seen. It is good to see a story that the infection can only be spread rather than you turn when you die which is big change to all we have seen. The journey itself is been there seen that but what we get is a revenge film with infected around once we meet the military. This shows us that the enemy could come from all direction and our characters are never going to be safe in the world now. This is easily one of the best zombie based films in recent years. (9/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Cillian Murphy: Jim waking up alone in a hospital he wonders the empty city before being found by other survivors, with a group he heads to the military safe zone where he ends up having to fight to save the rest of his group from not only infected but the soldiers. Cillian gives a great performance and this put him on the map for bigger roles. (9/10)
jim
Naomie Harris: Selena the nonsense survivor who takes no prisoners which we see from the moment her fellow survivor gets infected. Naomie gives a good performance showing that she was always going to be in bigger films. (8/10)
Brendan Gleeson: Frank caring father who has waited for support before taking his daughter to a radio signal he has been hearing. This character may only be a supporting character but his final moments are one of the most memorable turns in this genre history. Brendan does a good job in what is just a supporting performance. (8/10)
Christopher Eccleston: Major Henry West who is running the military unit that has been calling for the survivors but his motives are not what they seem. Christopher gives a good performance in the role. (7/10)
Support Cast: 28 Days Later doesn’t have the biggest supporting cast we have a couple of other survivors as well as the soldiers in the military unit. They all help as they show us what the characters are capable off.
Director Review: Danny Boyle – Danny does a great job directing this zombie classic that is easily one of the best in the genre. (9/10)
Horror: 28 Days Later uses plenty of horror elements with survival horror shinning through. (10/10)
Music: 28 Days Later uses brilliant scores to build the tension up through the scenes. (9/10)
Settings: 28 Days Later uses the settings really well to show how empty busy places could be when the world comes to an end. (9/10)
Special Effects: 28 Days Later uses great special effects with the infected creation. (9/10)
Suggestion: 28 Days Later is one to watch for every horror fan out there. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: Suspense building.
Worst Part: Nothing
Action Scene Of The Film: Jim breaks into the mansion
REPORT THIS AD
Kill Of The Film: Frank
Scariest Scene: Jim’s returns home
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Has one sequel with talks of another always around.
Post Credits Scene: There is the alternative ending
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $82 Million
Budget: $8 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 53 Minutes
Tagline: His fear began when he woke up alone. His terror began when he realised he wasn’t.
Trivia: The scene where Jim and Selena celebrate with Frank and Hannah was shot on September 11, 2001. Danny Boyle said it felt extremely strange to shoot a celebratory scene on that particular day.
Overall: Brilliant Infected Film
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/03/14/28-days-later-2002/
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Becoming Darkness in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Publisher in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
Never have I ever read a book in which Hitler won World War II and succeeded in taking over the world.
Until now. I admit I'm a little fond of this one because of the whole alternative history thing going on right there, but I'm a little disturbed here, Lindsay Francis Brambles. You're as bad as Agatha Christie and came very close to killing everyone. Although technically, you did kill most of the characters that I grew fond of. Not cool. I don't think I can ever forgive you for this transgression of Trigger Happy Book. (More like Explosion Happy Book.)
But in the very long run, I only liked <i>Becoming Darkness</i> for a few things.
Sadistic as it may be, I did like how Brambles made Hitler won the second world war and unleashed a virus that made a lot of people turn into vampires all of that is told within the first few pages. Although the origins of Gemorrah (le virus) is revealed throughout the story and integrated in the plot, I still don't understand how the creators came up with that name in the first place. Does it mean something in German, or is it something they thought sounded sinister and cool and decided to go with it? In my humble opinion, it does not sound cool or sinister. It sounds like a Mary Poppins word.
I also really liked how Brambles didn't go completely off course from history there are some references to the war, there might be another significant historical figure who makes a cameo appearance (under a different name, but don't quote me), etc. Basically, there's not much that's thrown in completely off kilter aside from maybe the virus I still feel fishy about that.
Sophie Harkness does not take BS when there are boys hitting on her in the stupidest, cheesiest ways. Namely: "We're meant for one another because you're a girl, I'm a guy, and we have the parts to create phenomenal offspring." Sorry for the disturbing image, but that was very much implied by the character. Unfortunately for her, she sort of believes in love at first sight when she first met Val back when she was fourteen.
Sophie is also not a judgmental character she's very open-minded and believes vampires aren't exactly sinister blood sucking creatures. Every other Immune, those who can't get Gemorrah, are so judgmental and narrow-minded, it just peeves me greatly. It IS understandable, though, considering the year Brambles sets the book in.
Unfortunately, I didn't really like the whole flashbacks. For awhile in the beginning, it's a little confusing and I had to backtrack to make sure it was a flashback and not actually set in the present day. There's a "sort-of" warning and then we're in flashback mode that feels like it's set in the present but is really Sophie telling a story. On the bright side, all those flashbacks (and the journal entries written by Sophie's mom) all play a relevant role in the overall plot.
I also didn't really like Valentine. Though I eventually warmed up to him over the course of the book, something about him was really disturbing. He's not an annoying "stalker type" of character, but it IS a little weird he still tried to keep his connections to Sophie's family from grandma to mom to Sophie in the hopes of falling in love again. But considering the fact he's doesn't throw out stupidly cheesy lines at Sophie, I like him a little.
Have I mentioned I'm sick and tired of seeing the name Valentine over and over again in literature? We just can't get any more original than St. Valentine, can we?
I would totally summarize <i>Becoming Darkness</i> in a few words if only I didn't end up giving major spoilers. But in a nutshell, the book quite literally tells me all of us should be downright grateful the Third Reich didn't succeed. It also told me I'm royally screwed if the way to a man's heart is through his stomach, but I think I've established that in sixth grade with the whole Ramen Noodle Stove catastrophe.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/arc-review-becoming-darkness-by-lindsay-francis-brambles/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Never have I ever read a book in which Hitler won World War II and succeeded in taking over the world.
Until now. I admit I'm a little fond of this one because of the whole alternative history thing going on right there, but I'm a little disturbed here, Lindsay Francis Brambles. You're as bad as Agatha Christie and came very close to killing everyone. Although technically, you did kill most of the characters that I grew fond of. Not cool. I don't think I can ever forgive you for this transgression of Trigger Happy Book. (More like Explosion Happy Book.)
But in the very long run, I only liked <i>Becoming Darkness</i> for a few things.
Sadistic as it may be, I did like how Brambles made Hitler won the second world war and unleashed a virus that made a lot of people turn into vampires all of that is told within the first few pages. Although the origins of Gemorrah (le virus) is revealed throughout the story and integrated in the plot, I still don't understand how the creators came up with that name in the first place. Does it mean something in German, or is it something they thought sounded sinister and cool and decided to go with it? In my humble opinion, it does not sound cool or sinister. It sounds like a Mary Poppins word.
I also really liked how Brambles didn't go completely off course from history there are some references to the war, there might be another significant historical figure who makes a cameo appearance (under a different name, but don't quote me), etc. Basically, there's not much that's thrown in completely off kilter aside from maybe the virus I still feel fishy about that.
Sophie Harkness does not take BS when there are boys hitting on her in the stupidest, cheesiest ways. Namely: "We're meant for one another because you're a girl, I'm a guy, and we have the parts to create phenomenal offspring." Sorry for the disturbing image, but that was very much implied by the character. Unfortunately for her, she sort of believes in love at first sight when she first met Val back when she was fourteen.
Sophie is also not a judgmental character she's very open-minded and believes vampires aren't exactly sinister blood sucking creatures. Every other Immune, those who can't get Gemorrah, are so judgmental and narrow-minded, it just peeves me greatly. It IS understandable, though, considering the year Brambles sets the book in.
Unfortunately, I didn't really like the whole flashbacks. For awhile in the beginning, it's a little confusing and I had to backtrack to make sure it was a flashback and not actually set in the present day. There's a "sort-of" warning and then we're in flashback mode that feels like it's set in the present but is really Sophie telling a story. On the bright side, all those flashbacks (and the journal entries written by Sophie's mom) all play a relevant role in the overall plot.
I also didn't really like Valentine. Though I eventually warmed up to him over the course of the book, something about him was really disturbing. He's not an annoying "stalker type" of character, but it IS a little weird he still tried to keep his connections to Sophie's family from grandma to mom to Sophie in the hopes of falling in love again. But considering the fact he's doesn't throw out stupidly cheesy lines at Sophie, I like him a little.
Have I mentioned I'm sick and tired of seeing the name Valentine over and over again in literature? We just can't get any more original than St. Valentine, can we?
I would totally summarize <i>Becoming Darkness</i> in a few words if only I didn't end up giving major spoilers. But in a nutshell, the book quite literally tells me all of us should be downright grateful the Third Reich didn't succeed. It also told me I'm royally screwed if the way to a man's heart is through his stomach, but I think I've established that in sixth grade with the whole Ramen Noodle Stove catastrophe.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/arc-review-becoming-darkness-by-lindsay-francis-brambles/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Wolf by Wolf (Wolf by Wolf, #1) in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
What if the Nazis won the war? That is the setting for this captivating alternative historical novel by Ryan Graudin. In the newly named land of Germania it is 1956, more than a decade has passed since the Nazis won. The world is still not safe, especially for those who do not fit the Aryan race description. Seventeen-year-old Yael is about to set out on her first ever mission on behalf of the secret resistance group, but it will not be easy to fulfill her duty: to kill Hitler.
Yael was a Jewish prisoner in the death camps during the war. To most Nazi officials she was known as Experiment 85, and was undergoing melanin manipulation. What the doctors did not bargain on was that these experimentations would result in the ability to change physical appearance at will. Yael discovered she could change her skin tone, facial features, hair colour, height or even impersonate someone else, purely by concentrating really hard. It is this strange power that is going to help Yael on her quest to defeat Hitler.
In order to succeed, Yael needs to get as close as possible to the Fuhrer and the only way the resistance believe she will be able to do this is be impersonating Adele Wolfe, a motorbike racer, in the Axis tour: an epic long race from Berlin to Tokyo. However it is not as simple as changing skins and winning the race. Yael needs to convince the contestants that she is Adele and avoid all the dangerous tactics of the other racers so that she can get to the finish line.
<i>Wolf by Wolf</i> is an action-packed, exciting novel aimed at young adult readers interested in history and science fiction. Since it is taught in schools, most people are aware of the Holocaust and have an idea of the horrors Jews faced. But what if that did not stop at the end of the war? This is the idea explored within this novel amongst the exhilaration of the motorcycle race. No one would be completely happy under Hitler’s rule, and we can be thankful that this is only a ‘what if?’ scenario rather than our reality.
The science-fiction element was an interesting twist to the storyline. It does, however, detract from the seriousness of the Nazi rule. Without reminders of the time period, it could almost be a dystopian novel set in the future where a tyrant controls the world.
What I personally liked about <i>Wolf by Wolf</i> is that whilst the main storyline is playing out, we learn more about Yael’s life. She may have lost her true identity but there are several people who have impacted on who Yael is inside. These people are represent by five wolves tattooed onto her arm, and with the memories of each individual fresh in her mind, Yael has the courage and strength to do what she needs to do.
Although not one of the easiest topics to read about – a lot of unnecessary death – I highly recommend <i>Wolf by Wolf </i>to all young adult readers regardless of gender or reading preferences. This book covers such a wide range of genres that it is bound to cater to all tastes. If you love this book you will be pleased to know that it is the first in a series meaning that the story does not end here!
What if the Nazis won the war? That is the setting for this captivating alternative historical novel by Ryan Graudin. In the newly named land of Germania it is 1956, more than a decade has passed since the Nazis won. The world is still not safe, especially for those who do not fit the Aryan race description. Seventeen-year-old Yael is about to set out on her first ever mission on behalf of the secret resistance group, but it will not be easy to fulfill her duty: to kill Hitler.
Yael was a Jewish prisoner in the death camps during the war. To most Nazi officials she was known as Experiment 85, and was undergoing melanin manipulation. What the doctors did not bargain on was that these experimentations would result in the ability to change physical appearance at will. Yael discovered she could change her skin tone, facial features, hair colour, height or even impersonate someone else, purely by concentrating really hard. It is this strange power that is going to help Yael on her quest to defeat Hitler.
In order to succeed, Yael needs to get as close as possible to the Fuhrer and the only way the resistance believe she will be able to do this is be impersonating Adele Wolfe, a motorbike racer, in the Axis tour: an epic long race from Berlin to Tokyo. However it is not as simple as changing skins and winning the race. Yael needs to convince the contestants that she is Adele and avoid all the dangerous tactics of the other racers so that she can get to the finish line.
<i>Wolf by Wolf</i> is an action-packed, exciting novel aimed at young adult readers interested in history and science fiction. Since it is taught in schools, most people are aware of the Holocaust and have an idea of the horrors Jews faced. But what if that did not stop at the end of the war? This is the idea explored within this novel amongst the exhilaration of the motorcycle race. No one would be completely happy under Hitler’s rule, and we can be thankful that this is only a ‘what if?’ scenario rather than our reality.
The science-fiction element was an interesting twist to the storyline. It does, however, detract from the seriousness of the Nazi rule. Without reminders of the time period, it could almost be a dystopian novel set in the future where a tyrant controls the world.
What I personally liked about <i>Wolf by Wolf</i> is that whilst the main storyline is playing out, we learn more about Yael’s life. She may have lost her true identity but there are several people who have impacted on who Yael is inside. These people are represent by five wolves tattooed onto her arm, and with the memories of each individual fresh in her mind, Yael has the courage and strength to do what she needs to do.
Although not one of the easiest topics to read about – a lot of unnecessary death – I highly recommend <i>Wolf by Wolf </i>to all young adult readers regardless of gender or reading preferences. This book covers such a wide range of genres that it is bound to cater to all tastes. If you love this book you will be pleased to know that it is the first in a series meaning that the story does not end here!
iLiveMath Animals Of Africa
Education and Social Networking
App
***** Featured in Top-10 iPad Education Apps by GameClassroom.com ***** Tip: If you have a white...
Touch Bible Loaded - Bible Study App With Audio
Reference and Book
App
Loaded with Bible Study Content and Features •◆• Audio Bible with Multitasking •◆• Study...
Carter’s Encyclopaedia of Health and Medicine
Health & Fitness and Medical
6.0
Rate It
App
Carter’s Encyclopaedia of Health and Medicine is an extremely comprehensive iPad application...
VoiceMap: GPS Audio Tours with Offline Maps
Travel and Entertainment
App
Experience the magic of GPS audio walks, cycles, drives and even boat rides with VoiceMap tours in...
Speedrent - Property Rental
Lifestyle
App
Speedrent is an app where landlord & tenant meets for property rental! Unlike iProperty,...
ClaroCom Pro UK
Medical and Education
App
ClaroCom is an iPad or iPhone App for AAC (Augmentative and Alternative Communication). ClaroCom...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Darkest Hour (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Not buggering it up.
As Doctor Who repeatedly points out, time is most definitely a tricksy thing. As I think I’ve commented on before, the events of 1940-45 are not in my lifetime but were sufficiently fresh to my parents that they were still actively talked about… so they still appear “current” to me. But I find it astonishing to realize that to a teen viewer this film is equivalent in timeframe to the sinking of the Titanic! #ancienthistory! So I suspect your connection to this film will be strongly affected by your age, and that was definitely reflected in the average age at my showing which must have been at least 60.
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?