As an Indian, Churchill is no hero for me. The guy is an imperialist responsible for many atrocities like the Bangal Famine. His attitude towards Indians is condemnable. He forced Indian soldiers to fight for England and used Indian resources for the effect of war. There are many accounts of the valor of British soldiers in World War 2, but not much is heard about Indian soldiers who fought in the war and the Indian wealth used in fighting it. There is much for me to loathe him as deep as Hitler from an Indian view point.
Now, when I watch a movie made about Churchill, should I permit my bias to meddle with enjoying it? I am of the opinion that history is history, but when you make a fictional movie or write a novel by adapting an historical event, you should be ready to grant it a certain leeway for dramatic effect. Otherwise it is better to watch a documentary.
So when I sat to watch Darkest Hour, fully knowing the premise of it, I was all ready to watch it unbiased and take only the good things out of it. Darkest Hour is the story about Churchill's ascent to prime-ministership as a compromise candidate and how he manages to steer the opinion of his parliament and the public towards fighting Nazi threat instead of negotiating for peace.
The movie is mainly dialogue driven. But after finishing it, I had the effect of watching a thriller. There are no action sequences or battle scenes, and absolutely no suspense because we all are pretty aware how it turned out to be. But the rapid breathless pacing and the urgent atmosphere makes it feel like a thriller. Surprisingly, the movie has moments of humor and sentiment interspersed, which helps enormously in its enjoyment.
I had an issue with a scene were Churchill goes to public to ask their opinion. It was a sudden change of atmosphere and tone the movie was taking and so unbecoming of the man whom we saw till that moment. The scene doesn't seem probable and its depiction is also a bit unrealistic. I feel now that it was more like a dream that he had and not an actual happening though nothing in the movie substantiate my version.
Gary Oldman deserves his Academy Award for best actor for his characterisation of Churchill. To be using that much prosthetic and make up and still emote the subtlest nuances, is indeed great talent. He makes the man more endearing and human than his textbook depictions. I'm sure the sensitivity that his Churchill displays in many scenes is a cinematic liberty to make us root for him.
If you loved the Nolan movie Dunkirk, you will be glad to see a more wider historic look on it here. The movie is a companion piece to Dunkirk and provide necessary exposition that Nolan never bothers to provide us.