Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

The Darkest Hour Film

2456

Comments

  • DiscoCAFC said:

    Went to the Cinema on Friday to watch it, great film. I’m not strong on history so I’ve learnt a lot and all I can say is thank Christ we had Churchill as PM otherwise things would’ve been very different today.

    But also as a great war leader and great orator who saw the fascist threat long before many others.
    Right man in the right place at the right time.

    Thank God.

    Most of the non history stuff was really for the benefit of a US audience, who lap up this kind of thing and aren't too fussy about historical accuracy as long as the hero is portrayed as such.

    I mean WSC asking to speak to "Lord Halifax, the Foreign Secretary", would be just the kind of clarification as to whom the PM would want to talk to.
  • Thought the acting was excellent but the film was very slow and shot in a strange half light.
  • DiscoCAFC said:

    JamesSeed said:

    There's a new films thread.
    Have seen the film twice, and it's great, but the New Films thread is the one for you I think.

    I know but I thought this deserves a thread seeing this film is referring to the 2nd world war as well.
    You were right! Really informative thread.
  • Thought it was a great film with some great acting and I liked the ambience created by the half light.....if there were any good things to come from the 2 great wars at least it bore us more social equality and of course post 1945 the Nhs ...although I am not sure we made it a country fit for heroes...WC was definitely an upper class relic but you can't put a price on leadership eh Roland? ..such a shame that some youth of today find it fit to deface his image ...well at least they have the benefit of free speech that our forebears lead by WC fought for
  • 1945 election was 5 July, war ended 15 August.

    It ended in Europe in May, as you know, and that was the trigger for the election to be called because Attlee said he would withdraw from the coalition.
    Absolutely but the war wasn't over
  • edited February 6
    Churchill was the leader we needed in the War. He was a flawed man, but also a great one. The film plays him up a bit but he was a symbol so that is understandable. It's a film! What has always interested me is the election immediately after the war which Churchill lost. You can identify an ignorant person today when they come out with something like - the British people were ungrateful. The fact is, they were always grateful to Churchill, even people who voted against him loved him, but he was seen as what was needed in a war and those qualities are not always the same in peace. Churchill's Conservatives were pretty heavily defeated.

    The are quite a few innacuracies. One that annoys me is that the film opens with Clement Attlee attacking Chamberlain in a shrill, snarling voice which is ridiculous. The Labour leader was a vital supporter of Churchill's position of no compromise and the war coalition and whilst history may choose to forget his part, or at least the film does, the people who lived through it didn't when they elected him in 1945.
  • Junkee that was in the right place at the right time.
  • conservatives against labour - thread closed by cob today
  • edited February 6
    During the war Conservatives and Labour worked together to defeat Hitler. People need to learn their history.
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited February 6
    The tube scene was a complete fabrication though good drama. During the war, Churchill and Atlee worked together as a team and both admired each other. Attlee’s Labour Party had entered into a coalition government with Churchill’s Conservative Party when the Second World War broke out and Attlee became deputy Prime Minister. In late May of 1940, when the Conservative grandee Lord Halifax challenged Churchill, insisting that it was still possible to negotiate a deal with Hitler, through the good offices of Mussolini, it was the steadfast anti-Nazism of Attlee and his Labour colleagues that saved the day—a vital truth badly underdramatized in the film.
  • Dramatically and cinematically it’s a decent bit of work but historically it is utter tosh. That 10 minute tube scene dismantles just about all the credibility. Surprised an artist of the stature of Oldman remained involved in such a calumny
  • A few random comments.

    I have a personal interest in both world wars and try to understand the history of both.

    I haven't seen 'darkest hour'

    My last (reluctant) visit to the cinema was to see 'Dunkirk' I considered this film to be utter tripe, but kept my silence. Until one of my party, upon hearing me say "I didn't feel it was an accurate representation of what happened" exclaimed "you mean it really happened" A 28yr old relative was unaware of the actual event :(

    This leads me to believe films purporting to be actual events, should make this abundantly clear and should be accurate representations. Or of course, declare it to be based upon an actual event, but not intending to be historically accurate.

    I probably won't see 'Darkest hour' Unless the same party of people drag me along again.
  • Daggs said:

    A few random comments.

    I have a personal interest in both world wars and try to understand the history of both.

    I haven't seen 'darkest hour'

    My last (reluctant) visit to the cinema was to see 'Dunkirk' I considered this film to be utter tripe, but kept my silence. Until one of my party, upon hearing me say "I didn't feel it was an accurate representation of what happened" exclaimed "you mean it really happened" A 28yr old relative was unaware of the actual event :(

    This leads me to believe films purporting to be actual events, should make this abundantly clear and should be accurate representations. Or of course, declare it to be based upon an actual event, but not intending to be historically accurate.

    I probably won't see 'Darkest hour' Unless the same party of people drag me along again.

    If you want accuracy then watch documentaries, if you want a loose story watch a feature film.
    Also Dunkirk (2017) was a great film, the timelines the director used were genius, not many understood that, however if you want a true representation of the retreat at Dunkirk than watch the first Dunkirk film from 1958 with John Mills and Richard Attenborough, excellent film, I watched it with my Grandfather in the 70's who was one of the last off the beaches and he said it was a fair account.
    As above, what is sadder is that a 28 year old had no idea about the retreat at Dunkirk.....bloody shameful.
  • 1945 election was 5 July, war ended 15 August.

    It ended in Europe in May, as you know, and that was the trigger for the election to be called because Attlee said he would withdraw from the coalition.
    Absolutely but the war wasn't over
    Not until IOTOS
  • edited February 6
    Greenie said:

    Daggs said:

    A few random comments.

    I have a personal interest in both world wars and try to understand the history of both.

    I haven't seen 'darkest hour'

    My last (reluctant) visit to the cinema was to see 'Dunkirk' I considered this film to be utter tripe, but kept my silence. Until one of my party, upon hearing me say "I didn't feel it was an accurate representation of what happened" exclaimed "you mean it really happened" A 28yr old relative was unaware of the actual event :(

    This leads me to believe films purporting to be actual events, should make this abundantly clear and should be accurate representations. Or of course, declare it to be based upon an actual event, but not intending to be historically accurate.

    I probably won't see 'Darkest hour' Unless the same party of people drag me along again.

    If you want accuracy then watch documentaries, if you want a loose story watch a feature film.

    I agree. But I think films such as 'Dunkirk' distort the truth of very serious events.


    Also Dunkirk (2017) was a great film, On that point we'll have to >disagree the timelines the director used were genius, not many understood that, however if you want a true representation of the retreat at Dunkirk than watch the first Dunkirk film from 1958 with John Mills and Richard Attenborough, excellent film, I watched it with my Grandfather in the 70's who was one of the last off the beaches and he said it was a fair account.


    As above, what is sadder is that a 28 year old had no idea about the retreat at Dunkirk.....bloody shameful.
    Again, I agree, but who's fault is that?

  • Daggs said:

    A few random comments.

    I have a personal interest in both world wars and try to understand the history of both.

    I haven't seen 'darkest hour'

    My last (reluctant) visit to the cinema was to see 'Dunkirk' I considered this film to be utter tripe, but kept my silence. Until one of my party, upon hearing me say "I didn't feel it was an accurate representation of what happened" exclaimed "you mean it really happened" A 28yr old relative was unaware of the actual event :(

    This leads me to believe films purporting to be actual events, should make this abundantly clear and should be accurate representations. Or of course, declare it to be based upon an actual event, but not intending to be historically accurate.

    I probably won't see 'Darkest hour' Unless the same party of people drag me along again.

    I agree with your views about the Dunkirk film, not seen Darkest Hour yet so cannot comment.
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited February 6


    I have a personal interest in both world wars and try to understand the history of both.

    I haven't seen 'darkest hour'

    My last (reluctant) visit to the cinema was to see 'Dunkirk' I considered this film to be utter tripe, but kept my silence. Until one of my party, upon hearing me say "I didn't feel it was an accurate representation of what happened" exclaimed "you mean it really happened" A 28yr old relative was unaware of the actual event :(

    This leads me to believe films purporting to be actual events, should make this abundantly clear and should be accurate representations. Or of course, declare it to be based upon an actual event, but not intending to be historically accurate.

    I probably won't see 'Darkest hour' Unless the same party of people drag me along again.

    If you want accuracy then watch documentaries, if you want a loose story watch a feature film.

    I agree. But I think films such as 'Dunkirk' distort the truth of very serious events.


    Also Dunkirk (2017) was a great film, On that point we'll have to >disagree the timelines the director used were genius, not many understood that, however if you want a true representation of the retreat at Dunkirk than watch the first Dunkirk film from 1958 with John Mills and Richard Attenborough, excellent film, I watched it with my Grandfather in the 70's who was one of the last off the beaches and he said it was a fair account.


    As above, what is sadder is that a 28 year old had no idea about the retreat at Dunkirk.....bloody shameful.

    Again, I agree, but who's fault is that?



    Sorry mate it didn't distort the truth, not one bit, the event happened, what they tried to do is use various accounts and weave them together in a timeline, for me it worked, I know what happened at Dunkirk, to get some of the accounts that I have read about over the last 40 years in a film was excellent, there is even an account of a Spitfire pilot whose engine had failed and was gliding shoot and hit a JU 87 Stuka that flew across him, admittedly not at Dunkirk, but it did happen. One account I wish they had used was of a Spitfire pilot who got shot down, made it to the beach, hopped on a boat and 24 hours later was back in his plane over Dunkirk, but people would say its too far fetched.

    And its the fault of the schools for not teaching history to students.
  • edited February 6
    .
  • Its an all right film , too over hyped for my liking.
  • Greenie said:

    Daggs said:

    A few random comments.

    I have a personal interest in both world wars and try to understand the history of both.

    I haven't seen 'darkest hour'

    My last (reluctant) visit to the cinema was to see 'Dunkirk' I considered this film to be utter tripe, but kept my silence. Until one of my party, upon hearing me say "I didn't feel it was an accurate representation of what happened" exclaimed "you mean it really happened" A 28yr old relative was unaware of the actual event :(

    This leads me to believe films purporting to be actual events, should make this abundantly clear and should be accurate representations. Or of course, declare it to be based upon an actual event, but not intending to be historically accurate.

    I probably won't see 'Darkest hour' Unless the same party of people drag me along again.

    If you want accuracy then watch documentaries, if you want a loose story watch a feature film.
    Also Dunkirk (2017) was a great film, the timelines the director used were genius, not many understood that, however if you want a true representation of the retreat at Dunkirk than watch the first Dunkirk film from 1958 with John Mills and Richard Attenborough, excellent film, I watched it with my Grandfather in the 70's who was one of the last off the beaches and he said it was a fair account.
    As above, what is sadder is that a 28 year old had no idea about the retreat at Dunkirk.....bloody shameful.


    Is there a point in time at which it is no longer shameful?
  • Stig said:

    Greenie said:

    Daggs said:

    A few random comments.

    I have a personal interest in both world wars and try to understand the history of both.

    I haven't seen 'darkest hour'

    My last (reluctant) visit to the cinema was to see 'Dunkirk' I considered this film to be utter tripe, but kept my silence. Until one of my party, upon hearing me say "I didn't feel it was an accurate representation of what happened" exclaimed "you mean it really happened" A 28yr old relative was unaware of the actual event :(

    This leads me to believe films purporting to be actual events, should make this abundantly clear and should be accurate representations. Or of course, declare it to be based upon an actual event, but not intending to be historically accurate.

    I probably won't see 'Darkest hour' Unless the same party of people drag me along again.

    If you want accuracy then watch documentaries, if you want a loose story watch a feature film.
    Also Dunkirk (2017) was a great film, the timelines the director used were genius, not many understood that, however if you want a true representation of the retreat at Dunkirk than watch the first Dunkirk film from 1958 with John Mills and Richard Attenborough, excellent film, I watched it with my Grandfather in the 70's who was one of the last off the beaches and he said it was a fair account.
    As above, what is sadder is that a 28 year old had no idea about the retreat at Dunkirk.....bloody shameful.


    Is there a point in time at which it is no longer shameful?
    Yeah in about 100 years. It's a disgrace.
  • Stig said:

    Greenie said:

    Daggs said:

    A few random comments.

    I have a personal interest in both world wars and try to understand the history of both.

    I haven't seen 'darkest hour'

    My last (reluctant) visit to the cinema was to see 'Dunkirk' I considered this film to be utter tripe, but kept my silence. Until one of my party, upon hearing me say "I didn't feel it was an accurate representation of what happened" exclaimed "you mean it really happened" A 28yr old relative was unaware of the actual event :(

    This leads me to believe films purporting to be actual events, should make this abundantly clear and should be accurate representations. Or of course, declare it to be based upon an actual event, but not intending to be historically accurate.

    I probably won't see 'Darkest hour' Unless the same party of people drag me along again.

    If you want accuracy then watch documentaries, if you want a loose story watch a feature film.
    Also Dunkirk (2017) was a great film, the timelines the director used were genius, not many understood that, however if you want a true representation of the retreat at Dunkirk than watch the first Dunkirk film from 1958 with John Mills and Richard Attenborough, excellent film, I watched it with my Grandfather in the 70's who was one of the last off the beaches and he said it was a fair account.
    As above, what is sadder is that a 28 year old had no idea about the retreat at Dunkirk.....bloody shameful.


    Is there a point in time at which it is no longer shameful?
    Yes at the point in your life when you are asking silly questions, but at that moment you start to carry another shame.
  • Greenie said:



    I have a personal interest in both world wars and try to understand the history of both.

    I haven't seen 'darkest hour'

    My last (reluctant) visit to the cinema was to see 'Dunkirk' I considered this film to be utter tripe, but kept my silence. Until one of my party, upon hearing me say "I didn't feel it was an accurate representation of what happened" exclaimed "you mean it really happened" A 28yr old relative was unaware of the actual event :(

    This leads me to believe films purporting to be actual events, should make this abundantly clear and should be accurate representations. Or of course, declare it to be based upon an actual event, but not intending to be historically accurate.

    I probably won't see 'Darkest hour' Unless the same party of people drag me along again.

    If you want accuracy then watch documentaries, if you want a loose story watch a feature film.

    I agree. But I think films such as 'Dunkirk' distort the truth of very serious events.


    Also Dunkirk (2017) was a great film, On that point we'll have to >disagree the timelines the director used were genius, not many understood that, however if you want a true representation of the retreat at Dunkirk than watch the first Dunkirk film from 1958 with John Mills and Richard Attenborough, excellent film, I watched it with my Grandfather in the 70's who was one of the last off the beaches and he said it was a fair account.


    As above, what is sadder is that a 28 year old had no idea about the retreat at Dunkirk.....bloody shameful.

    Again, I agree, but who's fault is that?



    Sorry mate it didn't distort the truth, not one bit, the event happened, what they tried to do is use various accounts and weave them together in a timeline, for me it worked, I know what happened at Dunkirk, to get some of the accounts that I have read about over the last 40 years in a film was excellent, there is even an account of a Spitfire pilot whose engine had failed and was gliding shoot and hit a JU 87 Stuka that flew across him, admittedly not at Dunkirk, but it did happen. One account I wish they had used was of a Spitfire pilot who got shot down, made it to the beach, hopped on a boat and 24 hours later was back in his plane over Dunkirk, but people would say its too far fetched.

    And its the fault of the schools for not teaching history to students.

    Schools do teach history to students including WW2 as it is in the national curriculum but adults also have a duty to educate themselves.

    Agree on both Dunkirk films, excellent films and reasonable stabs at the history.

    PS 1970s train carriages in closing scenes very poor :smiley:
  • edited February 6
    Saw Darkest Hour twice, as my son Lucas decided he wanted to go because he's studying appeasement at school. He thought it was 'sick'.
    I was warned about the historical inaccuracies, but enjoyed it a lot as a piece of cinema. The Silver Screen club (for over sixties) has seldom been so well attended.
    Oldman was really good as WC and the narrative rattled along at a decent pace. Thoroughly enjoyable, as a piece of entertainment, with enough fact in it to stop it being ridiculous.
  • Greenie said:



    I have a personal interest in both world wars and try to understand the history of both.

    I haven't seen 'darkest hour'

    My last (reluctant) visit to the cinema was to see 'Dunkirk' I considered this film to be utter tripe, but kept my silence. Until one of my party, upon hearing me say "I didn't feel it was an accurate representation of what happened" exclaimed "you mean it really happened" A 28yr old relative was unaware of the actual event :(

    This leads me to believe films purporting to be actual events, should make this abundantly clear and should be accurate representations. Or of course, declare it to be based upon an actual event, but not intending to be historically accurate.

    I probably won't see 'Darkest hour' Unless the same party of people drag me along again.

    If you want accuracy then watch documentaries, if you want a loose story watch a feature film.

    I agree. But I think films such as 'Dunkirk' distort the truth of very serious events.


    Also Dunkirk (2017) was a great film, On that point we'll have to >disagree the timelines the director used were genius, not many understood that, however if you want a true representation of the retreat at Dunkirk than watch the first Dunkirk film from 1958 with John Mills and Richard Attenborough, excellent film, I watched it with my Grandfather in the 70's who was one of the last off the beaches and he said it was a fair account.


    As above, what is sadder is that a 28 year old had no idea about the retreat at Dunkirk.....bloody shameful.

    Again, I agree, but who's fault is that?



    Sorry mate it didn't distort the truth, not one bit, the event happened, what they tried to do is use various accounts and weave them together in a timeline, for me it worked, I know what happened at Dunkirk, to get some of the accounts that I have read about over the last 40 years in a film was excellent, there is even an account of a Spitfire pilot whose engine had failed and was gliding shoot and hit a JU 87 Stuka that flew across him, admittedly not at Dunkirk, but it did happen. One account I wish they had used was of a Spitfire pilot who got shot down, made it to the beach, hopped on a boat and 24 hours later was back in his plane over Dunkirk, but people would say its too far fetched.

    And its the fault of the schools for not teaching history to students.

    WW2 wasn’t in any of the history lessons I had at school. The ridiculous thing was, lots of our teachers were ex military. We had a Spitfire pilot, a guy who had lost his leg whilst a Japanese POW on the Burma railway, a tank captain who was on the 2nd wave on D-Day (he was in a few documentaries recently) and one or two others.

    You could get a couple of them talking about the war but most kids only did it to make the lessons shorter, I used to be fascinated.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!