Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Glucedee It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Gurlyndrobb While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Freedom060286 While I do realize Winston Churchill was not a perfect man and he made some serious mistakes in his life, this movie is unfair in it's portrayal of him as an obnoxious alcoholic and a selfish old buffoon who is living in the past. The movie does have some positive aspects, such as the superb work by the cinematographer David Higgs, and some stellar performances by Miranda Richardson, John Slattery, James Purefoy and Julian Wadham.However it is not historically accurate, since Churchill was not stubbornly opposed to the Normandy landing. And there were several other inaccuracies, for example King George's stammer was not nearly as bad as shown in the movie. There really isn't much of a story in this one, except for the historical background of the Normandy invasion.

chadwick-9 TERRIBLE movie. Pedantic. Focuses on the idea that Winston suffered from depression. All Churchill does is complain here. All his wife does is bitch at him. My favorite character was General Eisenhower, and this movie isn't even about him. Do yourself a favor and ignore this rotten film.

vincentlynch-moonoi I can't speak to the historical accuracy of this film, but my impression after reading reviews of the film is that historical accuracy was not a high priority here. The reason I am giving this film such a low rating is that the casting was horrible. It isn't that the actors involved aren't good actors, but when you're as old as I am and you can actually remember these people, poor casting -- including down to looks -- can be so distracting as to ruin a film. And that is the case here. I don't question that Brian Cox is a very good actor, but he didn't look anymore like Churchill than I do. The first thing that bothered me was Cox's acne (?) scars. So distracting. I don't remember Churchill looking like that at all. It seemed as if the one thing Cox got right was how Churchill held his cigar in his mouth. Unfortunately, that doesn't make for an accurate portrayal.Then there's Eisenhower. Eisenhower looked old and sicker here than he did a decade later AFTER having a heart attack! I'm not exaggerating one bit.Julian Wadham as Field Marshall Montgomery was the one actor who did look pretty much like the real person.I am reminded of two recent films about Lyndon Johnson. In "All THe Way", starring Bryan Cranston, I thought the portrayal was great and the look was about right. Then there was Woody Harrelson's portrayal in "LBJ". I couldn't get past the looks. A wasted film in my view.A biographical film cannot be done by an impressionist, but the portrayals need to be believeable. Here, they're not.

Neil Welch In the days leading up to the D-Day landing, Prime Minister Winston Churchill is desperate to get Operation Overlord shut down, as he fears it will lead to a disaster on the scale of Gallipolli.Brian Cox plays Churchill in this dramatic reconstruction. The trouble is that it's not that dramatic, and it's not that accurate either, in that Churchill was not disposed to try to undermine his Chiefs of Staff in the run-up to D-Day. And as for the characterisation of Churchill is concerned - he was a man of many facets, but I doubt that interfering busybody with borderline senility was one of them.All of which might not have mattered had there been enough in the film to hold your attention. But despite being set at one of the most dramatic moments in recent history, and despite some beautiful cinematography, this film is boring from start to finish. It appears to think it is important - it isn't - and it is packed full of lingering closeups, and leisurely focus-pulls and dissolves, all of which serve little purpose other than to make the thing longer.