Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts > Movies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-17-2018, 02:19 AM
 
240 posts, read 253,919 times
Reputation: 273

Advertisements

My family sent me a Regal gift card for Christmas, so a few days later I was looking for a movie to a watch, saw a movie called Darkest Hour playing at a convenient showtime, checked what it's about, and went out to see it. It turned out to be really pleasant surprise, and filled in the political drama that was absent in Dunkirk. I would bet money that Gary Oldman wins Best Actor this year.

I've thought about seeing it again, though I'm not sure how much I'd enjoy it the second round. In my experience, the movies I enjoy seeing again are either very convoluted or plot-thin spectacles. I recently saw three movies from last year for the second time: Dunkirk, Blade Runner 2049, and Last Jedi. I enjoyed Dunkirk much more than back in July (maybe because it's structurally a bit convoluted). BR2049 was also better. Last Jedi just left me bored the second time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-17-2018, 08:49 AM
 
Location: Henderson, NV, U.S.A.
11,479 posts, read 9,146,969 times
Reputation: 19660
One of my favorites for 2017. Kristin Scott Thomas is also great in this. Started me on a non-fiction Winston Churchill binge - which was a good thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2018, 11:44 PM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
50,822 posts, read 24,335,838 times
Reputation: 32953
I just finally saw this film.

I feel much differently than the rest of you. I'm old enough to actually remember Churchill, and I thought this denigrated his memory. I just don't remember as being that much of ass.

The story line was okay, but I actually liked the other Churchill film better (the one with Brian Cox), and I am no fan of Brian Cox.

"The Darkest Hour" almost became the first Churchill film I ever turned off...but I stuck with it till the end...and I'm not glad I did.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2018, 07:09 AM
 
Location: Maine
22,921 posts, read 28,279,449 times
Reputation: 31244
It's a great movie. Better than Dunkirk? Yeah, I think so. The film of the decade? No. It isn't even the best film about Churchill I've seen this decade. Just for overall cinema, I have seen lots of better movies in the past 8 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2018, 05:11 PM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
29,218 posts, read 22,371,062 times
Reputation: 23858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purplecow View Post
Could not believe this genius movie. Two hours+, and I could've kept watching for another four.

What is it about World War II that grabs your guts so hard? World War I didn't have the "personalities?" I don't know; I'm asking. But "Darkest Hour" was downright religious for me.
That's a very good question. I think you reached part of the answer.
The world leaders who started WWI were mostly royalty, and as such, were better known in Europe than in the US in general terms.

Of them all, the only ones who were probably best known here were the Russian Czar, mostly due to his beautiful family and the strange connection to Rasputin, the mad monk who had the Czarina's ear and her favor.
And the Russian royalty in general was very romantic to Americans as being exotic and glamorous.

All the others were dour, mustached old guys wearing fancy uniforms. Not so different from each other, or us. It was a time when flamboyant uniforms were still common.

Another thing that made the war less interesting as movie fodder was how briefly we were in it. The war lasted over 6 years, but we were in it for only the last 18 months. Not long, but enough to make the combat pilots and a few hero soldiers good movie material. Our best writers who emerged wrote books, not screenplays.

Still another was the motivation to go to war. We avoided the war for a very long time, and only entered with great dispute. It had to be done, as the war stalemated, and both sides were exhausted, but there needed to be an end to it for our own interests, and so we went and ended it. But not very willingly.

WWI taught us the hard lesson that we had to choose a side when the European side of WWII broke out in 1939. The Pacific war began in 1938, and we had more national interests there, but we also had more military there to protect those interests. So for a long time, we reluctantly supported our Allies in Europe with supplies, and watched the Japanese in the Pacific with false confidence.

The leading personalities of WWII were bigger and much greater. And much better known here than before. By then, radio was everywhere, movies had sound and newsreels weekly, so we saw more of the early war by far, knew more about it, and it was more on our minds by far.

So when the Japanese struck American soil in late 1940, we were much more mentally prepared for war, and knew more about what we would face.

But fighting on 2 world fronts simultaneously demanded a resolute America. We knew going in it would be a longer, more desperate fight, and once in we must prevail or lose all. As soon as we lost the Phillippines, we understood how desperate the fight would become.

That made the stuff for movies for sure. Movies to keep our spirits at home up. Movies to display our bravery. Movies that gave us hope our boys would return and marry their sweethearts. Movies that braced us for grief. Movies that gave us animal foes who were monsters, not humans. Movies that celebrated adventure, our blossoming technology, our friends abroad. Movies that showed the other guy was as willing to keep the fight going as we were.

And after we won, more movies to celebrate becoming the strongest of the strong. The strongest ever seen.

And, for a fact, we were. For decades afterward. The movies used it all for rich storymaking material.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2018, 07:15 PM
 
Location: Central IL
20,722 posts, read 16,377,752 times
Reputation: 50380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S. View Post
It's a great movie. Better than Dunkirk? Yeah, I think so. The film of the decade? No. It isn't even the best film about Churchill I've seen this decade. Just for overall cinema, I have seen lots of better movies in the past 8 years.
I agree - I really liked it but not the best of the decade...perhaps of the year but that's certainly not definitive either. I really didn't care for Dunkirk - too hard to follow if you didn't already know the story and the audio was loud but muffled.

I'm trying not to be biased by the fact that I came down with a nasty case of something from being in a packed theater and sitting next to sick people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2018, 08:42 PM
 
5,110 posts, read 3,072,062 times
Reputation: 1489
It's hard for me to bring myself to watch it cause Gary Oldman looks really ridiculous in that make up and frog like chin. I will try to watch it, but I feel that will take me out of it most likely.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2018, 06:43 AM
 
Location: Maine
22,921 posts, read 28,279,449 times
Reputation: 31244
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63 View Post
I really didn't care for Dunkirk - too hard to follow if you didn't already know the story and the audio was loud but muffled.
Ditto. I mean, I didn't hate it. I just wasn't all that impressed. It was spectacle, not story, and as spectacle it wasn't even all that impressive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2018, 11:30 AM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
50,822 posts, read 24,335,838 times
Reputation: 32953
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironpony View Post
It's hard for me to bring myself to watch it cause Gary Oldman looks really ridiculous in that make up and frog like chin. I will try to watch it, but I feel that will take me out of it most likely.
I hadn't really posted about that aspect...but I agree...in this case I didn't think he looked that much like Churchill.

But was Chruchill sorta "sissyish", or was that a wrong representation of him. And he hesitated and stuttered in the film more than the king did.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts > Movies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:27 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top