Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Micransix Crappy film

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Matho The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Dunroman Somehow the Albert Finney film got deeper into the man, the image of Finney going for a pee was just so Churchill - with a complete lack of concern about anything else when he had an idea in his head (particularly a speech in the forming), including his own nudity. Finney also looked more physically like Churchill.Other reviewers have commented on the licence with history taken and this is a good point, but given that this man so centred his success on the spoken word, really there should have been greater use of his speeches to parliament or the repeats he subsequently made on the BBC. These speeches really were "tour-de-force" and the amount of effort that went into just one speech was truly incredible - perhaps a week or two of solid work - particularly his address to Congress.One element that pleased me particularly was the reporting of the ==Gestapo speech==. This caused real controversy at the time, and maybe contributed to his defeat in 1945.Perhaps the film makers used this speech as a device to highlight an apparently more unreasonable part of his nature (Churchill is still hated by some sections of the Left for his actions as Chancellor before and during the General Strike). So while it is valuable to show that he was a complex character, it reflected for me more other people's opinion of him rather than his real character as a man.Indeed, by contrast, some on the Right in Britain today see a real degree of prescience in what he said, in that the police forces which were widely supported by the middle classes in the 80s and 90s have, in the naughties (and particularly post 9/11) lost that support through just such heavy-handed support for a socialist government, chasing tractor production figures - just as Churchill envisaged - "no longer civil and no longer servants".Certainly in comparison with his other speeches the Gestapo speech was of minor importance and its impact in 1945 was probably very small (he was going to lose anyway) the film would have done better to concentrate on his other speeches - perhaps the Iron Curtain speech. Indeed there would have been better ways to show that in 45 he was out of touch with a nation tired of warIn all this, the Gleeson portrayal is still well worth watching and sheds light on the ability of a single man to shape history.BTW for those interested in learning more about this flawed but truly great man, you could do worse than to read Roy Jenkin's biography of Churchill - perhaps the best - and very readable.

ajackaln I simply loved this movie. amazing story of bravery and great leadership and chivalry. I felt very connected to this movie as an Iranian since my own country was in 8 years of bloody war with Iraq( read the world)! The writing was flawless , lovely story telling with almost all angles of Winston Churchill's characters. I liked how the writer showed how important Mrs.Churchill was in the success of Winston Churchill as one of the best politicians of the history , with out doubt.casting and direction was just perfect and let's not forget unbelievable make ups that were done on the face of the actors and actresses. Epic job by the costume designer(s) as well. but I think everybody agrees that the best of the best in this film is the performance of the leading actor whom by the way I can not believe did not win golden globe after this outstanding performance.In the end I have mention the big mistake by the writers made in writing , the movie shows that Stalin , Roosevelt and Churchill meet in Tehran but they never mention the main reason of that meeting. the main reason of that meeting was to decide over the new government of Iran after the removal of Reza Shah whom they assumed was pro Germany. Allied government needed Iran to be saved from Germany who had racial roots with Iranians because of Iran's key role in the middle east and more importantly it's resources and of course Persian Gulf as the key to Suez Canal. also fall of Malaysia and Philippines was never mentioned which was another error made by the writers. the way they pictured the war it was like world war 2 was all about and around Britain which was not the case at all.

pawebster Superficial. Talk about dumbing down! I suppose, to be fair, there are millions in Britain, and even more in America, who have no idea who Winston Churchill was and the service he performed. Doubtless these people need to have the basics spelled out. However, the result is a the equivalent of a Disney cartoon version of A Christmas Carol. As an English viewer I also could not escape the uneasy feeling that this was a slightly twee version of British history adapted for Americans.Gleeson did not convince me as Churchill. As another reviewer has noted, he lacked the impish and self-deprecating humour which was such an important counterbalance to some of his less endearing qualities. Janet McTeer's part could have been played by almost anybody. And when did Attlee become a Scot? One of the most convincing bits was the actor they found for Stalin - surely one of the best lookalikes of all time. Otherwise I don't know how they managed to gather such a roster of top acting talent for insignificant roles.Shame. It could have been good.

jotix100 Our interest in watching this wonderful made for television film was to catch Brendan Gleeson in the role of Winston Churchill. He was following an iconic performance by Albert Finney, who in 2002 gave us "The Gathering Storm" that deals with the same situation, although, in different ways. The film was written also by Hugh Whitemore, that was responsible for the first installment on the figure of Churchill and his role during the terrible years he was involved as Prime Minister of England. Thaddeus O'Sullivan, an Irish director that has worked a lot on television delivers as it catches our attention from the start."Into the Storm" is a personal triumph for Brendan Gleeson, one of the most versatile actors working in the industry these days. He gives an interesting reading on the man that was instrumental in winning the conflict because of his vision about what he felt was his responsibility to the people of England. One could argue with the person that submitted a comment to this forum that he might have been a bit younger for the part, but Mr. Gleeson is totally convincing he is no one, but Winston Churchill.Janet McTeer, a wonderful actress appears as Winston's wife, Clementine, or "Clemmie" as he used to call her. She gives a dignified performance and matches her co-star perfectly. Iain Glen is seen as King George, who shows he was no coward when he asked to be in the front line as the Allied forces were invading the Normandy beaches. Len Cariou plays President Roosevelt, who is seen in his wheelchair, something that most other accounts of history try to avoid showing.Although some historians might object as the veracity of the material, this is a drama that no doubt has taken liberties, and yet, it shows us what life was during the dark times that Winston Churchill and the people involved in the war effort had to live through.