Churchill

source: Churchill

My father knew Churchill well, and the man he described to me was not the man portrayed in this film...this character, despite another great performance from Brian Cox, is historically completely inaccurate. Where the basis for this person came from is beyond me. To depict the man who was arguably the greatest British leader of all time, and certainly since Boudicea anyway, in this way is in my opinion, appalling.

One doesn't have to be a World War II historian to be aware of the horrible inaccuracies in this movie. Those who reference this movie as remotely accurate clearly paid no attention in history class. For the rest of us, Prime Minister Churchill's apprehensions about D-Day were well documented; that is, documented as misgivings in its inception. However, by the time the day rolled around, he had long-since been on board, not only as a proponent, but as an architect of the offensive. What the writer of this film has done is nothing short of an abomination. People who don't know the facts or young people who haven't yet learned them see films like this and think what they are seeing is reality. While writers cannot be responsible for the ignorance of viewers; when writing about real people and real events, they do bear some responsibility to at least walk hand-in-hand with truth. The only question I have about this film is in wondering how on earth it ever got made. While most of the actors give spirited performances, they cannot redeem this awful film. I cannot possibly recommend this movie for any purpose other than a wonderful example to writers, producers and directors on what not to do when making a movie. This movie represents everything that is wrong in filmmaking.

We sometimes forget some of the greatest leaders in history suffered from the devil that is depression. While not focusing on it, his struggle with the 'Black Dog' is acknowledged within the plot.I suspect a reasonable amount of licence has been taken but the nub of the story I would imagine is true. The Churchill's, Eisenhowers, King George's and Clemintine's of this world are treated as real, fallible human beings and indeed often flawed, but wholly accepting of their duty. Brian Cox makes an excellent Churchill. I see a couple of people have given this a one star review? Really not sure what movie they were watching...Well acted, shot and produced...this movie is well worth your time.

I'm surprised that an actor of Brian Cox's status allowed himself to be involved in this manipulative and totally fictional account of Winston Churchill as a weak, dithering, bumbling-incompetent of a prime minister who tried to sabotage the plans of D-Day. This is the first time in 20 years that I have walked out of a movie. Anyone too young to know about WWII will learn nothing of Churchill from this movie. The events depicted simply didn't happen. There is much discussion of "fake news" today. This disgraceful film is another heavy stone threatening to bury the truth. I rated it 1/10 but without the acting of Cox it doesn't even deserve 1.

When I see Brian Cox, I think no matter what, its going to be at least watchable, alas this was not the case. To be brief (thats all it's worth), Churchill appears as a dithering, almost insane and insecure individual, which from history, is completely false. Alex von Tunzelmann should be ashamed of this abomination.

June 1944. The Allied invasion of German-occupied France is due to take place within the next few days. All the plans are set and the operation is ready to go. However, Prime Minister Winston Churchill has grave misgivings for the invasion, fearing that it will be a monumental disaster. He tries to have it stopped, but runs into resistance from the Allied military top brass. Terrible. Historically inaccurate at every turn. So inaccurate that you figure the writer did no research at all for the screenplay, simply making stuff up as she went along, all for the sake of melodrama. A list of the inaccuracies would run the length of the movie, so are impossible to list in a concise review. Just the thought that Churchill opposed the Normandy landings is bad enough, but that is just the top of the tip of the iceberg. Even more infuriating is that the movie portrays Churchill as a doddering, indecisive, ignorant, meddling, even senile, old man. An outrageous slander of one of the key figures of the winning of WW2, and one of the greatest figures in history. Even as a fictional drama, this movie doesn't work. The military side is woefully inaccurate, eg Churchill sending the location of the Allied invasion in a telegram, a Navy officer is part of the 2nd wave of the invasion. Plus the movie is incredibly repetitive. Churchill gives several monologues about his reasons for opposing the invasion, all saying the same thing. It is just empty melodrama. Brian Cox and Miranda Richardson deserve a whole lot better than this. Most importantly, Winston Churchill deserves far better than this, and his descendants an apology from the film-makers.

This film may make a good story but it doesn't make good history.It is true to say that the casualties on the first day in Normandy equalled those on the first day of the Battle of the Somme.However it is difficult to give much credence to the notion of the film.Churchill would have been aware of the threat posed by the V rockets and the prospect that if nothing were done eventually the whole of Europe would have been overrun by Stalin's Soviet army.Also by this time Churchill had very little say in things and he was aware of this.He was not senile,which the film implies,but he was haunted by depression,which the film chooses not to mention.All told this is a film which is totally unworthy of the great man's memory.

i was shocked by the negative portrayal of my hero. he was not the snivelling complainer about [... i will with-hold to avoid spoilers] as this movie makes him out to be. but perhaps i was wrong so i looked it up. The movie's account contradicts works by respected Churchill historian Martin Gilbert and Professor Andrew Roberts who writes "The major error of fact, of course, is that although Churchill did indeed oppose an over-hasty return of Allied forces to north-west France in 1942 and 1943, by the time of D-Day in 1944 he was completely committed to the operation.".

What a pointless waste of time and resources. Why did the director feel the need to denigrate one of the greatest figures in British history? He had many faults and was an eccentric but to base a whole film on the one notion that Churchill was against the D-day landings and bumbled about for 3 days trying to dissuade everyone from carrying them out is utter nonsense. The film portrayed him as a drunken fool who was nothing more than an irritation to Montgomery and Eisenhower is ridiculous. I think he had a lot more to do than drive around for days smoking cigars and drinking. Shame on the director and Cox for taking the part.