Into the Storm

Moviecut—Into the Storm

Having read Churchill's magnificent history of the Second World War and seen a number of depictions of him in other movies (that have been mentioned by other reviewers here, so I won't repeat them) I was just disgusted by the grotesque caricature of this great man presented by this HBO travesty. Not to mention the mangled and carelessly chosen history and helter-skelter back & forth ordering of events. This movie could have been improved considerably by devoting much more time to Winston's relationship with his pet dog - which is my way of pointing out just how bad it is. I'd give it 1 star out of 10 but they did manage to randomly throw in some fine historical footage that was interesting to see. But seriously if you think you know anything about the Second World War and have not read Churchill's history, I think you will be overwhelmingly amazed at what you do not know. As Winston said to Stalin at their first encounter "The truth requires a bodyguard of lies."

Though "Into the Storm" is possibly a sequel to "The Gathering Storm," it can't hold a candle to it. Nor can the performance of Brendan Gleeson, as good as it was, approach Albert Finney's performance in The Gathering Storm. This movie deals with Churchill being named Prime Minister and his concern for the British force which is now trapped, his destruction of the French fleet, his forming of a unified government, meeting with Stalin and Roosevelt, and his final ousting from office in 1945. Naturally, as some of the reviews here point out, there was a great deal left out. One of the reviewers states that Roosevelt and Churchill are responsible for World War II by cutting off access to trade, and that Hitler was faced with starving his people. I suppose that's one way to look at it, and one can spin events any way one wants. The fact is, Hitler couldn't have cared less about the German people and he starved them anyway. He took their pots and pans and anything else they had, including teenage boys when they were needed to fight. And in the end, when it was obvious Germany was losing, he blamed the Germans. To present him as a concerned dictator who cared about his people - I'm sorry, it's ludicrous. The author Marcia Davenport (The Valley of Decision), who was in love with Czech freedom fighter Jan Maserek, said that Roosevelt and Churchill sold Eastern Europe down the river. The reference to Poland toward the end of the movie hints at letting Stalin have Eastern Europe rather than go to war again. Getting back to this film - yes, a great deal was left out by necessity and yes, I suppose to some it seems too simplistic. I, too, felt it was on the sketchy side. But what bothered me were all these famous phrases of Churchill's just tossed off in normal conversation, so that when he talked, he always sounded like he was making a speech. For me it gave the production a very stagy feel. Then, when it came for him to actually make a speech, they left out his biggest one. The acting was good, as the cast was top drawer, with Janet McTeer as Clementine Churchill, Iain Glen as King George, Len Cariou as FDR, and Aleksey Petrenko as Josef Stalin. For some reason, as I read through the reviews, some people expected these actors to do Rich Little impressions of these people and were complimentary of Petrenko because he looked like Stalin. I don't think lookalikes and vocal impressions were the point of the film. If you're a novice and intend to read up on some of the other aspects of World War II, this is a good starting point. It's by no means definitive.

Brilliant biopic. The story of Winston Churchill's World War 2 life. From the outset, to him becoming Prime Minister and further, capturing all the major highs and lows. The famous speeches and quotes are all there. Concludes with the 1945 election, where the British people betrayed Churchill and ushered in a more socialist Britain, and ended an empire. Solid direction and script. What makes the movie, however, is Brendan Gleeson. He IS Churchill, to the smallest mannerism. Brilliant performance by him. Excellent performance too from Janet McTeer as Clementine, Churchill's wife.

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 war In 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.

This film explores an intriguing question: why did the people of Britain vote Labour in 1945, rejecting the man who had been their champion throughout the War? That man, Winston Churchill, is the central figure of the film and we are presented with many sides of his character and with flashbacks to his work as Prime Minister from the outbreak of war in 1939. I was very impressed by this film. Brendan Gleeson is excellent as Churchill, as is Janet McTear as his wife, Clemmie. The whole film is very well cast and the settings and period detail are used to great effect. The script by Hugh Whitmore is very good, ranging from the quietly intimate (presenting the Churchills' marriage), to the humorous, to the grand rhetoric of his epic wartime speeches. Thaddeus O'Sullivan directs the film with great skill, at times moving the story forward with dramatic urgency, and at others bringing out the emotion of a scene skilfully and effectively. Even familiar speeches of Churchill's, which suffer from over-familiarity, come across with real power. Britain was lucky to have had Churchill in its hour of need. He faced up to what the Nazis and the Fascists were doing and could see where appeasement policies would end up. History proved him right. After the fall of France, when Britain faced the might of Hitler's Reich alone, the rhetoric of Churchill inspired the people and urged them to fight on, despite every set-back. It would have been so easy to give in and settle for whatever terms Hitler would have offered. We owe a huge debt to Churchill for his determination and his tenacity. It is to the credit of this film that we feel warmth and sympathy for the man and gratitude for the leader. I am glad to see that this film has won many awards. It certainly deserves them.

Do watch this if you enjoyed The Gathering Storm. There are obviously some differences because of the new cast. This movie shows behind the scenes details of Winston Churchill's life during WW2 and after. Don't expect a portrayal of England in WW2 or you will be slightly disappointed. Instead it is interesting to people who want to find out details of Chuchill's life and his reactions to specific events. Brendan Gleeson had a difficult task to fill Albert Finney's shoes. And he simply doesn't do as good a job. His physical appearance is further away from Churchill's and his mannerisms and voice aren't quite as good. Janet McTeer is a bit young looking for the role. But she is perfectly adequate. A bit of a let down as a war movie in its microscopic vision but then that is the point of it anyway. It's a biopioc and that's all.

Yes Brendan Gleeson & Janet McTeer are very good as Winston & Clementine Churchill. I just do not see why this HBO film got so many award nominations. I am wondering is this the same Winston that inspired us during World War 2. I was young teen ager then, I do not think the man I remember had such a low esteem & low opinion of himself. thinking back the Churchill I remember was a vibrant dominant man & when he spoke we ALL paid attention. I did not get the same impression watching this movie. For those who do not know about this period in history, the movie will be interesting. I am doubtful on the historical accuracy. It is well acted & made, for a HBO movie. Ratings: *** (out of 4) 83 points (out of 100) IMDb 7 (out of 10)

I'm not sure whether this was intended to be a sequel to "The Gathering Storm" - the 2002 docudrama that did a good job of documenting Winston Churchill's life up to the outbreak of World War II - but whether or not it was, it's an essential companion piece if you're interested in Churchill's life. This deals with the war years, although doesn't portray any warfare (except for a brief shot of Churchill watching newsreels about the D-Day landings.) The focus is very much on Churchill - on his state of mind, on his personality, on his hopes and fears, and - like the earlier movie - on his relationship with his wife Clementine. It's a fascinating portrayal. It's not exciting in a normal sense, but it's interesting. Brendan Gleeson was very good as Churchill. I didn't miss Albert Finney, who was in the earlier production. Janet McTeer did a good job as Clementine. Their relationship was interesting to watch - very loving and supportive, but clearly also tensions (Clementine isn't thrilled that her husband was Prime Minister and she doesn't like the way he treats the people around him.) The movie jumps a bit from scene to scene - probably inevitably. Some aspects of Churchill's war-time life are strangely left out. For example, there's little interest in his relationship with his generals or with US General Eisenhower. In fact the movie (with he and Clemmie vacationing in France as a backdrop - which causes some historical confusion for me which I'll relate in a moment) has as it's underlying theme Churchill's fear of losing the election that was called after Germany's surrender. This I found interesting (if it's accurate.) I've always wondered why Churchill lost. You'd think he would have won. If the movie is accurate, I can understand his loss much better; particularly in the light of the radio speech he's depicted making, in which he lashes out viciously at the Labour Party and accuses them of needing to establish a "Gestapo" to implement their policies. Not very diplomatic, and - as the movie points out - certainly not destined to win over those who might have leaned Labour but supported Churchill in appreciation for his war leadership and who were front and centre in the fight against Hitler and Nazism and the Gestapo. I don't know if that was an accurate depiction of what Churchill said about Labour during the campaign or not, but if it was it was a huge political mistake! Churchill was, of course, devastated by his defeat, but I thought the ending of the movie served as an appropriate tribute (whether historically accurate or not.) After leaving office, Churchill - quite bitter - reluctantly agrees to go to a play with Clementine. As the play ends, the star draws the audience's attention to the presence of "the man who saved our nation - Winston Churchill," to which the audience responds with a standing ovation and cheers of "bravo." Whether it happened or not, it should have happened! That would have served as a better tribute than Churchill's disappointing return to office in 1950. The historical confusion I have revolves around the French vacation. Churchill was at the Potsdam Conference in Germany (not on vacation in France) with Stalin and Truman when the election results were announced, but there was no reference to him being at the Potsdam Conference? In closing, I was quite taken with the performance (in a limited role) of Iain Glen as King George VI. He was very good, as were Len Cariou as Roosevelt and Aleksei Petrenko as Stalin.

this is a very enjoyable war drama without reaching any great heights in excitement. Brendan Gleeson acts well as Churchill and overall the film gives us a good impression of the difficulties of the time and how Churchill managed those difficulties and his 'assistants'. His fallibility as well as his leadership are well known and I agree with the earlier comment that the Stalin like character was terrific and a real star in his somewhat brief role. Roosevelt was well portrayed and you should not worry Mr Attley was portrayed as a Scot. I did find the twisting of the story a little annoying insofaras we are watching churchills life during the war years but the story softly concentrates on his holiday in France with his wife at the end of the war and his struggle to hold onto power. Not convinced this is intended in any way to be a sequel to Gathering Storm. there are some good one-liners in this movie by Churchill, King George and others. Not convinced Gleeson makes it his own as Churchill but cant fault him for his efforts and professionalism and it really doesn't matter that he is much younger than Churchill actually was, this is a drama film and lets not forget that. 100 minutes is long enough and we are spared warfare throughout the film. this is not a war film and nor is intended as a biography on Churchill the man but much more a documentary to churchills role as British leader during those war years. Easy to mock it as a British as the film is intended clearly for an American audience but it does not deflect from its entertainment level and the ending is for once a satisfying one. after all, always better to leave the cinema happy even if not in agreement with the outcome.