Darkest Hour Reviews
Unos meses después se estrena Las horas más oscuras (Darkest Hour), una "mini" biopic sobre el mismísimo Winston Churchill desde que asume como Primer Ministro hasta que se lleva a cabo la Operación Dinamo, mientras es presionado a firmar la paz con Hitler. Por lo cual ya sea por casualidad o no, ambas películas forman un excelente combo relatando el mismo hecho desde dos ambientes y perspectivas diferentes. Además, ambas están nominadas a la categoría de mejor película en los Oscars, ya que como sabemos a la Academia les encantan las películas basadas en historias reales que involucren guerra y política.
Sin embargo, su conexión con la película de Nolan no es lo único que se destaca de esta película.
Hay algo la hace aún más grande y estamos hablando de la magnífica interpretación de Gary Oldman como el ex primer ministro británico, un papel difícil si los hay, en el cual además de adentrarse en una caracterización muy particular por el estilo de vida de Churchill (alcoholismo, comida chatarra, descuido por su salud y bastante fanfarrón) también implicó un gran cambio físico, con ayuda de maquillaje claro está.
Ya hemos visto a Churchill ser caracterizados en otras ocasiones como en Bastardos sin gloria o la serie The Crown, pero lo que hace Oldman es algo excepcional llevando a su personaje por todos los estados de ánimos, desde el enojo y desprecio a sus pares hasta la preocupación que le llevó no poder lograr sus objetivos. Si bien la película no es la gran favorita para ganar la estatuilla en la máxima categoría, si lo es Gary Oldman en la categoría de mejor actor.
- Finesse Movie Reviews
Besides Oldman's performance the cinematography and editing were sometimes incredibly spot on. Though its not original or groundbreaking its surely enjoyable and Oscar-worthy.
CLASSIFICATION | 7.6/10
Even though we know that Churchill was on the right side of history when he judged Hitler to be a menace, most of the rest of the world, including the British royalty and parliament, did not have the benefit of hindsight (the death camps had not yet begun operation) to help them see this reality. So there is tension and drama despite our knowledge of the outcome of the war; it comes from the battle Churchill fought among his peers in his own country.
A few quibbles: Why do films aimed at the Indie Film audience insist, if tobacco is being smoked, on making the sound of the tobacco burning as loud as a Who concert? It always comes across as pretentious to me... if we make the sound overly rich and vibrant, then the viewer will somehow think of this as an "important" film. This is something that has annoyed me in films for a few years, and I still haven't been able to articulate effectively why it annoys me. Sometimes it's the sound of an actor's hands moving across a sheet of paper that affects me this way, or the sound of a page turning,
Another quibble: When Oldman's Churchill screams at other characters at the top of his lungs, it seems like too much. Every piece of his performance is perfect, except this. So many actors' portrayals of real-life famous people are hailed as being not just an imitation, but an embodiment of the person (Jamie Foxx in Ray comes to mind). Until now, I've *never* been able to stop thinking of the actor's imitation... I've *never* thought an actor fully embodied the character. This is the first time that I've not only forgotten that an actor was mimicking certain quirks, movements, or vocal inflection, and that I've been immersed in their performance of the historical character. But when he screams at the top of his lungs at someone, I think of what would happen if I were to scream at the top of my lungs at my friends, family, or the people I work with. They'd think I'd lost control. They'd let me know my behavior is unacceptable. The script asks me to accept it, as Mrs. Churchill explains to him that he's gotten more curmudgeonly; Churchill himself explains to the king that he lacks temperance; and one or two more things in the script that I can't now recall. Regardless, it still doesn't quite ring true.
Finally, there's a moment of cliche'. Making exposition feel like it's being told from one character to another and not to the audience must be very difficult. Most of the time I accept it, because as a viewer it's usually information that I need to have early in the picture to understand what's going to happen later. But as good as most of the script is, whenever I hear a character say, as happens in Dark Hour, "What just happened?" I know that somebody got lazy. Whatever comes next is not from one character to another; it's being told to the audience. We just saw it happen; either the filmmakers screwed up the scene and didn't show us what they meant to show us, or they assume we're too stupid to understand what happened. It almost ruins the scene here. They had a great line that they didn't want to waste, and the rest of the script is great, so I accept it quibblingly, but it really did almost ruin the scene for me.
Anyway, I've now written more about my quibbles than I have about what I like about the film, and I'm not going to elaborate further. It should be seen for Oldman's performance alone, but it offers much more than that. See it.