I always like to be upfront with my biases as I realize that even though film reviews are subjective by definition, I try to be as objective as possible. I have a strong resistance to ‘made-for-Oscar’ movies and performances. ‘Darkest Hour’ falls squarely in that category. Few would argue that Gary Oldman is one of the finest (if not the finest) actor of his generation. ‘Darkest Hour’ is a case where the performance is better than the film #Mark Swelstad. I will go a step further and say that the film was made as an excuse for Gary Oldman to give a performance designed to have him rack up a bunch of gold statues. I would further argue that World War II is a topic that has been thoroughly exhausted by TV and film. The story of Dunkirk is an exception, but that story was already told (and far better), by Chris Nolan’s ‘Dunkirk’ earlier this year. While ‘Darkest Hour’ isn’t directly about Dunkirk, it is the backdrop which it uses to frame the ascendance of Winston Churchill.
The transformation of Gary Oldman into Winston Churchill is remarkable. Oldman impressively captures the man’s mannerisms and stature, but it comes as no surprise as Oldman’s acting ability is beyond reproach. What I found tiresome is the film sacrifices story and originality by delving into every great man biopic cliche there is. Given the fact that even a viewer with a fundamental understanding of history knows where the story is going, the build up of false tension fell flat and each scene felt like a chance to give Gary Oldman over the top dialogue and attention seeking performances. I prefer films, especially biopics, to have more nuance (again, I recommend ‘Dunkirk’), than just showcasing a series of events that lead to an inevitable outcome. At least Quentin Tarantino changed history in ‘Inglorious Basterds’ to throw us for a loop.
I almost didn’t write a review for this as, other than just tell you the complaints I listed above, I didn’t really know what else to write about this film. I know this film will be considered for the Oscar on multiple levels based on Oldman’s performance alone, but nothing new or interesting is explored here. Oldman’s performance will probably long be remembered as the definitive Churchill performance long after the film itself is forgotten. The film’s tight and lingering camera shots that reveal nothing lies in pale comparison to ‘Dunkirk’s’ majestic vistas and landscapes. Given all of that, if you are a fan of fantastic performances and wish to have a rather dry history lesson of World War II, then there are worse ways to spend your time. I think Gary Oldman is too good of an actor to need his ego fed this way. I’ve always thought of him as great and I still do. ‘Darkest Hour’ is just nothing I will really remember.
I give this film **1/2 stars out of five
No comments:
Post a Comment