All About Oldman's Performance

Rating: 6/10 (18 March 2018)

Historical biopics are usually a genre that is right up my alley, as I love seeing historical places/events/people come to life on the big screen. I can't say that "Darkest Hour" is one of my favorites of the genre, but it does include an iconic performance from Gary Oldman (that I can say for sure).
For a basic plot summary, "Darkest Hour" tells the story of Winston Churchill's (Oldman) selection to become the Prime Minister of Great Britain in 1940, with Hitler's Germany having all but conquered the rest of Europe and now knocking on England's doorstep with a seemingly overwhelming force. Trapped between the appeasement talks that government officials want to pursue, and the hard-line stance he wishes to adopt, Churchill must somehow find the conviction to forge ahead and lead the country in one of it's truly darkest times.
The big draw here is the stunning performance of Oldman as Churchill. I'll confess that I am not a great scholar of Sir Winston, but from what I do now this seems to be an accurate portrayal of the figure. Visually it is probably the most stunning, as Oldman is utterly unrecognizable from his days as, say, Commissioner Gordon in Nolan's Bat-trilogy or Sirius Black in Harry Potter. Every time Churchill's psyche is probed, that is when this film really, really "works", as his internal struggle is what makes the whole thing tick.
What I found to be lacking in the film, though, was a sense of something really new being accomplished in terms of plot. I know this is somewhat of an unfair burden to place on a film trying to be historically accurate, but I think the point still stands. In a year where Christopher Nolan released a film entirely devoted to the Dunkirk operation, those parts in this movie (which take up a decent chunk of time) seem dull by comparison. To be honest, I wish the film had focused more on Churchill's political leanings, as I thought that was where the really "meaty" stuff resided in the film. Preaching "war in the face of peace/settlement" (as Churchill did) is not a popular stance these days, and that is what (at times) really drew me into the narrative. I just wish that would have comprised more time.
For me, then, I think the reason why I can't consider "Darkest Hour" one of my favorite films is because it is set in a period (WWII) that has been "done to death", so to speak. I'm not saying that it still isn't a worthy period to probe, but rather that it is difficult to stumble upon new material while doing so. As a result, from "Darkest Hour" I mainly came away with Oldman's remarkable performance, as well as the thought of Churchill being pro-war when so many in his own government favored appeasement. That was easily enough to go no lower than 6/10 stars. The other four stars, however, were lost due to the fact that the other WWII fare in this film was pretty standard and never felt to me like it stood out from other materials I've seen before.