Darkest Hour

Rating: 7/10 (1 January 2018)

In reviewing Darkest Hour, I find it extremely difficult to write this review without making comparisons to this year's other film about Winston Churchill, simply titled, Churchill, starring Brian Cox in the leading role. The two different films have areas where sometimes they compliment each other and at other times it is as if they could not be any further distant, or opposite from one another. This same thing happened when back in 2005 you had Bennett Miller's film version of Capote come out telling the true story of writer and social figure, Truman Capote as he researches and writes his most famous book, In Cold Blood. The film was a smash with critics and was nominated for several Academy Awards including winning the late Phillip Seymour Hoffman the Best Actor Award for his uncanny and terrifically spot on portrayal of Capote. About a year, or possibly even less than that you had Infamous come out which starred Toby Jones as Truman Capote this time and yet still was about him conducting the interviews and even befriending one of the inmates on death role for the crime he committed which would later result in Capote's best selling book, In Cold Blood. I never saw the version with Toby Jones entitled, Infamous, but I remember one critic on television saying that of the two versions, Infamous was the one he preferred even though it got neither the awards, or media coverage that the earlier Seymour Hoffman film did. Is this always nescessary to have two films about a certain event, or person coming out in such short time apart from one another? And yet as I saw Churchill back in the Summer, and am now have seen Darkest Hour, in the days following Christmas, I have to make a distinction about which film is the better of the two and also which one I liked better in my opinion and I will go against popular opinion here and say that I actually preferred the Brian Cox film better for reasons which I will now elaborate on. The Brian Cox version of Churchill, I found to be not as technically polished, or shall I say that it did not come near as having the same financial backing, or behind the scenes talent that Darkest Hour did. You can tell right away that Churchill was more of an independent production whereas Darkest Hour probably cost a fair bit to make and of the two, Darkest Hour trumps it in terms of visual flare having what I consider to be some of the best cinematography, lighting and period piece attention to detail of any film I have seen this year. How the crew of Darkest Hour can set a tone and a mood just simply by it's lighting, or use of objects whether numerous, or few in a room was quite respectably and admirably done. The film was gorgeous to look at even though at times some of the scenes it was capturing were bleak, or the furthest thing you can think of away from the word 'gorgeous'. Also of the two performances, both were good, but Gary Oldman as Churchill in Darkest Hour, wins the prize here just as he most likely will on Oscar night as well. Everything from the miraculous make up and hair transformation of Gary Oldman into Churchill to his ravenous and empowered performance is the stuff that Oscar voters go for and truth be told it was an excellent performance. Brian Cox's performance used little to no makeup and yet while still a good performance on it's own merits, Gary Oldman's will be the one that is remembered. In terms of film structure and composition, Darkest Hour also overtakes the earlier film and you can tell that a much more experienced team worked behind it and they achieved what they set out to do and then some. So if Darkest Hour is visually a better film as well as technically structured better and has a better performance, why do I go with what is obviously the underdog between the two? I think more than anything it comes down to the fact that I overall found Churchill more of a pleasurable viewing experience and I was not only engrossed, but also fascinated by it's subject matter and for a fan of history as well as politics it was a satisfying night out at the movies. Darkest Hour on the other hand often to me felt very dry and at times it bordered on even being a bit slow, or dare I use the word 'boring'? It wasn't nearly as exciting, or as engrossing as the earlier film and I felt it also lacked emotion whereas it looked great, but there seemed lack of empathy at times and I do not think we got to know Churchill as well as we did in the earlier film where it often focused on his deteriorating health and on the rocks marriage as well. Darkest Hour feels more like a history lesson out of a really academic text book which is informative, but makes for a dull and dreary study session. Still both films have their merits, but of the two I have made my choice which I prefer and I am sticking by it. I am probably in the minority with my opinion kind of like that sole reviewer who preferred Infamous, to it's more awarded and decorated Capote, but in this case sometimes smaller is better and more effective.