NOT Winston's FINEST HOUR...

Rating: 6/10 (28 December 2017)

I had high hopes for this film for many reasons, I am a history buff, especially the 2nd world war era, I love biographies and famous people's own struggles in life that get them to their respective accomplishments and....the main reason. I thought FINALLY... the Gary Oldman of old has found a juicy part to sink his teeth into rather than the pedestrian roles like Commissioner Gordon. The film has fine moments in it, like the beginning montage of vintage B&W stock footage that people who watch history docs have seen hundreds of times but the treatment of it with the subliminal music instead of the clichÃ© harsh drum-beat score really drew me in. Great photography, great sets/locations and then enter Mr. Churchill. Or more to the point, Gary Oldman's "interpretation" of the British Conservative bulldog.
In every film of this nature when either a well known actor or unknown plays a famous figure from history there is always "that moment" when he/she is first seen on CAMERA and we, whether conscious or un, judge whether they "are" that person, the look and then when they speak the voice. The problem with doing bio-pic's of famous people like Kennedy, James Dean, Elvis, etc... they are all part of the 20th century and we all know what they look and sound like. In this case they are all unique in both those respects. Daniel Day Lewis pretty much "nailed" Lincoln (well, in my mind) Nobody knows exactly how the great Emancipator really sounded because it was before recorded sound. We only have photos and written accounts so it is easier to smudge some details and few would know. Bruce Greenwood nailed the "essence" of Jack Kennedy even though he did not really resemble him and Anthony Hopkins looks NOTHING like Richard Nixon but his acting over came those hurtles and you believe he is Nixon. Oldman's own portrayal of Beethoven is amazing and I have seen JFK at least 20 times and I still think his portrayal of Oswald is nothing less than stunning/frightening.
With someone like Churchill he not only had the unique look but the sound of his voice to identify him. When I saw Mr. Oldman, I thought he looked pretty good on screen. I never read any spoilers before I saw this film, (I never do anymore) but I "assumed" (my fault totally) that he had done the whole method actor thing and gained the weight a la' De Niro. But it was make-up and padding. No problem, totally understandable and in this day of high tech make-up you can get away with a lot more than in the old days. As the movie progressed Gary's eyes were not Churchill's, they were his and that kept me from getting into the movie and letting myself watch Churchill and not Gary Oldman acting as the great man. Then there was the voice... this problem could have easily been "adjusted" to make him sound a little more like the real man. This to me was the biggest problem with the portrayal, Churchill had a voice of gravelly meat-and-potatoes, of gravitas, of weight and authority...which Oldman did not bring to the roll. The facial make-up would not have distracted me if the voice was closer to the real man's but by now I am being critical to every mistake instead of being sucked into the viewing experience. The voice was weak...pure and simple. If I were a British citizen hearing Gary Oldman's voice in 1940 trying to rouse me to fight the Hun, I doubt Churchill would be remembered as strongly by history. The real man, JUST hearing his voice has a strength that inspires one to be and give more than you think you have within you. A true leaders voice...not so with Oldman's voice treatment. It sounds like a kindly old man working in an antique book shop. A man who you can trust but hardly inspiring to put one's life on the line for him or anyone else for that matter. Either the director was happy with it OR more likely, he didn't want to press the matter due to social/artistic awkwardness.
Another problem, a small nit-pick one I grant you, when Oldman walked it seemed to have the weight of his own and not one of a man with more girth to his mid rift.
I am not one to point out CG work unless it really stands out as great...or...lame. Most of the shots of CG planes looked like CG planes...fake. The completely "fake" and contemporary shots of being on Churchill, him looking up from the roof and the CAMERA PULLS up into the sky to reveal passing bombers is not of the same tone as the rest of the film. That is a very 21st century film "gimmick" and took both myself and my friend out of the film once again. The rest of the film had the proper pace and tone of its subject matter and then here comes a CG grand standing shot to show the head office where some of the budget was spent... or wasted. Wrong, wrong, wrong! Establish a tone and stick with it, this is basic 101 directing stuff.
I really "wanted" to like it BUT I like it even less the day after. This review would have been kinder if I had written it last night...