Review – Churchill

Thought Winston Churchill was behind the greatest gamble of the Second World War? Think again, according to this latest film centred on the iconic British leader.

Much like Shakespeare’s King Lear, the role of Churchill is a coveted one among thesps of a certain age and has been attempted more than a few times over the years on big and small screen alke.

Churchill PosterGary Oldman will be the latest to give the ‘victory’ sign when he stars in Joe Wright’s Darkest Hour later this year, but getting there first is Brian Cox, who gained considerable weight and shaved his head to achieve the physical embodiment of the former British Prime Minister. However, it is the way he humanises a man still regarded as one of the United Kingdom’s greatest figures that has won him particular acclaim.

Cox has spoken of the Shakespearean element to playing Churchill, and this is no more personified than in the Bard’s Lear, the great leader who is gradually sidelined whilst howling against a storm he no longer has control over.

ChurchillSet in the final days and hours leading up to Operation Overlord, otherwise known as D-Day on 6 June 1944, the film portrays Churchill as a man haunted by the slaughter that claimed the lives of tens of thousands of men at Gallipoli almost 30 years earlier and convinced the Allied invasion of France will be equally catastrophic.

Although the serving Prime Minster and Minister of Defence, Winston finds that his protestations count for nothing in the face of the united front taken by Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower (Tony Slattery), British Army Commander Bernard Montgomery (Julian Wadham) and Field Marshall Alan Brooke (Danny Webb).

His reduced status as little more than a figurehead is a bitter pill to swallow for Churchill, whose tirades and self-pitying fail to impress his devoted, but increasingly frustrated wife Clemmie (Miranda Richardson), while even his trusted friend King George VI (James Purefoy) must talk him out of a misguided plan to be at the frontline of the Normandy landings.

ChurchillThere’s no doubt the angle taken by the film in chronicling the lead-up to one of the defining events of the 20th century is an interesting one, based as it is on the diaries of Brooke as well as other historical sources. It’s a shame therefore that Alex von Tunzelmann’s one-note script and Jonathan Teplitzky’s stagy direction fail to get away from the fact that Churchill would have worked better on television rather than in cinemas.

In case we hadn’t absorbed the message that the Prime Minister was against Overlord, the film, like a broken record, continuously has Churchill imploring Eisenhower, Montgomery and anyone else who’ll listen not to “make the same mistakes as before”. Cox raises his game to play a role he’s reportedly wished to portray for years, while Richardson is equally fantastic (the supporting cast do their best with limited material); however, neither are served by a script that stretches itself to breaking point to fill 90 minutes.

ChurchillThere are some nice moments here and there; in particular a beautifully played scene between Cox and Purefoy in which the King gently breaks his friend’s heart in an effort to save Churchill from himself. The crushing weight on the shoulders of Einsenhower and his senior military staff as they weigh up a decision that will ultimately decide the fate of the war is also effectively handled – lest we forget that D-Day was a leap into the unknown with potentially devastating consequences.

Excellent performances, however, cannot ultimately save Churchill from being an also ran in the long history of films involving one of history’s Great Britons.


  1. le0pard13 · July 10, 2017

    I will take this in because of Brian Cox. The man is a talent, and even though he’s been in a number of great and also ran productions, his work is never dull or mailed in. Thanks for the heads up, Mark.

    • Three Rows Back · August 3, 2017

      Sorry for the late response! Cox is the best thing about the film no doubt. He’s been wanting to play the role for years snd doesn’t squander the opportunity.

  2. vinnieh · July 15, 2017

    Sounds as if the acting is the best part of this one. And I do like the cast, especially Cox and Richardson.

    • Three Rows Back · August 3, 2017

      Pretty much mate. Cox is really good; as is Richardson. It’s a bit TV movie but passes the time.

      • vinnieh · August 3, 2017

        I think I’d see it for the acting.

  3. dbmoviesblog · July 15, 2017

    That sounds like a very fair review. I haven’t watched this one yet, but from what I gather generally it is only the performances and individual scenes which are good here. Cox is such a varied actor – first, he is dissecting cadavers and has ghostly encounters in “The Autopsy of Jane Doe” (2016), and then he is Churchill himself. Amazing!

    • Three Rows Back · August 3, 2017

      Thanks buddy. Cox pretty much carries the film, which kinda makes sense bearing in mind the tithe of the movie. Have hard good stuff about ‘Jane Doe’; will be definitely checking it out!

  4. Zoë · August 8, 2017

    Great write up. I would like to check this out sometime, though no idea when that will be exactly. Will wait and see I suppose. Sounds like it is a bit of a mixed bag though.


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s