Crappy film

A Masterpiece!

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

"The Gathering Storm" was a fantastic film and Albert Finney's performance in that movie was nothing short of remarkable. I'm not sure why he didn't star in the sequel, but even his outstanding talents might not have been enough to rescue this film."Into the Storm" film missed too many of the key dramatic moments in the Churchill narrative. Churchill learned of his ridiculous electoral defeat (shame on you, British voters of 1945!) at Potsdam, not while on vacation in France. The writers changed history needlessly, for Potsdam would have formed a much more dramatic framework in which to flashback from. Certainly far more so than the vacation in France. Heck, HBO might have even gotten Gary Sinise to reprise his masterful performance as Truman.Why was there no depiction of Churchill's attempt to warn Stalin of Hitler's looming invasion and Stalin's ignoring of said warning? And where is Churchill interacting with figures like Eisenhower and De Gaulle? Why was all of this omitted? The worst thing about this movie, however, was the omission of Churchill's immortal "Finest Hour" speech. Seriously, how could the writers and producers omit such an amazing and inspirational speech? I was looking forward to the scene of him delivering this speech but, alas, it never came. The producers also could have thrown in a scene of his address to Congress (by the way, what was with the actor playing FDR? He resembled FDR, but didn't even try to sound like him at all).This film was about one of the bravest and boldest men of all time, the man perhaps most responsible for the defeat of Nazism. He was a real hero. He may have been flawed personally, but heroism consists in the transcending of one's flaws in the achievement of great things. How did the producers of this movie manage to screw up such golden subject matter?

"Into the Storm" is one of those films where the lead actor Brendan Gleeson plays wartime Prime Minister Winston Churchill as though he is that man, but all that talent goes to waste because this film is nothing more than a white-wash of history. Evidentally the creators of this movie were more concerned about not offending anyone than with creating a film that was thought provocative, profound and even controversial. As a result, the plot and the characters simply go through the motions like in the propaganda war films from the 1940s. But you can also excuse the corny propaganda reels because they were a product of their own time. But one cannot excuse "Into the Storm" especially considering that it was made in 2009 when more primary documents about this period were available to the public.Indeed, in my humble view, this film would have been so much better if it remained faithful to the historical record instead of portraying the Second World War much in the same way as grandpa wanted to see it. The real Winston Churchill, for example, may have been a genius, but he had a very dark side which was completely overlooked in this movie. Churchill knew in April 1939 that Hitler would go to war to escape from the economic troubles that Germany was facing at that time. Moreover, Chamberlain and Roosevelt were in large part responsible for causing the Second World War. They worked together in implementing the Tripartite Stabilization Agreement, the Anglo-American Trade Agreement and other measures which had the effect of reducing German exports. Since the Germans could no longer earn foreign exchange (with which to buy foodstuffs and raw materials) by exporting goods abroad, Hitler faced a situation where he would either have to impose a tough austerity program that would have caused massive unemployment and starved his people or he would have to obtain his foodstuffs and raw materials through territorial conquest. He chose the latter course. But once again, "Into the Storm" makes no reference to that side of the story. If it did, then this movie would have been a lot more interesting.Finally, I object to the way Franklin D. Roosevelt was portrayed in this film by Len Cariou. Cariou seems to have got the impression that Roosevelt was a plain spoken honest man, when he was in fact the complete opposite. Roosevelt played mind games with his staff, his foreign allies and with his enemies. Moreover, he was the mastermind behind economic warfare against Germany. Once again, this film can take any approach to the material that it likes. But I submit that the reality of what happened is so much more interesting than any of the white-wash that this movie has to offer."Into the Storm" is not the worst movie I have seen. But it is pretty bad. It has no imagination, it does not have a whole lot of intelligence and the creators lack the independent mindedness to portray the past in a new and original way.

Superficial. Talk about dumbing down! I suppose, to be fair, there are millions in Britain, and even more in America, who have no idea who Winston Churchill was and the service he performed. Doubtless these people need to have the basics spelled out. However, the result is a the equivalent of a Disney cartoon version of A Christmas Carol. As an English viewer I also could not escape the uneasy feeling that this was a slightly twee version of British history adapted for Americans.Gleeson did not convince me as Churchill. As another reviewer has noted, he lacked the impish and self-deprecating humour which was such an important counterbalance to some of his less endearing qualities. Janet McTeer's part could have been played by almost anybody. And when did Attlee become a Scot? One of the most convincing bits was the actor they found for Stalin - surely one of the best lookalikes of all time. Otherwise I don't know how they managed to gather such a roster of top acting talent for insignificant roles.Shame. It could have been good.

Sorry, but as an Englishman who lived through WWII in London, with a thorough awareness of the Churchill persona and character, I found this fictional depiction to be a mockery of him and those years. To begin with, Irish actor Brendan Gleeson is ten years too young for the part, indicated a lot of petty grumpiness, lacked the innate humor which was so much a part of the man, and to be more blunt from an acting standpoint, failed to inhabit his character. And Janet McTeer did not find the tenderness and devotion which we know existed between Clemmie and her husband, and seemed instead to be on the brink of divorce. Not to forget the scripter who offered strange choices. I found Churchill's supposed preoccupation with speech rehearsings to be particularly annoying. I suppose American viewers will like it, but what do they know.Thank God there exists a six part documentary series on You Tube, where I was able to spend a little time to cleanse my mind of this Churchill travesty.