Churchill (2017)

In a time awash with fake news on Facebook and Twitter, you don't expect to watch a historical film, with great actors and a massive budget, distort history so blatantly and disrespect the greatest Briton of all time.

Seriously Historical Inaccurate Tripe.This has to be the most if not the biggest pile of garbage ive EVER had the misfortune to watch. What imbecile researched this? They should be lynched.This lame excuse for a film IF that what its supposed to be takes this countries greatest leader and reduces the man into a pathetic caricature. Winston Churchill was a great leader who led this country in its darkest hour, this garbage portrays him as a senile delinquent and spoilt child who fights against the plans for D-Day and nothing more than a bumbling alcoholic insane idiotFactually incorrect. Its beyond inept in its portrayal of a GREAT leader. This UTTER rubbish is nothing but an assassination of Churchill's character and reputation designed to destroy the brilliance of the man as a leader and his place in history.Brian COX shouldve walked off the set portraying this assassination role. IF you want to see a a film that does Churchill justice then it has to be Gary OLDMAN's portrayal of Churchill in DARKEST HOUR - it is EPIC. The script and OLDMAN's portrayal shows and gives Churchill the respect he deserves as Britain's greatest leader. This garbage is an insult to CHURCHILL and is a pure assassination. DONT WASTE YOUR TIME WATCHING THIS RUBBISH - IT IS ABYSMAL.

Gonna give this a perfect score just to piss off all the Churchill fanbois. Apparently they didn't like how their dear leader is portrayed in this movie. Well, sucks for them.10/10 would recommend watching this with your Tory-voting friend. Peace out.

El problema es que me ha sorprendido para mal. Nunca me habría imaginado un Churchill así. El cómo ponerle a los pies de los caballos. La película la ves y bueno está bien, si bien es cierto que se hace larga. No es una película que se la vea nada más empezar que es una obra maestra, todo lo contrario. Desde el comienzo se la ve que es una película normal. Una cosa que veo es que no se adentra mucho en la guerra, sino más bien en el personaje. No le importa no contar lo que paso, más bien quiere mostrar el personaje y la gente de alrededor. Pero con ello, la película no tiene un gran clímax. Los actores están muy bien, si es lo que buscaba. Yo creo que va a sorprender a mucha gente.Tiene una iluminación que es capaz de pasar de planos muy bonitos a planos muy mal iluminados. Sobre todo cuando la cámara rueda ventanas. Hay veces que no distingues al actor.La dirección no está mal llevada. No es una maravilla pero bueno. No llega a aburrir pero tampoco te engancha demasiado. Los planos no son bonitos, son normales, no sabe usar la cámara.Bueno es una película que la ves y te olvidas The problem is that it has surprised me for the worse. I would never have imagined a Churchill like that. How to put at the feet of horses. You see the film and it's good, although it's true that it's long. It is not a film that can be seen at the beginning, it is a masterpiece, just the opposite. From the beginning it is seen that it is a normal movie. One thing I see is that he does not go deep into the war, but rather into the character. He does not mind not telling what happened, rather he wants to show the character and the people around him. But with that, the movie does not have a great climax. The actors are very good, if that is what I was looking for. I think it will surprise many people.It has an illumination that is able to go from very beautiful planes to very badly illuminated planes. Especially when the camera rolls windows. Sometimes you do not distinguish the actor.The address is not badly worn. It is not wonderful but good. It does not get boring but it does not hook you too much. The plans are not pretty, they are normal, he does not know how to use the camera.Well it's a movie that you see it and you forget