Into the Storm (2009) Reviews

• Brilliant sequel to the Gathering Storm (spoilers?)

  Bullus-12009-05-31

  I am finally relieved of the long wait: the Gathering Storm left me strangely unfulfilled, ending as it did with the outbreak of WW2. Now Thaddeus Sullivan's Into the Storm carries us forward into that mammoth conflict with a splendid sensitive portrayal of the enigmatic Churchill. Hats off to Brendan Gleeson, I would never have thought an Irish actor could take over from my hero Albert Finney with such consummate ease, but I guess Brendan owns the role of Winston now, he truly WAS him! (Then again, what do I know, I thought Len Cariou played Roosevelt with a British accent,imagine my surprise to find he's a Winnipeger who lived a long time with Glen Close!) But Gleeson really was brilliant: His tribute to the disfigured pilot,are you humble in my presence,how humble do you think I am in yours? Drops his towel in front of Roosevelt, you see I have nothing to conceal from you ha ha! On religion: whether you believe or disbelieve,it's a wicked thing to take away a man's hope. I loved the throwaway lines: RAF Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur 'Bomber' Harris being stopped for speeding, and the copper saying you might have killed somebody, and Harris replying My dear fellow, I kill thousands of people every night! And Winnie's relationship with King George who was worried by Churchill's plans to land on DDay: I have decided to go in with the forward landing craft, I'm sorry your Majesty that would be impossible.. Why not Winston, at least I have a replacement. Come to think of it, there's no spoilers here, this is simply a trailer.. don't miss the show!

• I thought it was very good

  karl_consiglio2009-12-05

  I thought it was very good. Someone said that it does not bring out the man's humor but I disagree. They also said that Clemmie looks more on the verge of divorcing him then the supportive wife she was, but I disagree on that too. One might say those things for they might remember a hell of a lot more having lived those years, but what I think this film gathers up best are those pieces in history as they have been recorded, and those most relevant for that matter. Very good acting in my opinion, very convincing. Churchill, what a man, I like these kind of biographical movies when they are done well, and this one sure was.

• Terrific Tribute to a Great Man

  gring02009-12-18

  As an history teacher whose bust of Churchill graces my classroom wall, I was looking forward with some trepidation, feeling that this would be another example of British film-makers dumbing down for their American cousins. And reading the comments here, it would appear with some reason. Churchill is supposed to come across as an humourless man with chunks of history taken out or exaggerated. However, I find this to be a study in resolution under unimaginable pressure. The war in Britain is presented with broad strokes, but such short episodes manage to convey the mythic times they present. Churchill is not seen to be infallible (at times he expresses gratitude for the war and a megalomania that cost his judgement so dear, whether at Gallipoli or with Norway) but this all the more makes one appreciate his achievement. This film is meant to have viewers come away with an understanding of what his leadership meant and why he was such a towering figure over the past century. Of course much is left undeveloped or left out, but then this was only 100 minutes long. For those who know Churchill intimately through history (including his own), I think you'll be gratified with many of the asides and intimations that may pass over the heads of others. If I have any quibbles, one would be the format. I'm not sure why the narrative goes back and forth after VE day and during the war. It adds nothing but in fact messes up the history needlessly- Churchill had been at Potsdam when news of his crushing election defeat came in, not on holiday in France. That why it was such a blow, and how he knew (as he is made to say here) that Stalin was shocked; if even Churchill could lose elections, better to dispense with them in his Eastern settlements. Churchill's role at Potsdam was crucial, not only in the final settlement with Germany, but in having the US agree with the dropping of the A bomb. Here is an example of his greatness in shaping our world completely erased only to have considerable dramatic licence made concerning his marriage, which was never as rough as is made out. But as a tribute to one of those rare Great Men who change the course of history (even rarer for being, in this case, for our lasting benefit), it makes one watch with back straightened and a lump in the throat. Sure, some scenes appear staged (as when he meets with young airmen about to do battle, inspiring him to come up with "Never in the field of human conflict..." on the spot) but then, Churchill lived by and through myths. With fine direction (it was produced, I noticed, by Ridley Scott!) and acting, I'm going to force my girlfriend now to sit and watch it with me. www.imperialflags.blogspot.com

• Good Companion Piece To "The Gathering Storm"

  sddavis632010-08-28

  I'm not sure whether this was intended to be a sequel to "The Gathering Storm" - the 2002 docudrama that did a good job of documenting Winston Churchill's life up to the outbreak of World War II - but whether or not it was, it's an essential companion piece if you're interested in Churchill's life. This deals with the war years, although doesn't portray any warfare (except for a brief shot of Churchill watching newsreels about the D-Day landings.) The focus is very much on Churchill - on his state of mind, on his personality, on his hopes and fears, and - like the earlier movie - on his relationship with his wife Clementine. It's a fascinating portrayal. It's not exciting in a normal sense, but it's interesting. Brendan Gleeson was very good as Churchill. I didn't miss Albert Finney, who was in the earlier production. Janet McTeer did a good job as Clementine. Their relationship was interesting to watch - very loving and supportive, but clearly also tensions (Clementine isn't thrilled that her husband was Prime Minister and she doesn't like the way he treats the people around him.) The movie jumps a bit from scene to scene - probably inevitably. Some aspects of Churchill's war-time life are strangely left out. For example, there's little interest in his relationship with his generals or with US General Eisenhower. In fact the movie (with he and Clemmie vacationing in France as a backdrop - which causes some historical confusion for me which I'll relate in a moment) has as it's underlying theme Churchill's fear of losing the election that was called after Germany's surrender. This I found interesting (if it's accurate.) I've always wondered why Churchill lost. You'd think he would have won. If the movie is accurate, I can understand his loss much better; particularly in the light of the radio speech he's depicted making, in which he lashes out viciously at the Labour Party and accuses them of needing to establish a "Gestapo" to implement their policies. Not very diplomatic, and - as the movie points out - certainly not destined to win over those who might have leaned Labour but supported Churchill in appreciation for his war leadership and who were front and centre in the fight against Hitler and Nazism and the Gestapo. I don't know if that was an accurate depiction of what Churchill said about Labour during the campaign or not, but if it was it was a huge political mistake! Churchill was, of course, devastated by his defeat, but I thought the ending of the movie served as an appropriate tribute (whether historically accurate or not.) After leaving office, Churchill - quite bitter - reluctantly agrees to go to a play with Clementine. As the play ends, the star draws the audience's attention to the presence of "the man who saved our nation - Winston Churchill," to which the audience responds with a standing ovation and cheers of "bravo." Whether it happened or not, it should have happened! That would have served as a better tribute than Churchill's disappointing return to office in 1950. The historical confusion I have revolves around the French vacation. Churchill was at the Potsdam Conference in Germany (not on vacation in France) with Stalin and Truman when the election results were announced, but there was no reference to him being at the Potsdam Conference? In closing, I was quite taken with the performance (in a limited role) of Iain Glen as King George VI. He was very good, as were Len Cariou as Roosevelt and Aleksei Petrenko as Stalin.

• Outstanding

  ajackaln2010-03-06

  I simply loved this movie. amazing story of bravery and great leadership and chivalry. I felt very connected to this movie as an Iranian since my own country was in 8 years of bloody war with Iraq( read the world)! The writing was flawless , lovely story telling with almost all angles of Winston Churchill's characters. I liked how the writer showed how important Mrs.Churchill was in the success of Winston Churchill as one of the best politicians of the history , with out doubt. casting and direction was just perfect and let's not forget unbelievable make ups that were done on the face of the actors and actresses. Epic job by the costume designer(s) as well. but I think everybody agrees that the best of the best in this film is the performance of the leading actor whom by the way I can not believe did not win golden globe after this outstanding performance. In the end I have mention the big mistake by the writers made in writing , the movie shows that Stalin , Roosevelt and Churchill meet in Tehran but they never mention the main reason of that meeting. the main reason of that meeting was to decide over the new government of Iran after the removal of Reza Shah whom they assumed was pro Germany. Allied government needed Iran to be saved from Germany who had racial roots with Iranians because of Iran's key role in the middle east and more importantly it's resources and of course Persian Gulf as the key to Suez Canal. also fall of Malaysia and Philippines was never mentioned which was another error made by the writers. the way they pictured the war it was like world war 2 was all about and around Britain which was not the case at all.