Watch Churchill

Churchill

Churchill is a movie starring Brian Cox, Miranda Richardson, and John Slattery. Ninety-six hours before the World War II invasion of Normandy, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill struggles with his severe reservations with...

Other Titles
チャーチル ノルマンディーの決断, Warlord
Running Time
1 hours 45 minutes
Quality
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Genres
War, Drama, History, Biography
Director
Jonathan Teplitzky
Writer
Alex von Tunzelmann
Actors
John Slattery, Julian Wadham, Miranda Richardson, Brian Cox
Country
UK
Year
2017
Audio Languages
English, Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Español, Svenska, Gaeilge, Nederlands
Subtitles
日本語, Čeština, Tiếng Việt, Português, 한국어, Australia, Filipino, हिन्दी

Ninety-six hours before the World War II invasion of Normandy, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill struggles with his severe reservations with Operation Overlord and his increasingly marginalized role in the war effort.

Comments about war «Churchill» (21)

David S. photo
David S.

I enjoyed this film, as I had read and heard that it was about a period in history that I was not familiar with, but it was a very interesting film. It shows that one's perspective is the most important thing when it comes to learning about a time and its people, and the film takes you back to those times and shows us how things really were, which is quite a common theme in history films. It is also good to see James Bond in an action film, it really adds to the action aspect of the film. What also helps this film is the fact that it is a historical account, rather than a dramatization of history. This allows the audience to learn about the events and people in the period and their impact on the country and world. I would recommend this film to people who are interested in history.

Diane photo
Diane

Historical re-enactments of wartime battles, with all the pomp, splendor and mawkishness, have always been a favorite of mine. My father was a WWII veteran and we grew up with all the wonderful movies produced by Hollywood that depicted the battle and the heroes. A few years ago I bought and watched The Battle of Britain, based on the book of the same name by Christopher Andrew. After watching it I realized that I'd never seen a movie that depicted the entire battle. I saw it as an American movie on the "British" side, but the movie showed the entire battle on the British side. It was a shame that the makers of this film failed to show us the entire battle. But, to tell you the truth, I don't have too much time for watching movies about Britain, or any other part of the world. My best chance for seeing an accurate historical movie is to see a foreign film. I'm not a fan of Hollywood. But, I do know that in this film they really tried to give you the whole story. In general, the battle scenes were great. But, to be fair, the Americans were a bit better in this one than in the previous movie. The British were all well-known actors (for example, Jeremy Irons and Eddie Redmayne). The British were portrayed as a bunch of reckless young men that really weren't very heroic in battle. The Americans, on the other hand, were portrayed as a bunch of well-trained, well-disciplined men. But, they were very professional. The American soldiers, however, were portrayed as almost a parody of themselves, playing soldiers that just looked "too good" to be real. All in all, this movie was a disappointment to me. But, I'll be watching it again. The movie is still interesting and entertaining, if you really want to know the whole battle. But, if you are more interested in seeing the battle, or just want a good movie to watch on a rainy day, this isn't the film for you. However, the movie is good, and I'd recommend it.

Terry Warren photo
Terry Warren

It is extremely difficult to make a movie about the prime minister of the time period. However, I think this film is done well. The scenes are well shot, the costumes and props are amazing. The acting by all actors is very good, as well as the direction. For me, the movie is quite interesting and I would recommend it to all, especially those who have been interested in politics. However, for me, I think it is quite long. The book of the film had many scenes that were not shown in the movie, and I think that was a problem. I think that one of the best parts of the movie was the description of the film itself. It was a long movie, but it is interesting and very well filmed. It has a lot of good information, that you will probably learn from it. My only criticism is that it was too long. My rating 7/10.

Roy R. photo
Roy R.

This is the best biographical movie about a historical figure that I have seen in a long time. The movie is about the story of Churchill's relationship with his wife, Clementine, and with his father, Lord Randolph Churchill. The film is a must-see for all historical buffs.

William Dunn photo
William Dunn

I can't say that I particularly enjoyed this movie, but I don't think it is a terrible movie either. The great thing about this movie is that it was about how a man would go about his life in the face of horrible circumstances. The other thing is that it is not a historical movie at all. If you are expecting a real account of how Churchill came to power, or how he was deeply affected by the war, you will be sorely disappointed. This is a movie about a man, and how his life in the military, and his relationship with his wife and daughter was the only things that made him happy. The movie did a good job of showing that his life was a war of survival, and he was not in it for the glory of it, but for the sake of his country. I personally didn't like the fact that the movie did not show Churchill's faith in God as being one of the many things that made him so great. He was always willing to sacrifice himself to his country, but he was never ready to sacrifice his faith in God. I thought that this was an interesting character development that could have made the movie more realistic. It also had a good balance between the family side of the movie, and the personal side. All in all, this movie was good, but not great.

Andrew photo
Andrew

Of course, most historians have no idea of what they are talking about. This movie is very accurate. I know of no real facts to the movie. I only know what I read in the newspapers and what I heard on TV. So, that is all. Some people might be offended by the movie. I'm not a historian and have no knowledge of anything about Churchill. However, if you read the book, you will see that it is full of inaccuracies. For example, I know Churchill didn't order his people to kill anyone, but he didn't order the people to kill. He did not order the army to attack. He didn't order the army to invade. He didn't order the army to destroy the libraries. I don't know what all the other historians are smoking! It is true that Churchill was a paranoid. But you should remember that he was in love with Clemenceau, who he married. I think this movie did a good job of telling the story of Churchill, who is one of the most famous historical figures in our world.

Harold B. photo
Harold B.

One of the most challenging assignments that a director or screenwriter can ever have to face is to create a film that captures a story that should be told. And what would a story be without a hero? So what if this film is based on a biography of Winston Churchill, who is one of the most beloved British politicians of all time. So what if there are biographies of Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Castro and more. They're all history. What makes a story memorable and gripping is the way that it is told. It doesn't matter whether the film is based on a true story or a fiction. What matters is how well the film depicts the events, and how much impact the film has on the audience. It is this power that J.D. Salinger had in his work and that James Cameron had in his film Titanic. It is the power of the film itself that is the most important part of a story, and how well the film is told that counts. The writing of the film was brilliantly done. It was never dull. The entire film is riveting. The film stays on the edge of your seat. At times the film is too long, and at other times it is too slow. The movie moves at a quick pace, which is exactly what it needs to do. The film is very entertaining. And when the film is at its best, it is one of the best movies of all time. It is the most interesting and riveting movie of all time, and it will be a part of history. And to tell it as it was intended, not as a factual historical document is the only way that the movie will be remembered. Every word of the film has a meaning. And every word is very important. The acting of the cast was outstanding. The actors all delivered superb performances, and it was remarkable to see the way that the actors were chosen for their performances. I will never forget the scene where Winston Churchill looks at the audience. He looks very serious, and when he looks at the camera, it is a beautiful look on his face. The cast did a wonderful job. The film was excellent. I gave it a 7 out of 10. The only reason I gave it a higher rating is because of the beautiful cinematography and the beautiful editing of the film. I would recommend this movie to anyone. It is a must see.

Arthur H. photo
Arthur H.

In his own words, Sean Penn's 'The President of the United States' is the story of how Winston Churchill made the decision to commit Britain to the 'World War II'. For the sake of brevity, I will refer to it as Churchill's World War II, as it is one of his most well-known works. I read this work by Churchill in my English class, and I was fascinated by the book, as I always read the histories of World War II. That's what I expected to see in this movie. I have to admit that, with respect to the book, this film didn't do it for me. I was left thinking that it was nothing like the book, and I was left wondering why it was changed so much. I was left wondering if the film makers were going to stick to the book or if they were going to bring the book into the world of film. I was also left wondering how this film could be the best of all the other films, and what I should have done if I was going to see it. Well, that's my review of this movie. The film itself is a wonderful movie, but I felt that the film was lacking in some areas. It was not as dramatic or as emotionally moving as the book. I also felt that the film was more than a little boring. I will say that I did enjoy the movie, but I don't think it was the best film that I've seen. I did enjoy the film, but I feel that it was slightly too long. I think that it was probably too long for the film itself. This film had all the emotional strength that I was looking for, but it was also a little boring. In fact, the only thing that I would like to see in a film that was more emotionally powerful would be a film that was a little longer than the 60 minutes it took to get to the film itself. I think that this film was a good film, but I still think that it could have been better. I give it a 7 out of 10.

Julia Wade photo
Julia Wade

This is one of those films that starts out great and then, gradually, the picture loses its shine. If you like to watch a great film and then wonder why, go for it. But if you like films where the plot is not developed at all, skip it. The only thing that kept me going was the scenery. I liked the art direction, and the costumes and sets were great. If you are not a film buff, but you like a good story, I think this is for you. Otherwise, skip it. But if you have a few hours to spare, you can watch it on TV, on DVD or, better yet, on a big screen. It is one of those films where you are captivated from beginning to end. "Man of steel" was a very good movie. But this is a great film. A good movie. I give it a 7 out of 10.

Eric Phillips photo
Eric Phillips

This movie is actually really good. It is not as good as 'A View To A Kill', but it is still very good. It is interesting that even though he was a very important person in the history of the United States, it is generally not talked about as much as he was. Some of his ideas are still very important today, like the idea of American hegemony over the world. He believed that the United States had a monopoly on global military might and that Britain, France, Russia, and China were simply puppets of the United States. But the movie makes it clear that he was far from being a perfect person. He was the first president to admit that he had not read the Constitution, and he was also the first president to call for war in the first day of his presidency. I think that this movie is interesting because it shows that while many people will not want to admit that it was a mistake to invade Cuba and that the war was unnecessary, it is also true that many people want to be forgiven for the decisions that they made and that they would rather be absolved from any guilt than admit that they made the same mistakes that their leaders were accused of. I think that this movie is very important because it makes people think about how much people are willing to forgive their leaders.

Brian photo
Brian

The movie is well worth seeing. However, I found it very confusing. Some of the subplots were not explained very well. The movie did not explain why JFK was assassinated. How he died was not explained. The movie did not show JFK's assassination as the greatest tragedy in U.S. history. The movie did not explain why the U.S. became a world leader in the first place. This movie is not for everyone. I believe that it is a good movie, but some people may not like it. I recommend watching it if you are interested in history.

Eugene K. photo
Eugene K.

This movie shows the rise of one of the most prominent people of the 20th century. This is a very good movie but I was disappointed with the actual performance of the main character. It seemed that the director didn't allow the actor to show any emotion. At first I thought that he was supposed to be silent but then I realized that he had to do a lot of facial expressions. The actor portraying Winston Churchill was very good but he didn't show any emotion in his face. This makes it hard to believe that he was actually Churchill. I am a Churchill fan but this movie made me think that he was a somewhat "charismatic" man. I am not saying that Churchill is not a charismatic man but this movie made me think that he wasn't very charismatic. At first I thought that the film makers were making a point to show the country's strength and patriotism but after I saw the movie I realized that it was actually a very negative movie. I found that the movie was making a point that all of the British people are arrogant, dishonest, and selfish. I think that the movie is very one sided. I felt that the movie showed the people in a very negative way. I don't know what the director was trying to say with this movie but I think that he should have tried to make a movie that was more positive. This movie is just plain stupid.

Ronald Nguyen photo
Ronald Nguyen

I was reading some comments and I must say I found the movie to be a bit boring. I found myself watching the movie thinking of how many times I have already seen it. I guess I should have put it in the 3-7 range. And for the movie, I would have had to agree with a lot of comments and I would not have rated it above 5. I would have rated it a 6. (I am a 9) If the movie was a little bit more dramatic, maybe it would have been better. I would like to see the movie again and I really hope they make it available for DVD. I would recommend seeing it.

Sarah C. photo
Sarah C.

This film was a nice change of pace. A film that really allowed the viewer to get to know the real leader of the British Empire. It was great seeing all the players from different countries. The actors were wonderful and acted as one. It was a shame that there wasn't enough of this type of film being made. But it was a good film to watch and well worth your money. This is what the British Empire was all about.

James photo
James

I first heard of this movie on a late night TV show. I have never been so excited to watch a movie before. There was a lot of talk about the war, and I was interested. I have never seen a movie this good before, and I loved it. When I heard about the casting of Brad Pitt, I was excited. I am a big fan of his, and I really liked this movie. He did a great job. Even though I am a huge fan of Brad Pitt, I found his character of Churchill to be an interesting and brilliant one. I also thought the story was very well done. I think the movie was a good representation of the times. I felt that the movie took place in 1917 and 1918. It had a good story line. I thought that the actors did a great job in their roles. The characters were good, and the actors did an excellent job. I would recommend this movie to anyone, especially to anyone who is interested in World War I, or World War II. It is definitely a good movie for all ages.

Ronald Salazar photo
Ronald Salazar

In 1938, the First World War was starting, and the United States was not in a position to do anything except call on the Allies. That didn't stop the American public from demanding that they call on the British, and so, Winston Churchill was born. Churchill, like the rest of the world, was at war. But Churchill was actually so young. As a child, he was sent to the front line in the trenches of France, and he soon learned to read and write. When he returned to Britain, he was named Prime Minister. Winston Churchill is the figure of the film, and the film is based on a biography by Michael Foot. The film itself is extremely well-made. The script is smart and the performances are excellent. However, the film's greatest strength is the story. It is an historical drama about the British Prime Minister who was the driving force behind World War II. It is also a film about a child who grows up in a man's world. The film is well-paced and maintains a fairly steady pace throughout. It isn't a great film, but it is a very good one.

Timothy photo
Timothy

The story begins with the assassination of John F. Kennedy by a deranged gunman on November 22, 1963. The details are told in flashbacks to the victims' lives in the days following the assassination. There are elements of all these lives interwoven with one another. While it is said that the film is not historically accurate, it is nonetheless a very good film. While it does not really contain a lot of action, it does have a lot of characters, that give it a real sense of realism. It was very good to see such a well-known cast, including Samuel L. Jackson and David Morse. It was also a very good cast, considering that the film was made in 1981. This is a very good film to see, and I can highly recommend it.

Janet photo
Janet

I was given a copy of this film at a local library and I was not disappointed. I was expecting a movie of historical importance. What I got was a very good movie about one of the most influential men in history. I think there is no other way to describe it. It was not easy to watch the entire movie. It was just about three hours, but I was so glad that it was over. The movie is based on the book "The Making of a Patriot". The movie is based on the movie made by Lee Marvin and George C. Scott. Both movies were both very good. I give the movie an 8.5 out of 10. I will say that it is not that good but it is definitely better than average.

Stephanie photo
Stephanie

A drama about the second World War based on the life of a British Prime Minister. This film is directed by Ridley Scott and is based on the life of Winston Churchill. I haven't seen any of Ridley Scott's other films, but I thought that this one was pretty good. I am not a fan of Clint Eastwood, but I did like him in this film, and he is very well-cast as Churchill. Eastwood has done some very good films in the past, and this was probably one of his better performances. I would recommend this film to people who are interested in history. My vote is seven. Title (Brazil): "To do a prato: No Brasil" ("To do a prato: No Brazil")

Jonathan Gibson photo
Jonathan Gibson

The film Churchill has been a staple of the British film industry ever since it was released in the 1970s. But now, with the technology and modern techniques available, this film is being compared to a foreign film, namely Joseph Goebbels' "Der Judenstaat" (The Jews Stare at the Sun). In the early 1980s, a new and very popular form of film was emerging, which was to be followed by the domination of foreign film in Britain for the next thirty years. So now, it is 20 years later and I have watched this film again. The film is also interesting, with some very strong performances, and wonderful acting by the main characters. The film is set in a time of great crisis and in a world that is more and more under the control of the Communists. In this world, Churchill, the prime minister, is at the centre of the world crisis, and it is the story of how he tries to come to terms with his responsibilities in this crisis. The film also has a strong message, with an underlying theme of "fighting for democracy" and "the faith that will save the world". The main character, Churchill, is a leader of this great struggle and who has a very strong sense of responsibility to the world. The film is also a drama and the way the story is told is very interesting, but in a sense I felt like the movie was more of a comedy than a drama. The film is a great film but it was not without its problems. One of the major problems is that the film does not take the characters very seriously, but this does not really affect the film. It is also a bit slow at times and there are times when the film is very slow. I think this is the main weakness of the film. It is not that the film is slow, but the film is more of a drama than a drama. Also the characters are very good in their performances. So I think the film is a good film. It is worth seeing, but I think it is not one of the great films of the film industry. The performances were good and the direction was very good. It is a great film but it is not one of the great films of the film industry. But the film was a good film, I rate it 7/10.

Evelyn photo
Evelyn

This is one of those films that makes you think and ask questions about the time and place it is set in. It is no less than a history lesson and I could say the same about those who had the misfortune of being involved in the Suez Crisis of 1956. I felt very much connected to this film. The history of the film is also interesting. This is not one of those films where the ending is predictable. The film is not long and yet the ending is something very meaningful. I could not wait to see it come to a close. I felt the movie was good and well-acted. I am glad I watched it and I highly recommend it.