Sign In Now ►
or Create A New Account ►
Rank This Matchup or Comment/Reply Below
This would make an interesting double feature...
dunkirk is better
Why was Winny listening to a negro on the train? Mr. Nolan would NOT approve.
Darkest Hour was so much better. There's an actual story in that movie and actual emotion. You care more about Churchill's secretary's brother in one small scene then you do about anyone in the numb and poorly written procedural Dunkirk.
"There’s Winston Churchill dressed in drag. He used to be a British flag. Plastic bag. What a drag". Dunkirk shows the gritty and fighting side of war and Darkest Hour shows the more political side of war. Dunkirk is my most intense movie ever experience ever! There is actual emotion. The themes, the subtly, the tension, the idea of these young man fighting for their lives at any cost. It’s the most realistic war film in history! In war, you don’t sit around giving exposition about your lives. You try to stay alive and you feel mostly nothing but fear. It’s the modern day masterpiece! Darkest Hour is a decent movie that is a few strokes away from being a great one. Maybe more emotional depth or to show more of the public’s opinion or develop the relationship of Churchill and his wife. Also, the jokes were tonally out of place and it portrayed Churchill look like he was an unlikeable idiot but, in reality, he was a man who stood up for what he believed in despite how his views went against the majority but he was victorious in the end.
Darkest Hour is award worthy. Dunkirk is soulless garbage to be brutally honest.
dunkirk is pretty great while the only thing darkest hour has on it is a great performance from john goodman
Dunkirk is weak sauce. Made what should be a great story in to an uninteresting technical exercise.
In a year where there have been four major films about WWII in Britain released within the last 12 months or so (Churchill, Their Finest, Dunkirk and now Darkest Hour), three of which centre around the early days of the war and the Dunkirk evacuation in particular, Dunkirk stood out as easily the most gruelling, visceral cinematic experience, different from many war movies in its technical precision and narrative manipulation. Contrary to what the majority of people have been saying, I believe it drove emotion through its technical attributes i.e. cinematography, editing, production design, sound and music to deliver something that was tense, harrowing, but ultimately uplifting and immensely powerful by the end. Nolan has had trouble weaving emotion and human drama into his films in the past in favour of a dedication to technical endeavours and artistic vision, but this was easily his most effortlessly moving film yet. The other three are more humanist dramas, and given that two of them are biopics focussing on Winston Churchill, it's perhaps easy to see why they would fall into the category of Oscar bait (Darkest Hour in particular, given the timing of its release). While Gary Oldman's performance is commendable (but by no means the best portrayal of Churchill I've seen; that's probably got to go to Brendan Gleeson for Into the Storm) and there are aspects, chiefly Joe Wright's use of isolation vs crowded scenes to signify morale as a thematic through line, that just about elevate the film above TV-movie fare, it doesn't really do anything else that hasn't been seen in other films and TV productions about Churchill, or indeed WWII-era British period dramas. As an acting award vehicle for Gary Oldman, Churchill is a solid if unspectacular venture, while Dunkirk was easily the best film of last year for me and Nolan's best film since Inception. I can't imagine it will win too many awards at the Oscars, since the hype has died down, but Dunkirk wins this matchup.
*that should read "Darkest Hour is a solid if unspectacular venture"
^This is the best and most truthful post I've ever seen on this site. Bless you!
Sorry, I'm typing on my phone and it wasn't coming through. Sorry...
Darkest Hour for having more engagement than the overly sterile Dunkirk. And since Eagleskywalker87 accidentally posted the same response a few times I'll balance it out.
Darkest Hour will hopefully get Gar Oldman his first Oscar
Dunkirk is like a Bizzaro world Saving Private Ryan.
Darkest Hour > Dunkirk. And that should balance things out
Dunkirk was simply the better effort, despite the definitive Jim Gordon giving his best in DH.
Dunkirk was better. Jim Gordon was amazing, but the film itself was not.
Darkest Hour was successful if a bit cloying in its modest ambitions and Oldman's performance raised the film to an average grade. Dunkirk was tremendously ambitious but remarkably undermined by Nolan's penchant for prioritizing narrative gimmicks. Howard Hawks would tell Nolan that his strategies are inherently annoying to audiences--although they seem to work for many who I've come to believe must be more interested in films that are like M. Night Shymalan puzzles that lead only to themselves and not to any greater understanding of reality or humanity. For my part, I consider Nolan the most excessively expositional director in the history of cinema and I generally like as little exposition as possible when I watch a film--so I freely admit the prejudice and you can take it for it's worth. I've seen about 50 2017 films so far and rank Dunkirk about 45th so it was very much a chore for me.
Darkest Hour only had one attribute ,Gary Oldman. Dunkirk was never dull unlike Darkest Hour.
Gary Oldman was amazing. Can't say that about any of the cardboard cast of the incredibly lame Dunkirk that indeed was filled with narrative gimmicks and little else.