Into the Storm: HBO revisits Churchill after the war
It is not in a league with its earlier Winston Churchill-World War II drama, The Gathering Storm, but HBO's Sunday night companion film, Into the Storm, has rewards of its own.
Chief among them, the performance of Janet McTeer as Churchill's wife, Clementine, and a psychologically-nuanced script from Hugh Whitemore, who also wrote the The Gathering Storm.
The bad news: I am not that crazy about the performance of Brendan Gleeson as Churchill. I know this was a down period for the charismatic prime minister, but there is no sense of the dark depths or fiery passion Albert Finney brought to the role in the 2002 HBO look at Churchill on the eve of the war.
The drama is set right after World War II on a holiday to southern France. Churchill should be at the top of the world after leading Britain through the war. But instead, he is awaiting the results of an election that could unseat him.
Give the film, which ppremieres at 9 tonight and runs several times during June, three stars. Beyond the work of McTeer and Whitemore, this is a splendid production to look at -- especially the primary setting in France.
If you can't get enough of Churchill and World War II, as many can't, you'll find a lot to like. But, as one of those viewers who are fascinated with the period and the players, I have to say that I was not blown away as I was by The Gathering Storm.
Comments
Is Into the Storm a continuation of The Gathering Storm would you be better off to watch the first one before the second?? I am not to crazy about the history of World War II, but I might give it a try. My husabnd really like these films. I would rather watch the Jesse Stone series based on the Robert Parker novels. Anyone out there who likes a good cop/mystery should try these (Night Passage, Stone Cold, Danger in Paradise), they are on Hallmark from time to time.
Hi, you do not need to have seen Gathering Storm to enjoy this one. It can be seen as a stand-alone film. You can back later and see the other. Jesse Stone films are very successful. Thanks. Z
Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2009 3:50 PM
The biggest disappointment for me was the obviously superficial level of historical accuracy. To give but two examples :-
1). The apparent belief, put into the mouth of Alanbrooke by the writers, that the heavy coastal gun batteries at Singapore could not fire inland. In fact, four of the five fifteen inch guns could (and did) fire inland. The problem was that they were intended to deter a naval assault, and were only supplied with armour piercing (rather than high explosive) shells. Alanbrooke would have been well aware of this.
2). The idea that Churchill would have believed that the key to the defence of Britain in the Summer of 1940 was air power. Churchill was well aware that the Royal Navy held total naval supremacy in the Channel area, and would have been well able to overwhelm an invasion force of hastily- converted Rhine barges which lacked any serious naval protection. The importance of the Battle of Britain was that it provided valuable propaganda to present to the United States, by demonstrating that Britain was still in the fight.
Unfortunately, these (and other) basic flaws wrecked the credibility of the programme.
Posted by: Geoff. Hewitt | November 3, 2009 2:59 PM