2017 was the year of Winston Churchill movies the way that 1998 was the year of Earth

killing meteor films and if Dunkirk is the self serious deep impact that must mean

darkest hour is Armageddon. Maybe the strongest similarity between the films is

tone. Now look I'm going to see this comparison through to its

academic conclusion so buckle up. You've got a threat that imperils the planet and

one flawed man who can save the day. the Are you following? The Churchill of this movie is a genius, but he's also a drunk who shows up to work in an open robe who is cruel to his secretary, and he's loathed by his coworkers.

It's basically John Roderick in the early 90s except for the secretary part.

His rep is one of useful idiot and that's a term I think a lot of people are more familiar with now

than ever before. No one wants the job he's been recruited for and most people

believe he will fail but he's the best idea that they have. He's their moonshot.

It's a serious moment in history and the situation is grave but everyone is just so quippy.

It's like if a war film were written by Kevin Williamson,

I half expected a Gilmore girl to be Churchill's secretary.

But that isn't to say that it's bad because it's definitely not. This is a good film

stacked with great performances. Gary Oldman is so amazing in his performance of John

Roderick in the year 2040 that it's actually

inspired him to start a juice cleanse and buy a gym membership. Thanks again

for supporting friendly fire at maximum fund.org slash donate. The story is Europe is on the brink of losing to Hitler.

The story of Dunkirk is playing off-screen and some of the most intense parts of this film are spent

in the bathroom.

We barely see a weapon discharged and we only see one dead body in the entire movie and yet

the tread is so present in every scene.

...