Is Darkest Hour Worth Watching?
Answer: Yes, Darkest Hour is definitely worth watching if you enjoy Drama movies.
It features a runtime of 125 minutes and offers a solid storyline that appeals to general audiences.

Verdict:Darkest Hour is a confirmed HIT based on our analysis of audience ratings and box office momentum.
With a rating of 7.4/10, it has delivered a compelling experience for fans of the Drama, History genre.
Answer: Yes, Darkest Hour is definitely worth watching if you enjoy Drama movies.
It features a runtime of 125 minutes and offers a solid storyline that appeals to general audiences.
Last updated: January 18, 2026
Released in the dynamic cinematic landscape of 2017, Darkest Hour emerges as a significant entry in the Drama, History domain. The narrative core of the film focuses on a sophisticated exploration of In May 1940, the fate of World War II hangs on Winston Churchill, who must decide whether to negotiate with Adolf Hitler or fight on knowing that it could mean the end of the British Empire. Unlike standard genre fare, Darkest Hour attempts to deconstruct traditional tropes, offering a refreshing take on its central themes.
The success of any Drama is often anchored by its ensemble, and Darkest Hour features a noteworthy lineup led by Gary Oldman . Supported by the likes of Stephen Dillane and Lily James , the performances bring a palpable realism to the scripted words.
Performance Analysis: While the cast delivers competent and professional performances, they are occasionally hampered by a script that leans into familiar archetypes.
In summary, our editorial assessment of Darkest Hour (2017) is overwhelmingly positive. With an audience rating of 7.4/10, it stands as a mandatory watch for any serious cinema lover.
Quick Plot Summary: Darkest Hour is a Drama, History film that explores complex human emotions and relationships through nuanced character development. This summary provides a scannable look at the movie's central conflict and narrative structure.
This character-driven narrative explores the internal and external conflicts that define the human experience. In May 1940, the fate of World War II hangs on Winston Churchill, who must decide whether to negotiate with Adolf Hitler or fight on knowing that it could mean the end of the British Empire. The screenplay takes time to develop its characters, allowing audiences to connect emotionally with their struggles and triumphs. Each scene builds upon the last, creating a cumulative emotional impact.
The film delves into universal human experiences—love, loss, identity, and belonging. It holds up a mirror to society, asking difficult questions about morality, choice, and consequence.
Ending Breakdown: Darkest Hour resolves its central conflict while maintaining thematic consistency. The finale has been praised for its approach to drama resolution.
The emotional climax centers on character transformation, offering viewers material for post-viewing discussion.
The final moments of Darkest Hour reflect the filmmakers' creative choices, offering an ending that aligns with the film's tone and style.
Darkest Hour draws heavily from documented historical records. As a drama, history film, it navigates the space between factual accuracy and narrative engagement.
The film balances historical fidelity with cinematic storytelling. Core events maintain connection to source material while adapting for theatrical presentation.
The production demonstrates respect for its source material, with attention to period detail and historical context.
Accuracy Assessment: Darkest Hour adapts its source material for dramatic purposes. The film prioritizes thematic resonance over documentary precision.
Worth Watching If You:
| Metric / Region | Collection (Approx) |
|---|---|
| Production Budget | $30.0M |
| Worldwide Gross | $150.8M |
| Trade Verdict | CLEAN HIT |
The estimated production budget for Darkest Hour is $30.0M. This figure covers principal photography, talent acquisitions, and visual effects. When accounting for global marketing and distribution, the break-even point is typically 2x the base production cost.










JioHotstar
Zee5
Amazon VideoAnalyzing the audience sentiment, IMDb rating of 7.4/10, and global collection metrics, Darkest Hour stands as a successful venture for the creators. It remains an essential piece of the 2017 cinematic year.
Darkest Hour is considered a hit based on audience response and box office performance. With a rating of 7.4/10, it's highly recommended for fans of Drama, History movies.
Yes, Darkest Hour is definitely worth watching! It's a must-watch hit for fans of Drama, History cinema.
Darkest Hour is currently available for streaming on JioHotstar. You can also check for it on platforms like JioHotstar depending on your region.
I have no idea why people are raving about this film, it's a bit crap, it's probably Oldman weakest performance to date, and the cinematography is terrible. Churchill with Brian Cox in the lead role is a FAR superior film on the subject.
As with many of the biopics I've seen recently, _Darkest Hour_ is more focussed on delivering you the facts than getting you involved with the characters. It is an interesting idea to have the majority of the story revolve around the of whether or not to sue for peace. That as a core concept in so much as the question of "Do I take the guarantee of saving my country or do I take the risk of saving the world?" and beyond that "Is there even a right answer to that question? And who am I to decide something this big?" is a great philosophical centre for a movie. But I never felt like I knew why any of these people had the answers that they gave. I get that in a historical context, these aren't characters they are real life people, so they answers they had are the answers we see, but again, we are only given the _what_, not the _why_. Except you can throw all of that away because here comes Gary Oldman in his Oscar nominated transformation to make this movie 100% worth watching. _Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._
It's 1940, and Hitler is attempting to take over Europe. The film takes an interesting look at Winston Churchill's first five weeks as Prime Minister. The acting in this movie is quite accomplished; good actors bring insight and depth to the characters. Overall, it's a well-done, engrossing film. Gary Oldman's performance as Winston Churchill was very good indeed, and his delivery of Churchill's speeches alone make watching the movie worthwhile!
I saw this film at TIFF on the big screen and loved it. There's not a weak member of the cast. I really loved the way the photography reflected the sense of gloom that would have been felt by the people facing a new war. Big thumbs up, gives a strong sense of the time and place.
Gary Oldman was superb as Churchill.
I thought I might have seen this a couple pf years ago, but I still enjoyed it. There have been a few movies about Churchill’s rise to power at the outset of World War II. This one seems to cover the least amount of ground, focusing on his thought processes, the political climate and his personal life leading only up to the beginning of the Dunkirk evacuation. I thought there were two things the film did well with its strong writing and actor portrayal: the first was to present Churchill, a larger than life character, as just a life-size person, with the foibles and weaknesses he carried around with him. The other strength was in building depth into some of the secondary characters. His new aide typist, for example, is ready to quit after Churchill yells at her unfairly. It would have been easy to rehabilitate him for that temper tantrum by having him soften towards her and convince her to stay on. Instead she leaves the building, is handed an important communication from the king, and decides for herself to stay on and do the job. Churchill is the focal point pf the film, but again and again he shares the limelight onscreen with others like this, such as the extended scene in the subway. So within it’s narrow focus, I think the movie does a great job telling the story of this interlude from history.
A tour de force from Gary Oldman as he portrays Winston Churchill in his first few months of office at the start of WWII. Oddly enough though, aside from a few brief appearances from Kristin Scott-Thomas, the rest of the cast in this historical biopic are really quite unremarkable. The speeches are delivered magnificently; but there are too many speculative machinations going on - not least those involving King George VI - that do bring the credibility of this into question. There was plenty of accurately documented reportage from this time to enable Anthony McCarten to pen an entertaining script based more on the facts of this unsteady period of Churchill's premiership; Dunkirk; his relationship with Halifax & Roosevelt etc. rather than invent storylines. The attention to detail is superb and Oldman well deserved his second Oscar.
This analysis is compiled by our editorial experts using multi-source verification and audience sentiment data for maximum accuracy.