For me, it was a letdown. The film started out strongly and was very interesting at first (like within the first 30 minutes or so). But then it started to go downhill, and got progressively more boring. I couldn't wait for the film to end. Also, I was originally under the assumption that this film would cover Churchill's tenure as prime minister during WWII, but instead it was solely about the decisions he made during the Dunkirk incident. I hate that trend in modern biopics, that they only cover a specific (short) period in the title character's life (the 2012 film Lincoln did the same thing).
With all that being said, I do feel that Darkest Hour makes a worthy nominee for Best Picture. I only wish Kristin Scott-Thomas and Ben Mendelsson had been given more to do. Especially Ben -- he was really good as George VI. He totally looked the part and his accent was spot-on.
I've been wondering if somehow the Academy screws Oldman over again? I think he'll win but the climate and other contenders like Daniel Day-Lewis or Denzel Washington however unlikely would prove a convenient excuse.
Very relevant to some stuff going on with American politics today. Winston Churchill was not necessarily liked, even by people in his own party, yet did what he thought was best despite all of the backlash. That mindset kind of reminded me of Trump in a way.
I liked the performance by Gary Oldman. Not surprised he got nominated for Best Actor.
I also did not like how it only covered operation Dynamo/Dunkirk. Winston Churchill was part of many big decisions during WWII. To only show Dunkirk was kinda a let down. His speech to parliament at the end should have been the climax, with events like The Battle for Britain, D-Day, or Germany's surrender as the finale.