Much of the trouble perhaps stems from the director (a historian, but not a WWII specialist I believe) taking a very sideways look at the events, presenting the man himself as far more opposed to the landings than he in fact was. Churchill, undoubtedly a man of many failings, is portrayed 'in the raw' (not physically
), but perhaps more so than is fair in this production, possibly simply in order to give the film it's alternative slant. Clemmie, the leaders long suffering wife, is portrayed as the strength behind the great man and Miranda Richardson gives the role her considerable all - but in such a presentation the man himself is significantly reduced, and unfairly so in the eyes of many experts. There is no evidence apparently, of either strains in the marriage, anti-american feelings or overt action to try to thwart the D-Day strategy that the film relies on for much of its meat, and as such it must be viewed as historically flawed to a greater degree than is acceptable in a work of this type.
