Lightdeossk Captivating movie !

ThrillMessage There are better movies of two hours length. I loved the actress'performance.

BeSummers Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

Bumpy Chip It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

damakuc If history were presented in the "Battlefield" series format, I would have undoubtedly like it much more...The series manages to strike a very good balance of introducing the key impacts in major battles of WW2. It does not want to reduce the battle to one single trigger, instead it focuses on the prelude, people, weaponry and tactics/strategy.The latter is a favorite part of mine, as this was usually the key ingredient missing in many other popular historic presentations. The series devotes a significant amount of time to this part, making much more sense of why did the great generals behave the way they did.As I grew up in the "computer game" generation, this series made me remember of the endless number of strategy games I've played, and in particular, of the game "Civilization".The graphics and music background are not high-tech, however, IMHO this only reduces any distractions and makes you enjoy this series even more.

DigIt First I should say I'm a whole time WWII buffs, I've seen most of documentaries and films on the subject, played tactical and strategic war games (both on computers and tabletops); I have read a huge collection of books and I'm an expert modeler on this historical age subject and studied in detail weapons, uniforms, organizations etc. I had a chance to see this whole series and admittedly it deals with tactics and weaponry, but i.e. the images associated to the spoken text are quite often repetitive and even altogether wrong, belonging to other battles or weapons.The music is such a soporific electronic noise it can surely help you loose patience upon the relentless repetitions of images and text... It shows a very poor scripting and researches relative to the actual images of the battles they try to describe in depth; some few interesting and revealing information may be found even by the experts and historians, but to get them you have to go through a large amount of to say the least "boring editing". Great idea, but badly accomplished: even the 3d animated titles belong to the prehistoric age of CG and look like a less than professional and low budget production.I suggest you spare your time and stay away from it: look for some better documented and above all realized series and there are many.

TheEmulator23 This is an extremely well done series. The only complaint I have is the god-awful music throughout. It's terrible & the same in every single episode I've seen. Now that I've gotten that out of the way, I have absolutely nothing but praise for this fantastically knowledgeable & well put together series. There is so much about this that is both factual & entertaining at the same time. I would tell everyone to watch this superb series but especially those interested in WWII. Even for Historians of the era or Wannabe historians such as myself who know a ton about the period, there is still information that is quite interesting. I will say that those who just have a passing interest in WWII might not want to watch this as it's generally pretty in-depth for it's 1 hour 37 minute episodes. Give this a try, just ignore the bad music & learn.

jacksflicks "Battlefield" is a masterful rendering of military history. It somewhat arbitrarily presents World War II as a series of battles. This is slightly misleading, since the "Battle for the Rhine" as two tapes are titled, was actually a campaign made up of battles such as Arnheim, Bastogne and the Bulge, which lasted from the D-Day landings to the fall of Berlin. Of course, the totality of a war cannot be explained this way, but "Battlefield's" perspective is narrowly focused on the operational aspect of the war.Each battle is broken into two tapes, "Prelude" and "The Battle"; each of these is broken into sections comparing leadership (politicians, generals), men (soldiers, sailors, airmen), arms and strategic situations, addressing their respective strengths and weaknesses. The campaigns are illustrated with war footage and punctuated with dynamic war maps. This analytic approach may seem dry to someone looking for a war-as-hell or human interest perspective, but as another reviewer has pointed out, these latter approaches have already been used in other series.Tim Piggot-Smith is a great narrator, giving an urgent, expressive, yet even and restrained voice to the events.One quibble: I think "Battlefield" omits some important aspects of particular battles. For example, it doesn't go into enough detail about the successful diversion of Halsey's task force in the Battle of Leyte Gulf to explain how the element of luck was crucial to the American victory. This is covered in other series, such as the History Channel's one-tape Leyte Gulf history. Perhaps the European theater is more vivid to the British than the Pacific theater, which was mainly an aircraft carrier and marine operation between the Japanese and Americans. Of course, when "Battlefield" covers aspects of the war with Japan in which Britain played a major part, such as South Asia, the coverage seems more meticulous. Being American, I may be biased, but this is my impression.This quibble notwithstanding, "Battlefield" is by far the best video series about World War II, from an operational viewpoint.