Hottoceame The Age of Commercialism

BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

GazerRise Fantastic!

Aiden Melton The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

dimitrios karagiannis Imagine if someone was making a documentary for the First Civil War without even mentioning Belgium ,what kind of documentary would that be deemed? Now the producers managed to achieve no mention of Greece, whilst having the opportunity to do so for 10 episodes!And no, we are not talking about interpretations of facts (the Armenian/Pontian genocide is 'disputed' according to the authors) , we are talking about just mentioning Greece (!) despite the fact that Greece participated in the First World WarIf someone didn't know anything about the First World War ,this documentary gives the impression that Greece didn't participate at all!!That's an utter disgrace and the explanation is simple.Either the producers did that one deliberately , or they are incompetentAnd whilst the documentary is in general well produced , they managed to fail spectacularly by NOT including one of the main countries who participated in the First World War

Miles-10 You would not recommend reading only one history book, so why would anyone recommend only one documentary about World War I? This is a good documentary because it covers a great deal and very engagingly, but sometimes it tries to cover too much and necessarily leaves gaps. If you watch other documentaries, you will find out that the first great tank breakthrough was preceded by a tank failure and that the British Expeditionary Force was so unprepared for the breakthrough when it came that they failed to send enough troops into the breach to secure it, leading to the German recapture of the temporarily lost territory.There is confusion, too, as when it is said that German commander von Hutier's attack on Amiens, France had no purpose, but a few minutes later it is said that when Ludendorff decided to attack Amiens he had an objective of smashing the railroad nexus there. Had Hutier succeeded, wouldn't that have served the same purpose even if accidentally?A mass of information is presented that dizzies the old hand let alone the beginner, but even so, I was glad that this documentary offers a wealth of stimulating information about all sides of the conflict. The fact that it is British-made gives it an unavoidable bias that is made up for by its attempt to bring other nation's voices into the narrative, using the accounts of both well-known and relatively unknown participants.There are many documentaries about World War I that are also good. Some, for example, focus more than this one on the war from the point of view of those outside of Europe. This one gives a lot of information about that aspect of the war even though it tries to cover too much ground to tell the viewer all the details. This is a survey, and a pretty good starting point. Learn more about World War I, and you will come to see that there are other opinions on some of the topics. There is more subject matter than this documentary had time to cover, and you might even think that what they left out is awfully important. You might, nevertheless, always remember "The First World War" fondly as an equally informative and moving introduction.

John Esche I was eagerly looking forward to this ten episode, four DVD set (8 hours and 23 minutes in all) based on the claims on the box of previously unseen film footage and newly accessible archival material from Central and Eastern European sources and most especially the ties to a book by a "professor" (presumably of history - Hew Strachan). Unfortunately, as assembled (in an initially promising chronological format) by BBC 4, there is little or no pretense of objective history and far too many omissions and distortions in the service of a strictly British viewpoint. The over all effect, despite copious quotations from participants on all sides, is like a history of World War II's "D-Day" told entirely from Field Marshall Montgomery's aide de camp's viewpoint.The vast majority of film footage (mostly acknowledged - but not some of the obvious naval model work; possibly from faked "newsreels"?) is from 1920's and 30's film reconstructions and fictionalizations mixed with color footage of locales as they look today. While there is interesting period movie footage, it is almost all behind the lines and of close-up non-action scenes and TV cameras scanning across still photos.One of the single most desired sequences, the final newsreel footage of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand leaving the Serajevo City Hall moments before his assassination, is only shown in the abbreviated and already much circulated cut. The reasons for Franz Ferdinand - a fascinating, complex figure given very short shrift here (and his Sophie) being in Bosnia that day (their 14th Wedding Anniversary) are totally omitted - as are any understanding of his reigning Uncle, Emperor Franz Joseph at the head of a great multi-cultural empire or the reasons the majority of Moslem Bosnia was opposed to Eastern Orthodox Serbian pretensions over their territory since both broke away from the shrinking Ottoman Empire.Once the war itself started (you will be hard pressed to understand why from the sketchy story told here), the British documentary almost entirely ignores the original combatants but focuses on the British and their conflict with Austria's unsubtle allies in Germany.Because of the British confrontations (to their considerable discomfort) with the Ottoman Turk, much time is spent on this front, allowing at least rudimentary (and that's about all) discussion of the source of the continuing Armenian question in Episode Four, but even here, there is almost no followable line of the way the Ottoman wobbled in and out of the war until finally committing to the Central Powers following the second Russian Revolution in 1917, removing them from the war. There is even less discussion of impact of the tenuous Japanese alliance with the Russians and British springing from the settlement of the Russo-Japanese War in 1905.A far better look at the complexity of World War I (although neither attempt or claim to be as complete in the material covered), with far more actual footage from the period in question is available in several documentaries ranging from Hollywood GOES TO WAR to WORLD WAR I IN COLOR. This Anglophile attempt at history is only for the dedicated Anglophile looking for entertainment pretending to be serious, not the serious amateur historian who will see too many holes spoiling the fun.

SpanishInquisitionMP There have been some pretty good documentary series on World War One - like the BBC's '1914-18' and 'The Great War,' which inspired 'The World at War' - but this Channel Four series is the best ever. Unlike almost all of the others it gives you a look at the WORLD war aspect of it, not just focusing on the Western Front or (like most poor US documentaries) on the last year when America was involved, you also see the war in Russia, in Arabia, in Africa to get a real sense of the scale. Unlike 1914-18 it takes a chronological look at the war, but does it in a riveting way: the first episode plays like a thriller, while others are like tragedies. And it doesn't fall in for clichés or easy targets. It dispels a lot of myths along the way (for example, did you know the assassinated Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand was anti-militarist and had actually prevented war breaking out several times? I didn't) and holds your attention throughout. And the haunting end title music written by a composer who died in the war is unforgettable.One of the greatest TV shows ever, it's a crime this is so little known and failed to win any major awards. It's on DVD and if you've any interest in the subject at all, it's the only WW1 doc you need to buy.