Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Dorathen Better Late Then Never

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

jimel98 I was flipping channels and came across this dreck a little less than 1/2 way through. I started to watch and within seconds found myself saying, "How did that...?" " When did....?" "That's not right." "I'm not genius or expert, but WHAT THE....?" and so forth.VERY few of the actors looked much like their characters as if the casting director simply said, "If they're white and male, feh, it works. Oh, but put a pair of glasses on that guy."As other reviews have mentioned, poetic license is to be expected to some degree and honestly, with that much of a timespan to cover and all that material, one has to be realistic enough to know that you can't include every detail or you'd end up with a movie almost as long as the war itself. It's just not going to happen. But with that in mind, isn't it in everyone's best interest to get what you ARE covering more than a LITTLE right?The History Channel has become a joke. What was once one of the most fascinating and informative channels for us history buffs has become a hodgepodge of reality crap shows. It's heartbreaking, but my anti-TV executive rants are common in my reviews, so, here's more evidence to back up my beliefs. When they DO an actual history show, I guess we shouldn't expect much more from them than this. And this stinker is now 4 years old. Sheesh, now I'm starting to cry.

JaniceShaww Summarizing five years of global conflict into five hours is certainly a challenge, but this series is one for the books. I've never seen anything that blows past so many events that were critical to both wars. And the lack of attention to detail is amazing - I can understand things like guns and planes and uniforms, because it can be hard to locate and/or create them for the production. But this totally lost all credibility when portraying the Tehran conference, where Roosevelt is casually rotating his foot while sitting (um...how do you do that when wearing a leg brace?), and where wardrobe didn't even bother to have Churchill dressed in a uniform. And with young Hitler, not once did we get any sense of his early anger - he just appeared to be some displaced emo kid with a chip on his shoulder. A slapped together, D-grade effort at best.

edwardlbinkley I have been studying WWII since I was old enough to read and considering I am now 66, that has been a while.While I feel the mini series was informative for most novices what I found insulting is the footage selected to accompany the narrative being shown. For example; the Battle of Britain footage included the wrong aircraft types including footage of American P-51 fighters, B-17 and B-24 bombers and other aircraft and battles which took place after the Battle of Britain.There is plenty of actual footage of the right type of British aircraft like the British Spitfire and Hurricanes that actually did participate in those epic battles. The use of American footage shows an inattention to detail that is unacceptable and unnecessary. It shows a lack of concern with detail replaced with... I don't know... laziness or, at the very least, a lack of concern for authenticity IF that was the desired result in the first place.The way things are presented can make or break a project. In my opinion World Wars failed when the details became irrelevant which, in turn, made the entire project irrelevant.Whoever decided to cheat the viewing public out of what they professed they were delivering should be ashamed or, at least, get a better informed research staff that actually does some research.Ed BinkleyBetter luck next-time.

Zach Hiatt This mini-series has a lot of great narration and historical facts. I will give it that much. The first scene really draws you in with Adolph Hitler and the First World War, but that is just about as good as it gets theatrical wise. Everything after that tends to slope constantly. The re-enactments were the most pathetic I've ever seen. Multiple times a ship would be sailing in the ocean with either a British, American, Nazi, and Japanese flag attached to the rear. Each time the ship was the exact same and it had a helipad and satellite dishes all over the main section. Multiple times American Marines from the Pacific theater were show as Italian, French, or Polish soldiers. Half of the time Hitler would speak short sentences in German with subtitles, but when there were full dialogued scenes, he would speak in English. Many scenes with Patton as a Junior officer referred to him as a Captain pre World War I, then as a Lieutenant post World War I while wearing Lieutenant Colonel Silver Oak Leafs. It was a poor representation of the uniform in my respect.