VividSimon Simply Perfect

Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

Bluebell Alcock Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Kinley This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

bmbeck Tl;dr-Decent coverage of Europe, great footage, some serious, head- scratching errors made in the already sparse coverage of the PacificOverall, a decent coverage of the high points of the war, especially in Europe, though it is by no means unbiased as some have suggested. The footage is great, with a good deal of it either not ever seen or rarely seen before. The color, while it can be a bit jarring since the originals were black and white, I think adds a sense of realness, that this horrible thing we call World War II actually happened in our world, and not in some other, colorless alternate universe. I watched the English version narrated by Martin Sheen on Netflix.I did learn some interesting things about the war in Europe, especially about some of the events that happened in France and with the Free French Forces (which makes sense for a French documentary). But this is far from the best WWII documentary ever.My main complaint is it's treatment of the war in the Pacific. Not just because it is so short (though it is, nothing is mentioned of the Pacific until the end of episode three of a six part series), but because of blatant factual errors made in both the text appearing on screen and in the narrative (and also because I tend to gravitate towards the Pacific theater, being the son of a naval aviator). The two biggest that jumped out at me were first, when discussing the Battle of Midway, as the narrator begins talking about the Japanese launching their strike on Midway, on the screen "June 7th, 1942" flashes in big, white letters, while the actual assault on Midway began on June 3rd (Midway time). The episode also gets some of the sequence of events during the course of the battle wrong, but these errors are less noticeable.Second, was in discussing the Guadalcanal campaign, the narrator refers the the first planes to land on Henderson Field as "the Black Sheep Squadron," while the assortment of Allied aircraft operating from Henderson field during the early parts of the battle for Guadalcanal were actually known as the "Cactus Air Force." While the VMF-214 Black Sheep were indeed a squadron that fought in the Solomon's Campaign, and even flew out of Guadalcanal for a short time (though they mostly flew out of airfields on other islands), they were not even formed until over a year after the original landings on Guadalcanal. These are errors that could have been easily corrected by consulting with a historian of the Pacific war (or even with an amateur history buff with an interest in that theater). Why this simple step was not taken by an obviously professional group of documentary filmmakers is beyond me.

RealLiveClaude This series followed "Apocalypse: Hitler", and explains with sometimes very crude and brutal images, the events of World War II.Narrated by Mathieu Kassovitz in French, it truly brings the war up to its exploits and its horrors. Some excerpts were shot by American directors John Ford and John Huston, right on the spot.Thus maybe one flaw was the fact that it showed mostly the war on the European front, Hitler's wanting to rule the world, the Soviets fighting back with strong forces. Only the fourth episode shows the Pacific War with the Japanese using "Bushido" to stand up to its enemies, mostly the Americans. It took atomic bombs to end it all...And in Europe, the crush on three sides: the Normandy Raid, the African defeats and the Soviet eastern push did end Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy dominations.This is a documentary not to be missed. Warning: some images can be disturbing...

bttp Maybe the story is not 100% complete, and maybe it gets a little confusing because so many things happen simultaneously throughout the world, so it's understandable that they didn't cover every single aspect and that it's a little too much "French biased", after all it is a French documentary. For example they didn't cover the Balkans at all, and there was one of the most complicated situations in the whole WW2. Maybe not the most important, but certainly interesting, especially in Yugoslavia, where there was in effect a three-way civil war under Nazi occupation, between royalists, communists and quislings going on simultaneously with the armed resistance to Nazis. So that in itself is a situation that would require it's own documentary, and I can see that the authors maybe did not wan't to get into explaining those difficult circumstances when it may take too much time. But the sheer amount of film material shown, that I've never seen before, is astonishing to say the least. I watched every episode eyes wide open. And it's that WW2 video material itself that makes this documentary worth having in one's collection.

djeezman It is a France 2 documentary and as such very french biased.Many french sensitive issues (Vichy.. only the top a disgrace, or whole french populations under Vichy a disgrace ?! ), liberation of France by active troops in terms of men, material..how much (or rather how little) was french, etc. are left under the carpet.All the world-war issues are looked upon with french interest/viewpoint..if there isn't one, then there is no attention to it or only as a 5 second footnote (Fights in Norway? Holland ? Belgium ? Convoy war at Atlantic ? Balkan fights Tito resistance, Soviet fights in Balkan countries ? MarketGarden ? Japan's fights and occupation in china,New Guinea,etc).However french issues which are marginal to the outside world are given broad attention (french ministers crisis 1940, negotiations Roosevelt with Gaulle en Vichy favoured representative in 1943, Bir Hakeim stand, LeClerc background (ahem Zjoekov's background ? Monty's Background? Alexander's background?), Indochine taken over by Japan, French resistance actions (no resistance elsewhere?), De Gaulle's return in France and focus on his political problems).Like before-mentioned text: Many films have been aired before..only a few are rare (from French sources). All are coloured in, which gives it a special touch-but not all are coloured in thoroughly (only face one colour, one colour for uniform, one colour for bushes, one colour for ground).It's nice to see, and it keeps you captivated...but it is not THE best documentary, and certainly not "neutral"(unbiased).