NOTE IMDb
7,6/10
2 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueChurchill's pivotal leadership role during WWII, his wartime strategy, and the life events that shaped him as a paramount figure of the era, told through his own words.Churchill's pivotal leadership role during WWII, his wartime strategy, and the life events that shaped him as a paramount figure of the era, told through his own words.Churchill's pivotal leadership role during WWII, his wartime strategy, and the life events that shaped him as a paramount figure of the era, told through his own words.
- Récompenses
- 1 nomination au total
Parcourir les épisodes
Avis à la une
I enjoyed with miniseries about the war years of Mr. Churchill, with the first episode about him actually fighting in the Boer War and in WWI and also orchestrating the Gallipoli disaster. Maybe that could have been expanded, but the focus of this documentary was WWII.
The remaining episodes tell in details the rise of Churchill during the darkest hours, his struggle to keep Britain fighting and his attempt to lure President Roosevelt in the fight.
When the US declared war in 1941, Britain and Churchill rejoiced only to realise that they were going to play second fiddle to the rising superpowers of the Soviet Union and US.
The last episode wraps things nicely showing how Churchill did not go gently when he - surprisingly to me - lost the elections in 1945 and how eventually he made a come back and still stands as one of the greatest protagonists of the XX century, no matter what some want you to believe and despite all his defects and mistakes - after all he was human.
The remaining episodes tell in details the rise of Churchill during the darkest hours, his struggle to keep Britain fighting and his attempt to lure President Roosevelt in the fight.
When the US declared war in 1941, Britain and Churchill rejoiced only to realise that they were going to play second fiddle to the rising superpowers of the Soviet Union and US.
The last episode wraps things nicely showing how Churchill did not go gently when he - surprisingly to me - lost the elections in 1945 and how eventually he made a come back and still stands as one of the greatest protagonists of the XX century, no matter what some want you to believe and despite all his defects and mistakes - after all he was human.
Churchill at War is a near perfect documentary about the Winston Churchill and the challenges of his time. Told through video news footage, archives, interviews, and theatrical recreations, this four part series is very well done. There is much we know about Churchill as the man who rose to become the arch-nemesis of Adolf Hitler in World War II and the face of Great Britain. I find many documentaries to be way too long and filled with unnecessary information. Even at four parts that is not the case here. This is as engaging as any motion picture. The actor who plays Churchill does not really look like him but the sound is uncanny.
Until the line "UK gave time, USA gave money, Russia gave blood," I was quite fond of the series. The timeline of events was very new to me, and it's a very insightful way to think about such historical events.
In the documentary "Churchill at War," Russia is used interchangeably with the Soviet Union; it's equivalent to the other 14 republics.
It's 2024, and people who ignore 14 other republics and their sacrifices should not make documentaries.
Look at their Wikipedia numbers - World War II casualties of the Soviet Union, 16.3% of the Ukrainian population, 25.3% of Belarus - these are not Russian sacrifices, and joining them under the "Russia" umbrella is similar to declaring that New York State won civil war.
In the documentary "Churchill at War," Russia is used interchangeably with the Soviet Union; it's equivalent to the other 14 republics.
It's 2024, and people who ignore 14 other republics and their sacrifices should not make documentaries.
Look at their Wikipedia numbers - World War II casualties of the Soviet Union, 16.3% of the Ukrainian population, 25.3% of Belarus - these are not Russian sacrifices, and joining them under the "Russia" umbrella is similar to declaring that New York State won civil war.
I enjoyed the series while also recognising that it isn't everything that it could have been.
In terms of narrative, it faithfully hits all the major plot points of the Second World War. Though the pundits and 'live action recreations' are sometimes a hit, sometimes a miss.
The recolourised archival footage is truly spectacular. It brings the war from the myth of history to a lived human experience.
This is particularly relevant now. Democratic decline is a rising tide. One that we are only beginning to wrestle with (even outside obvious examples). Appeasement in the face of imperialist aggression is spoken of as the lesser evil. These are dangerous waters and they are not new. History must be understood if it is not to be repeated.
This is why I forgive the show for it's inclusion of politicians. Even those who probably have no right to be there.
The link that it makes from the past to the present (aided through colour footage) is enough for me to view their inclusion as having value.
Is the show a masterpiece? No. Did I enjoy it as someone with an interest in history. I did indeed.
In terms of narrative, it faithfully hits all the major plot points of the Second World War. Though the pundits and 'live action recreations' are sometimes a hit, sometimes a miss.
The recolourised archival footage is truly spectacular. It brings the war from the myth of history to a lived human experience.
This is particularly relevant now. Democratic decline is a rising tide. One that we are only beginning to wrestle with (even outside obvious examples). Appeasement in the face of imperialist aggression is spoken of as the lesser evil. These are dangerous waters and they are not new. History must be understood if it is not to be repeated.
This is why I forgive the show for it's inclusion of politicians. Even those who probably have no right to be there.
The link that it makes from the past to the present (aided through colour footage) is enough for me to view their inclusion as having value.
Is the show a masterpiece? No. Did I enjoy it as someone with an interest in history. I did indeed.
I'm interested in the real footage of the War and hearing the details of how Churchill lead Britain. I can do totally without the talking heads interrupting and giving completely pointless opinions, especially Boris Johnson and George W. Bush. Who thought that was a good idea?
Neither of those belong in any piece about Churchill.
I could do without any extras making statements about the obvious, it's a distraction and annoying. They should have had one narrator, seldom seen and it would have been much more tolerable. There are better documentaries but I would have found this one interesting if they'd left off the bad acting bits.
Neither of those belong in any piece about Churchill.
I could do without any extras making statements about the obvious, it's a distraction and annoying. They should have had one narrator, seldom seen and it would have been much more tolerable. There are better documentaries but I would have found this one interesting if they'd left off the bad acting bits.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesChristian McKay who plays Churchill also plays Roosevelt in a documentary about FDR released in 2023 called FDR
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Durée1 heure
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 16:9 HD
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant