First Invasion: The War of 1812

TV Movie
2004

IMDb RATING

7.3/10

198

YOUR RATING

Documentary History War

Elaborate reenactments are juxtaposed with comments by historians in this glossy review of America's "Second War of Independence" against Britain (1812-15). Included: the causes of the confl... Read allElaborate reenactments are juxtaposed with comments by historians in this glossy review of America's "Second War of Independence" against Britain (1812-15). Included: the causes of the conflict; American designs on Canada; the burning of Washington D.C.; the Battle of New Orleans... Read allElaborate reenactments are juxtaposed with comments by historians in this glossy review of America's "Second War of Independence" against Britain (1812-15). Included: the causes of the conflict; American designs on Canada; the burning of Washington D.C.; the Battle of New Orleans. Edward Herrmann narrates.

See production info at IMDbPro

IMDb RATING

7.3/10

198

YOUR RATING

See production info at IMDbPro

Nominated for 1 Primetime Emmy
- 1 nomination total

Photos

More like this

7.0

5.8

7.4

7.4

6.5

7.6

Platoon: Brothers in Arms

8.5

The Levys of Monticello

6.1

7.1

6.3

7.2

8.2

Storyline

Edit

Did you know

Edit

Goofs
James Madison was in life and was described in the movie as a short slight man of 100 pounds. The actor selected to portray him, while his height is never possible to ascertain, has the pudgy face of a man at least 20 pounds overweight and looks little like even the most heavy set portrait ever seen of James Madison.

User reviews11

Review

Featured review

Ridiculous "Documentary"

This "documentary" is so ridiculous it's laughable.

I don't need to go over what other people obviously already did but I just have to say I agree with them 100% I literally thought at one point while watching this documentary early on (I tuned it after it already started) that I was watching some kind of a comedy sketch.

The U.S. was acting in self defense when it invaded another country? On top of that, they were outnumbered and out-muscled by a small British expeditionary force and Canadian volunteer farmers with no military experience? And then on top of THAT, they won the war? (It's true that after Britain wrapped up their major war in Europe they sent battle-hardened troops to North America to fight this war, but that was already well after war broke out with the U.S. invading Canada - not to defend themselves but to try to take it over.) How do you have your capitol burnt, some of your territory occupied, so many of your troops captured, your country blockaded and only one major victory - occurring AFTER the war was over - and consider yourself the winner? It makes no sense at all. I guess you have to be American to understand it.