Purely Joyful Movie!

Please don't spend money on this.

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Blistering performances.

"Who would win in a fight between X and Y?"This game basically takes this schoolyard discussion and couches it in a simulation, following demonstration of the weaponry of the participants.If you are a fan of history, the show is interesting, showing the cool weaponry and giving a little insight to the men using the weaponry. Plus, it's undeniably cool to see them test the weapons.But, the show does get a bit preposterous often. Some of the history is not accurate, the "experts" have shaky credentials (some are just actors), and the battles come down pretty much to the weapons, not to the warriors, tactics or battlefields.The simulations at the end are entertaining, but they all follow the same formula: expect every weapon to make one appearance (and a kill in squad battles) and it comes down to one on one after a relatively even battle. The action and costumes are pretty good, but the special effects can get a bit cheesy at times. After three seasons, it becomes pretty predictable.I do have a problem with their top-secret "sophisticated computer program" determining the battles. It looks like a pretty simple spreadsheet crunch against an random number generator. This might have flown back in the 80s, when the average person knew nothing about computers or what they could do, but not today.Also, the experts on both sides do childish smack-talk and totally dismiss the other side's weaponry. It comes across as juvenile and contrived.In all, it's still quite entertaining. Skewed though it may be, it's interesting to see these warriors of history square off. It's definitely worth a look, just as long as you don't put it under too much scrutiny.

As others have stated there are certain problems with each separate episode. As an example Al Capone vs. Jesse James. There were no handguns used by Al Capone which was inaccurate. The use of the Chicago typewriter had all ammunition used in one continuous burst -- which action could be questioned. The Chicago typewriter could have been fired in shorter bursts to allow more accurate along with more sustained firepower without reloading.In this episode Al Capone could have carried a Colt .45 1911 or other handgun. There would have been a difference in the amount of handgun firepower between a Colt .45 1911 and a Colt .45 Peacemaker revolver.Also either side could have been armed with a 10 or 12 gauge shotgun which could have also made a difference in the outcome. In my opinion all avenues were not explored or considered.In other episodes there seems to be questions in regards to individual combat vs. warriors who are used to fighting in groups. There are many differences in methods used during these confrontations, which should be taken into consideration along with an individual person's ability.

Having heard of this show coming to television, I was initially excited. Using science to prove the lethality of a warrior straight out of the history books sounded like a show I wanted to watch. And so I did. The first episode was mediocre, but I figured, "it's the first of its kind, they're just figuring out the ropes." I was wrong. This show uses an excel spreadsheet (yes, that "sophisticated" program) iteratively to generate a statistical victory 1000 times. The values, which I'm guessing are from 0-10, are entered by the computer programming "prodigy" into various columns defining various traits being evaluated. Everyone seems to get super excited by ridiculous things such as high speed footage more so than forces and accelerations measured by the "sophisticated" accelerometers used, which in my books, are common place, as found in many of today's touchscreen cell phones, cameras, etc. More on the front of sophisticated technology, they uses speed traps to measures velocities of projectiles. Oh, you mean like in Olympic track events like the 100 meter sprint? Lame. More importantly, for a show supposedly based on science, they violate one of the first rules of experimentation; change one variable while keeping all others constant. How can I determine the lethality of two different machine guns when one is used to obliterate a torso, while the other is used in a spread to shoot 10 subjects in a room? Ridiculous. Finally, as a mechanical engineering student myself, I am thoroughly disappointed by the engineer in the cast applying all this so-called sophisticated technology. For someone to have been trained for a number of years to think in a logical manner, the sheer fact he accepted a role on this show is somewhat disheartening. In general, I have nothing good to say about this show, other than it makes science seem like a wrestling match. A true shame. But I suppose I shouldn't expect anything overly intelligent coming out of the Spike TV production studios. I think I'll stick to MXC. At least I know it intends to be ridiculous.

I've watched the first 2 episodes 1. Gladiator vs Apache Warrior and 2. Viking vs Samurai and was very impressed. The show uses a lot of the high tech data devices like Sports Science and goes as in-depth as possible in the shows time slot. It uses multiple factors in deciding who would win the fights. That range from distance to weapons used. The use of modern day experts in the cultures make for great trash talking. Other fights to look forward to include Spartans, ninja's and pirates. If your interested in the history of warriors throughout time and can believe in the science deciding the winner then this show is a must watch.