Undescribable Perfection

Sorry, this movie sucks

Absolutely Fantastic

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

The outcomes of the "simulations" are ridiculous, biased, and just plain and simply stupid. George Washington wasn't even the best American General of all time (not even close), and yet he somehow managed to "win" against Napoleon Bonaparte. Yes, Napoleon. Probably one of the top Generals in the Worlds History, along with Hannibal, Julius Caesar, Alexander,Belisarius, etc.George Washington is not even in the top 100 generals list. He was a great leader, not a great general, and certainly would not stand a chance against Napoleon.And that is just the tip of the iceberg, not worth watching, not even for a minute.

I first saw this show in 2009 when it first came out, and was quite excited.It promised to deliver interesting outcomes from hypothetical battles between some of the most famous warriors of all time. I was perfectly happy watching it in '09, but when I caught up with it in '12, it looked just plain awful. This show was clearly written with the most casual military/weapon enthusiast in mind, because it quite honestly has little to no credibility or realism. Many of the so-called "experts" are shown handling their weapons as if they were toys, keeping their fingers on the triggers and waving the muzzles at the cameras, generally having little respect for the weapons they're holding. Many of the actors representing the various armed forces lack even basic training in the use of firearms (See: Viet Cong vs. Waffen SS) and are sometimes shown with a complete misrepresentation of the weapons, gear, and uniforms issued to those forces (See: Green Beret vs. Spetsnaz and Viet Cong vs. Waffen SS). On top of that, incorrect data is often shown when displaying the weapons during the show's trials, further demonstrating the lack of attention to detail that goes into this show's production. The biggest problem that I have with this show overall is that it completely misrepresents how a conflict would have turned out between any two forces, particularly because the only factors that are utilized in choosing the "victors" are the show's dismal understanding of weapon specs and poorly-informed personal opinion on the part of the hosts. The value of a weapon or a piece of equipment is determined chiefly by the skill of the operator, and this show completely ignores this critical area in favor of Call of Duty-style showboating, bad special effects, and bunch of idiots attempting to figure out how weapons work. I enjoy this show (and I use that term very loosely) when there is literally nothing else on TV, but otherwise, I'll pass on it.

Where to begin with this show... Lets start with what I like about it. Learning about the weapons of each group is great, the tests are accurate at measuring damage. The trash talking is kind of funny.Now what to what I don't like...They test a lot of one on one battles where as the the groups may not fight in one on one. example *Spoiler* Mongol vs Commanche. The mongols fought as a group and had the largest empire in history, the commanche got pushed out by the US government in a short period of time. Also a skill factor comes in, the mongol warrior was trained in martial arts, none of that was tested or taken into variable. Other issues include unreasonable testing. Of course the army with steel armor is going to win against the army with leather armor. *Spoiler* Vlad the Impaler vs Sun Tzu. Sun Tzu was a genius in warfare, Vlad was just a lunatic who killed a lot of people. Strategy in this episode would have been a huge variable. It also was a one on one battle. This is a huge issue, if you wanted to compare them, they should have done at least a 5 man simulation. Bias is another issue I see in this show *spoiler* Swat vs GSG9 episode.SWAT are local in any major city in the USA. GSG9 is Germany's elite counter terrorist team. The gave an edge to SWAT for unsound reasons, their assault rifle, and special weapon. Reality is the mid range assault rifles of each group are equal, there is no edge to either. as for the special weapons, the immobile large group stun gun is not versatile like the GSG9 stun grenade. GSG9 was one of the inspirations to Clancy's Rainbow Six. Swat was not. Another issue, GSG9 is a single group, not in every major city, so there is little variation. SWAT is in every major city, and they all vary. Overall for a show. the weapons testing from a damage point of view is cool, however they don't put in situational and tactical information, and very little history variables. Cool to watch damage testing, bad on validity and accuracy.

Don't get me wrong. This ranks up there with my other low brow comedy shows on Spike like "1,000 ways to die." It's great for something to relax to, and watching people get splattered makes it all the more fun. But accurate it is not.Their firearms knowledge is ludicrous. For example, on the Yakuza vs. Mafia episode they stated the Yakuza used the Walther P-38 pistol. Yet the graphics they showed were of a P-08 Luger. These are two totally, totally different looking pistols designed close to half a century apart. They had the IRA carrying a Boer War period .455 Webley revolver and they touted its reliability over a Makarov. I own both. There is no comparison between the Makarov and the Webley. You can't hit the broad side of a barn with a Webley.They do not test uniformly. In the Yakuza vs. Mafia episode, the Mafia had six machine gun targets they had to hit with the Thompson. The Yakuza only had four they had to hit with a Sten. That gave the Sten an easier score. Worse still, they used completely different ways of testing the Russian hand grenade and the US hand grenade. Why not do something logical - put three pig carcases up in an enclosed room and see how each grenade does? It's a uniform test? I shouldn't expect too much from Spike. It's unabashedly guy TV, and I like that. But they could do a lot better job with a little more care.