Some things I liked some I did not.

Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

The movie is wonderful and true, an act of love in all its contradictions and complexity

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

There are so many errors in this thing that it should not be considered a documentary at all. If it is indeed a documentary, it is the sloppiest one ever produced and an absolute travesty. The people associated with this should be ashamed and must be some of the laziest on earth. Any historian who came near it should hide for the next decade until the smoke clears from this because their reputations are totally mud. The film of a C-130 Hercules dropping German paratroopers over Poland in 1939 as American B-17's bomb Warsaw are a couple of examples of the jarring images used to misleadingly illustrate the narration. The narration and the commentary is okay and just that because the rest of the production is so slip-shod, haphazard, and downright trash. This was painful to watch and became impossible to view after the first 45 minutes. What a complete mess and insult to the intelligence of the viewers. Obviously, no one cared what they were doing when this abomination was thrown together and they felt accurate research was a waste of time. This junk is a waste of the audience's time and should be avoided. Stick to pawn shops and ice roads, "History" channel. Faking that stuff is what you do well!

I will give it 3/10 only in spite of acting and music, but in terms of historical accuracy, WTH HISTORY CHANNEL? Lenin being best buds with STALIN? Where's Trotsky? Where's the Kronstadt Rebellion? I'm not totally knowledgeable in the other areas, but the coverage and accuracy of the Russian History is pathetic! Lenin HATED STALIN, STALIN HAD TO REMOVE HIS OPPOSITION TO BECOME THE LEADER OF THE BOLSHEVIK PARTY! And in this, they portray it as a simple, "Yeah bro, here's everything, thanks for helping with the revolution. What about the Russian Civil War between the Reds, Whites, and Greens? What about Russia's limited re-entry into WWI? Which led to the Russian people hating the Provisional Government, leading the rise of the Bolshevik Party? If you are going to cover this time period, One: Be accurate Two: Don't cut freaking corners for the idiots that don't know how to read a book. Thank you History channel for increasing the number of idiotic, misinformed people in our world.

I have been studying WWII since I was old enough to read and considering I am now 66, that has been a while.While I feel the mini series was informative for most novices what I found insulting is the footage selected to accompany the narrative being shown. For example; the Battle of Britain footage included the wrong aircraft types including footage of American P-51 fighters, B-17 and B-24 bombers and other aircraft and battles which took place after the Battle of Britain.There is plenty of actual footage of the right type of British aircraft like the British Spitfire and Hurricanes that actually did participate in those epic battles. The use of American footage shows an inattention to detail that is unacceptable and unnecessary. It shows a lack of concern with detail replaced with... I don't know... laziness or, at the very least, a lack of concern for authenticity IF that was the desired result in the first place.The way things are presented can make or break a project. In my opinion World Wars failed when the details became irrelevant which, in turn, made the entire project irrelevant.Whoever decided to cheat the viewing public out of what they professed they were delivering should be ashamed or, at least, get a better informed research staff that actually does some research.Ed BinkleyBetter luck next-time.

I had a lot of interest in The World Wars, because I've been interested in World War history in general since I was a lad. The resulting tripe was terribly disappointing. Not only was it badly edited, but the narrator was a plodding, monotone voice that showed little or no emotion during the program. What I thought was an adult level program turned into a middle school level show with frequent recaps just in case the watchers were morons and couldn't remember from one segment to the next. The only factoid I gleaned from this rehash of the facts was the English soldier who possibly had Hitler in his sights during World War I and didn't shoot. I hadn't heard that one. Inaccuracies, distortions and just bad history were the norm. What do you expect? The show featured numerous republicans who love to skew history to their ends, and how can anybody take a show seriously that has former Bush administrators who lied to the American People about WMD's. I'm surprised they didn't dredge up John Poindexter and Oliver North! Shame on you History Channel for turning what could have been a monumental show into a pig trough of slop.