Churchill im Krieg

Heavy on awkward recreations with actors but regrettably light on interesting historical detail. The main draw of this series is mainly some newly refreshed and colourized archival footage.

The four episodes lean heavily on British and American political figures, including an Obama speech writer, President George W Bush and Prime Minister Boris Johnson - rather than on historical experts. Of course, this is consistent with the tone of an "approachable" and "greatest hits" approach to history documents. It's a decent introduction to Churchill and the period, but there's little to chew on.

In just one example, the series correctly focuses on Churchill's obsessive quest to get the "New World" - America - fighting in the war. However, after showing Pearl Harbour, there's no mention that Herr Hitler foolishly declared war on the United States first - a key footnote that enabled Roosevelt to bypass Congressional wrangling.

All too typically, with a laser focus on FDR and America, the series doesn't even mention the valuable support of Canada, Australia, India and other Commonwealth countries in helping keep the British Isles afloat.

Also, it would have been fascinating to see some of Churchill's military interactions with his senior generals and commanders - and the kind of expectations he had on them - but this is out of the scope of this series.

So while watchable, and crediting star Christian McKay for a solid job recreating Churchill's oratory, this offers a rather lightweight overview of what can be a very meaty subject.

The letters and speeches by Churchill are interesting. But crowbarring in actors and scripted segments takes away from this series. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but if I want to watch a fictionalized movie/play about Churchill, I can do that. But I don't want a supposed documentary to include fictionalized scenes (especially badly acted ones).

There is so much to learn about Churchill and his motives from his speeches, letters, notes, etc, but it's completely worthless if you are including acted conversations based on a bad screenplay. I just don't understand why that is necessary.

Just give me the facts in an interesting way and make a bad movie with the other parts.

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.

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.

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.