CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
7.6/10
2.1 k
TU CALIFICACIÓN
El papel fundamental de Churchill como líder durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial, su estrategia bélica y los acontecimientos vitales que le forjaron como figura primordial de la época, contado... Leer todoEl papel fundamental de Churchill como líder durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial, su estrategia bélica y los acontecimientos vitales que le forjaron como figura primordial de la época, contados a través de sus propias palabras.El papel fundamental de Churchill como líder durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial, su estrategia bélica y los acontecimientos vitales que le forjaron como figura primordial de la época, contados a través de sus propias palabras.
- Premios
- 1 nominación en total
Explorar episodios
Opiniones destacadas
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.
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.
This is a Netflix documentary so we get that treatment; talking heads and experts and, more unpalatable to me, staged re-enactments with actors on 'probable' scenes. It's high budget cable television.
The prewar portion may be the most informative in how it shapes the famous wartime Winston. Bullish, spectacular escape fueled by drive to tell the story about it in his South African adventure. Doggedly independent as he switches parties.
The wartime Churchill of valiant speeches, Dunkirk, and the Blitz, is well covered in inumerable films and TV. He really was the man of the hour, a bullish man insisting on a story of resistance against all odds. Fancied himself a strategist but bangled Gallipolli, Sicily was a mistake, and storytelling was really his strong suit.
We also do see several of his faults. His prewar defence of empire at all costs. Even in passing, his disastrous indifference to Bengal and the famine. And his ensuing sidelining, post Casablanca, as bigger men on the room took charge of the war.
It is very much a cinematic life he lived. Adept at both re-invention and stubborn independence. And of course a natural storyteller. He could have been a great filmmaker, and I can imagine him a figure like Welles or Hitchcock around set (and vice versa, Welles and Hitchcock may have been great wartime prime mnisters).
It was a matter of the world outside aligning with the man's story of who he views himself to be, to create the sense of destiny, and that was true of both FDR and Hitler.
The prewar portion may be the most informative in how it shapes the famous wartime Winston. Bullish, spectacular escape fueled by drive to tell the story about it in his South African adventure. Doggedly independent as he switches parties.
The wartime Churchill of valiant speeches, Dunkirk, and the Blitz, is well covered in inumerable films and TV. He really was the man of the hour, a bullish man insisting on a story of resistance against all odds. Fancied himself a strategist but bangled Gallipolli, Sicily was a mistake, and storytelling was really his strong suit.
We also do see several of his faults. His prewar defence of empire at all costs. Even in passing, his disastrous indifference to Bengal and the famine. And his ensuing sidelining, post Casablanca, as bigger men on the room took charge of the war.
It is very much a cinematic life he lived. Adept at both re-invention and stubborn independence. And of course a natural storyteller. He could have been a great filmmaker, and I can imagine him a figure like Welles or Hitchcock around set (and vice versa, Welles and Hitchcock may have been great wartime prime mnisters).
It was a matter of the world outside aligning with the man's story of who he views himself to be, to create the sense of destiny, and that was true of both FDR and Hitler.
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.
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.
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.
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.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaChristian McKay who plays Churchill also plays Roosevelt in a documentary about FDR released in 2023 called FDR
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
- Tiempo de ejecución
- 1h(60 min)
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 16:9 HD
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta