Opiniones de usuarios

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.

I enjoyed the series while also recognising that it isn't everything that it could have been.

In terms of narrative, it faithfully hits all the major plot points of the Second World War. Though the pundits and 'live action recreations' are sometimes a hit, sometimes a miss.

The recolourised archival footage is truly spectacular. It brings the war from the myth of history to a lived human experience.

This is particularly relevant now. Democratic decline is a rising tide. One that we are only beginning to wrestle with (even outside obvious examples). Appeasement in the face of imperialist aggression is spoken of as the lesser evil. These are dangerous waters and they are not new. History must be understood if it is not to be repeated.

This is why I forgive the show for it's inclusion of politicians. Even those who probably have no right to be there.

The link that it makes from the past to the present (aided through colour footage) is enough for me to view their inclusion as having value.

Is the show a masterpiece? No. Did I enjoy it as someone with an interest in history. I did indeed.

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.

I enjoyed with miniseries about the war years of Mr. Churchill, with the first episode about him actually fighting in the Boer War and in WWI and also orchestrating the Gallipoli disaster. Maybe that could have been expanded, but the focus of this documentary was WWII.

The remaining episodes tell in details the rise of Churchill during the darkest hours, his struggle to keep Britain fighting and his attempt to lure President Roosevelt in the fight.

When the US declared war in 1941, Britain and Churchill rejoiced only to realise that they were going to play second fiddle to the rising superpowers of the Soviet Union and US.

The last episode wraps things nicely showing how Churchill did not go gently when he - surprisingly to me - lost the elections in 1945 and how eventually he made a come back and still stands as one of the greatest protagonists of the XX century, no matter what some want you to believe and despite all his defects and mistakes - after all he was human.

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.

"In the war time truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies" "In war, resolution. In defeat, defiance. In victory, magnanimity. In peace, Goodwill." "What was gunpowder, trivial. What was the electricity, meaningless. This atomic bomb is the second coming in wrath!"

• Churchill

Before diving into my review of the docuseries Churchill at War, I would like to summarize the key points and highlight a few notable incidents.

Winston Churchill was famous for crossing the floor, changing parties, and taking bold stances. His leadership during World War II was instrumental in stopping Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany. Churchill's military career was marked by adventures in Cuba, India, Sudan, and South Africa, where he was captured by enemy forces during the Second Boer War.

Churchill's role in World War II was pivotal, particularly during the Greek tragedy, where the British Royal Navy attacked and sank the French Navy. The Eagle Day Attacks on London, also known as the Blitz, began on September 15, 1940, with 57 consecutive nights of bombing, resulting in 20,000 deaths. Churchill, instead of taking shelter, stayed on the roof and watched the destruction.

Churchill's relationship with America was complex, with the country initially staying neutral but eventually providing support through the Lend-Lease Act. Churchill said that America's terms were "flaying them to the bone," but he was able to convince President Franklin D. Roosevelt's advisor, Harry Hopkins, to provide help. The Tom Brook Falls earned Churchill the sympathy he had wanted from FDR.

Roosevelt decided to take the North African route, suggested by Churchill, instead of the direct route to defeat Germany. It is said that to defeat Germany, Britain gave time, America gave money, and Russia gave blood. Even before Albert Einstein envisioned a nuclear bomb, Churchill wrote articles about how a single bomb could devastate an entire city.

Montgomery, a teetotaler, once told Churchill, "I do not smoke and I do not drink, and I'm 100% fit." Churchill, not to be outdone, replied, "I both smoke and drink, and I'm 200% fit!!!"

In 1944, Churchill traveled to Russia to meet with Stalin without any American counterparts. This meeting resulted in the creation of the "naughty document," a verbal agreement between Stalin and Churchill on who would get what after the war. This agreement would have significant implications for post-war Europe.

Churchill also proposed Operation Unthinkable, a plan to use the defeated German army to fight the Russians and stop them from entering Eastern Europe. This plan was never implemented, but it highlights the complex and often contradictory nature of Churchill's leadership during World War II.

Churchill's legacy is also marked by controversy, particularly regarding the Bengal famine. Britain refused to send wheat or rice to India, and Churchill could have prevented the famine by redistributing surplus food from elsewhere. Instead, he stopped the shipment of wheat from Canada to India, prioritizing the interests of those fighting to protect the empire. This decision led to over 3 million deaths in Bengal.

Despite these controversies, Churchill remains a complex and fascinating figure in history. His leadership during World War II, his powerful oratory skills, and his ability to inspire and motivate others continue to be studied and admired by historians and scholars today.

The docuseries Churchill at War is a gripping and thought-provoking portrayal of Winston Churchill's leadership during World War II. It masterfully weaves together archival footage, interviews and dramatized scenes to create an immersive experience.

The series sheds light on Churchill's unwavering resolve, his mastery of language and his unshakeable conviction in the face of overwhelming adversity. It is fascinating to see how he rallied the British people during the darkest days of the war, how his leadership played a crucial role in shaping the course of the conflict...

What struck me most was the nuanced portrayal of Churchill's complexities in this series. While it commendably explores his flaws, controversies, his mistakes - including the Bengal famine and complicated relationships with other world leaders - it surprisingly omits his contradictory stance on India's independence. Despite being a strong advocate for freedom and democracy, Churchill's imperialist upbringing and biased views toward Indian culture and people are not fully examined. Specifically, his perceived view of India as a backward and primitive country is not adequately highlighted, leaving a gap in the narrative.

The production quality of the docuseries is exceptional with crisp and clear visuals that bring the archival footage to life. The interviews featured in the series provide valuable insights from historians and scholars adding depth and context to the narrative. The dramatized scenes are also well-executed, helping to recreate the tension and drama of Churchill's wartime leadership. It is a compelling and informative docuseries that offers a fresh perspective on one of history's most iconic leaders. Definitely a worth watching. Watch Churchill at War, available on Netflix.

This is a brisk and thoroughly enjoyable summary of Churchill's achievements and failings, principally from the late 1930s to the end of the Second World War. The series doesn't shy away from Churchill's disastrous Gallipoli campaign, his enduring belief in the importance of the British Empire, his sidelining by Stalin and FDR and his controversial tactical decisions around the French naval fleet, but the overriding gist of the series is just how important the man was at a crucial point in world history.

We are left under no doubt about how different, were it not for Churchill's tenacity [stubbornness?], sense of duty and extraordinary level of self-belief, the outcome of the war might have been. A failure on the part of the UK to withstand the Nazi invasion of Europe, could have led to permanent widespread European fascism. The talking heads who focus on Churchill's racism, never manage to outweigh the arguments for the good that he did.

The format follows that of the BBC's superb (and superior) "The Rise of the Nazis", with a combination of reenactment and expert opinion. There are observations by a few big names like David Petraeus and George W Bush (...and Boris, obvs.), but where "The Rise of the Nazis" had insightful contributions by some of the world's leading academic experts on the subject, "Churchill at War" has generic telly-historian Dan Snow making points that could be picked up in a GCSE history book. We should be glad it wasn't Tony Robinson, I suppose.

One of the strangest aspects of the series is the use of AI to generate Churchill's written comments into his spoken voice. I'm still undecided how convincing I found this.

A shout-out really needs to go to actor Christian McKay, for playing Churchill in the reenactments; a perfectly judged performance mimicking the sound and behaviour of Churchill, without ever stepping over into pastiche.

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.

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.

Why did the producers need to turn this into a soapy docuseries - compared to the archival footage which is excellent it makes the film look trite and cheap. And then just when I thought we going to be spared the dreaded talking heads - along they came thick and fast.

We have Churchill's actual voice and AI creating his voice when readings from his writings are made, so how is it remotely possible that a talking head could supply an insight that Churchill himself did not document and that could have been used instead of the talking head. It would be like watching the film Darkest Hour and then every 30 or 40 seconds having a talking head pop up and utter some inane comment.

If you are not British then you will not know what it says that David Lammy is in this show. As of December 2024 this man is Foreign Secretary.

This show was sponsored and paid for by Lexington PR who run Labour parties public relations. The party popularity is -36% right now. This show is their appeal to get voters back by making them think Lammy isn't so bad.

In 2022 the Daily Express: Lammy embarrassingly did not know when Churchill became Prime Minister. This is also the same man who said Churchills statue should be removed from Parliament Square. The same man who when Boris Johnson published his book on Churchill (he is on the show) wrote a post on Twitter so abusive I cannot repeat it here.

Why does Netflix hate the British?

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.

Oversimplified half-truths ruin what could be a good series. It's a shame because it could have been so much more educational and informative. They skirt over the political issues and do not do anything to explore Hitler's desire for Lebensraum for the German people. Why are you cannot go into the geopolitics of all the main actors and leaders, there is no mention of the duplicity of Stalin and Hitler BOTH invading Poland in 1939

The commentators offer little in the way of historical accuracy, than primary school teachers. It's frankly laughable that they got George Dubb-ya to commentate.

The fact that Churchill received news of the attack on Pearl Harbor from listening to the BBC is piffling nonsense.

It's good to see the colourized footage. The rest is dreadful.

Netflix strikes again with Churchill at War, proving yet again that no historical figure is safe from a parade of politically correct "experts" eager to enlighten us with their utterly 'unbiased' perspectives. Imagine a documentary that simply let historical footage and firsthand accounts do the talking - too radical, I suppose. Instead, we get dramatized scenes featuring Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin played by actors who could've been cast in a high school play.

If you're completely clueless about WWII, this might be a goldmine of insight. For those with even a vague idea of what went on, there's still some value - snippets of Churchill's personality and a few rare photos. I admit, the segment on his youth piqued my interest, mainly because I'm far too lazy to research it myself. But of course, no Netflix documentary would be complete without a suitably credentialed "expert" sliding in to offer the requisite dollop of cancel culture. Predictable, perhaps, but it wouldn't be Netflix otherwise.

This is a very interesting documentary about the man who save the British Empire in its darkest hour. The reenactments are fine. I still don't think they were fully necessary with the volumes of archival footage.

The worst part is is the useless talking heads. This does not apply to the family members or British folks. I want their opinion and thoughts on the necessity of Churchill. This never ending of cavalcade of yapping Americans becomes draining. I don't care what little nuggets of nothing that George Bush or some former Obama speechwriter think they are adding. It really takes away the essence of the story. It is like listening to people of Switzerland comment on the new College football playoff system. They know nothing of the subject.

Please stop with useless yappers in documentaries.

Get real. As well crafted and dramatic as it is, the "Churchill at War" series is a set piece created for the purpose of lionizing Winston Spencer Churchill, in consequence of which intention it blows him far out of his true place in the real world. He grew up cocksure, shifty, deceitful, and determined to be in the public eye no matter that his behavior in combat was utterly foolhardy. That attitude got him what he wanted in his earlier years, but it ensured that he would later fail to live up to his larger-than-life image. As Prime Minister from May 10, 1940, he spent most of World War II lying to FDR and convincing his subordinates to do the same. Convinced that he was born to save the world and the British Empire, he was unfortunately lacking in the necessary strategic understanding to be a great military leader. Unable to learn from the disastrous campaign at Gallipoli that he had engineered during World War I as First Lord of the Admiralty, he connived behind Franklin D. Roosevelt's back and badgered FDR until the President agreed against his better judgment to attack Italy, which Churchill called the "soft underbelly of Europe." The Italian campaign turned out to be long, hard, bloody, and deadly, not at all the easy training ground Churchill said it would be. Then he insisted repeatedly that the best way to Germany was not across the English Channel but rather through the Balkans, a path that would have been catastrophically unsuccesful. Churchill ended up saving neither the world nor the British Empire. His great saving quality was nothing more than his ability to stir the British people with his rhetoric. His massive six-volume history of World War II, on which this series is partially based, is full of self-aggrandizing omissions and outright lies. To gain a truer picture of Winston Churchill during World War II, read the "FDR at War" trilogy by Nigel Hamilton.

No surprises here - if you are accustomed to Netflix documentaries of late. Rarely has so much flapping generated so little lift.

An apparently reasonable budget is spent in "all the wrong directions". With so much at fault it is hard to know where to begin...

The talking heads - plenty of them. Many of them with massive knowledge and experience, unfortunately mostly in, borderline, irrelevant areas.

The dramatisation - is cringeworthy. Never does one get the sensation that "we are in the midst of" a world crisis - let alone a world war.

Apparently some of Churchill's written speeches were brought to life by means of AI - why? Some of the most famous ones, that exist on audio files, were re-enacted. Arguably so that the difference between the great speaker and the AI version wouldn't be so blatantly obvious.

20 minutes into the second episode we are given a rendering of Churchill's "The fight on the beaches" speech, if that doesn't leave you... speechless - you may just get through the rest of the series.

Quite often, it can be good enough if a historical documentary "catches the spirit of the moment". Churchill at War fails on that level as it does on most other...

Some strange decisions not very imaginative or unique way of delivery. Didn't need so much of the re enactment actor that kinda looked like Winston if you squinted, nah squinting didn't even work. He was trying his hardest.

Wouldn't have mattered as much but, They would show a photo of actual Winston before, during and after the poor actor did his bit and it would take you right out of it and feel forced and more of a distraction then additive.

Bush was interesting, would have liked to hear more from him. The Obama speech writer Woman was fair, didn't treat Winston to harshly as if he grew up nowadays. Would have liked to hear from her more also.

Bit of a shame, could of done allot better with all the interviews and footage they had at there disposal.

A copy and paste mess of recycled documentary footage from superior productions and poorly conceived 'dramatic scenes' cut up by interview excerpts from utterly pointless guests. Corrupt narcissist toff and Churchill fanboy Boris 'the clown' Johnson appears early on in the first episode and is an indicator of just how low they've gone to scrape the bottom of the barrel for this hollow parade of chuff.

This is another Netflix production so bad one has to wonder if they're replaced their entire writing and production staff with AI. Don't waste your time, there are far more superior documentaries on Netflix.

When a 4-episode documentary on Churchill doesn't even mentions how he became prime minister, you already know something's off. It's sad because there's so much to learn from that first move to becoming the leader he was during the war.

This series has the usual mediocre-documentary-for-the-masses format. There is no real structure, more a pattern: a succession of narrators giving each one catchy sentence, lest the flow of information strain people's attention. All together, those repetitive statements are hammering the next point the documentary is trying to make, by default of a more subtle way. It's debilitating at best.

Viewers looking for accuracy will be interested to know that even Churchill's voice isn't his own, but an AI-generated voice that reads the well-known speeches.

If you value your time, you'll know what to do.

I can't understand what you want to prove, why does anyone want to prove their elders right, even if the decisions taken by him based only on selfishness , the man who pushed the whole country into the fire of war and sacrificed the lives of thousands of countrymen in order to keep himself alive in history, only because of your foolishness ,if America had not participated in the world war then maybe today the UK would not have existed. Millions of people and the country suffered only and only because of the mistake of this crazy, foolish and selfish man. But what you people have made is an incomplete story in which the mistakes committed by him have not been pointed out.