Description

Based on the bestseller by Stephen E. Ambrose, the epic 10-part miniseries Band of Brothers tells the story of Easy Company, 506th Regiment of the 101st Airborne Division, U.S. Army. Drawn from interviews with survivors of Easy Company, as well as soldiers' journals and letters, Band of Brothers chronicles the experiences of these men who knew extraordinary bravery and extraordinary fear. They were an elete rifle company parachuting into France early on D-Day morning, fighting in the Battle of the Bulge and capturing Hitler's Eagle's Nest at Berchtesgaden. They were also a unit that suffered 150 percent casualties, and whose lives became legend. ... Read more

Reviews (703)

Band of Brothers - The Complete 10 Chapter Miniseries
This 10 chapter miniseries set is an exquisite mix of Saving Private Ryan with the documentary feel of an A&E type production and the drama, look and the inevitable touch of Spielberg/Hanks brilliance and genius.

Incredibly real and gut wrenching, the miniseries begins at 101st Airborne Division training camp at Camp Toccoa, USA. Whereupon we learn about the tough reality of being in the Airborne Division and the severity of living under a military chain of command. Under the command of Lt. Sobel, Easy Company is trained and drilled every single day until they become on of the best companies in the Division, a fact that will prove to be woeful in battle.

At long last (2 years in training) the Allies have concocted a plan to start the invasion/liberation of Nazi occupied France and Europe. D-day is gruesome but Easy Company is more terrible events are yet to come.

As we follow along the story, we slowly get into knowing people like Lipton, Luz, Perconte, Winters, Buck, Bull, Skip Muck, Popeye, Guarnere and many memorable characters who we see triumph, survive and perish in the cruelty of war.
We are taken into the very jaws of the enemy at battles like Foy, Carentan, Bastogne, the Eagle's nest, all these in the dreariest and bitter conditions of bad weather and lack of supplies. We are also shown the harsh confrontation and evil they were up against when Easy and other companies face the concentration camp in Landsberg.

A miniseries all WWII fans and followers are sure to enjoy, hands down a top 5 stars and Thumbs Up.

You will enjoy it.

Powerful testament to the human spirit
BAND OF BROTHERS (USA/UK TV 2001): The trials and tribulations of Easy Company, 506th Regiment of the 101st Airborne Division, from the D-Day landings in Normandy to their capture of Hitler's Eagle's Nest in Austria at the end of World War II.

Co-produced by Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg, HBO's epic 10-part miniseries (based on a terrific bestselling book by the late Stephen E. Ambrose) was the most expensive TV undertaking of its day, costing a massive $120 million to produce. And, as the old saying goes, every penny is up there on the screen. Borne from the success of Spielberg's SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (1998) - with which it shares a similar dramatic and visual style - BAND OF BROTHERS' recreation of a glorious (and hard-won) chapter in American history assumed an even greater patriotic significance during its initial US broadcast, when it coincided with the horrific attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center in September 2001. Written with economy and grace, and directed with emotional intensity by a series of directors (including Phil Alden Robinson, Richard Loncraine and Hanks himself) whose combined efforts achieve a genuine aesthetic uniformity, the movie is a masterpiece of storytelling and historical documentation. Punctuated by horrific battle sequences, in which the camera is placed within mere inches of the death and destruction, the film manages to transcend its educational remit by its relentless focus on the human cost of war. Almost every episode opens with testimony from surviving members of Easy Company (none of whom are identified until the end of the series), which further strengthens the emphasis which BAND OF BROTHERS - book and film - places on the bonds which drew them together in times of conflict. And, because it's a true story, there's no telling from one episode to the next which of the 'characters' will live or die, which makes it all the more potent and visceral.

The entire production represents quality writ large: Beautifully filmed on various European locations (including the UK and Austria), the movie is noble without being the least bit pompous or austere, and it manages to humanize a large cast of essential characters with small touches of humanity and humor, all of which serves to heighten the sense of terror as they descend into the maelstrom of conflict. The first - and longest - episode is deceptively staid, featuring David Schwimmer (a long way from TV's 'Friends') as the bullying, cowardly commanding officer Herbert Sobel, whose tyrannical methods nevertheless shaped Easy Company into a fighting force which eventually cut a swathe through the heart of occupied Europe. Brit actor Damian Lewis takes the spotlight thereafter as Easy Company's most respected platoon leader, Richard Winters, with Ron Livingston as his right hand man, Lewis Nixon. Other standout performances in a flawless cast include Matthew Settle as battle-hardened platoon leader Ronald Speirs whose wartime career was distinguished by numerous acts of bravery (fuelled by a unique - if morbid - personal philosophy), Shane Taylor as company medic Eugene Roe, Neal McDonough as 2nd lieutenant 'Buck' Compton (laid low by his horrific combat experiences), and Donnie Wahlberg as 1st sergeant C. Carwood Lipton, who maintained the morale of his fellow soldiers, even when the odds seemed stacked against them. Every episode has its merits, but stand-outs include David Leland's 'Bastogne' (ep. 6), which recounts the horrendous circumstances surrounding Easy Company's involvement in the Battle of the Bulge, and David Frankel's 'Why We Fight' (ep. 9), in which the full horror of the Nazi regime is uncovered in a German forest. Additionally, the closing moments of chapter 10 ('Points', directed by Mikael Salomon) are truly heartbreaking.

Like the movie itself, HBO's region 1 DVD is magnificent. Housed in a beautifully embossed metal case, all ten episodes are spread across five discs (running a total of 624m 23s). The image is letterboxed at 1.78:1, anamorphically enhanced, and picture quality is stunning throughout, with faded colors (a deliberate artistic choice) and strong contrasts. The Dolby 5.1 soundtrack is spectacular and horrific, designed specifically to immerse the viewer in some of the most terrifying battle scenes ever captured on film. Closed captions are included, though there are no open subtitles. Crucially, each disc contains biographical information on the soldiers represented in every episode, which allows the viewer to keep track of an extensive array of characters, and there's a useful glossary, map and timeline of Easy Company's advance across Europe. Perhaps the number of chapters per episode could have been doubled (as it stands, there are six for each instalment), but that's a minor glitch in an otherwise exemplary presentation. The sixth disc in HBO's package contains a fascinating, feature length documentary on the real members of Easy Company (essential viewing), and a series of video diaries by actor Ron Livingston of the boot camp to which many of the cast were subjected in preparation for filming, during which the actors seem to have cultivated the same bonds of friendship experienced by real soldiers in combat situations.

It's doubtful that a more fitting tribute to the men of Easy Company could have been devised than BAND OF BROTHERS, a truly remarkable experience, given the Rolls Royce treatment on DVD. By turns engrossing, provocative and deeply, profoundly moving, it stands as a testament to those who fought and died for our freedoms, almost a lifetime ago.

Who did save Europe?
I have seen this mini-series and like every movie that will ever be made by any film maker (US, Ireland, China, Germany, etc…) it is not an accurate account of what really happen. If the US did not save Europe who did? Was it the Russians, the French, the German’s? I forgot the German’s where conquering Europe. Ireland, who did HELP save Europe? Any way, I am thankful and grateful for all who fought to free Europe and the rest of the countries in this world. I am a naturalized citizen and retired member of the Arm Forces of the USA, who with out their sacrifices I would have not been able to come to this great, wounderful, and giving nation I call my home. It also shows the stupidity of the leadership of all nations, but most of all it shows the prize that Americans paid for the freedom we have today. God bless all those who fight for freedom. This is what this movie is all about, FREEDOM!

Idiot's guide to WWII
This tripe just reinforces the idiotic opinion held by so many Americans that "America saved Europe" from the Nazi's. Rubbish. Read a good book instead.

"It appears the Germans are bad, very bad."
I was lucky enough to catch this excellent mini-series on a replaying on the history Channel because 1.) I don't have HBO and 2.) I don't have over $100 to spend on this box set. But I wish I did. This is probably the best war movie I have ever seen. It follows Easy Company, probably the most famous platoon of world war 2 from their training in boot camp, to the very end at hitler's "Eagle Nest." They were a platoon that suffered 150% casulties.

With the exception of its length (over ten hours) this is right up their with a big bedget movie. It has great actors, awesome cinemetogrophy, and great war special effect. Don't let the fact that this tv miniseries is a wimpy piece of junk. It's not! Because it was on HBO, the makers made sure to keep it realistic with the violence (lots of blood, injures, lossed limbs, etc...), theirs bad language and even a little nudity. So don't let a little kid watch this. The late Michael Kamen provides the excellent score and really provides a ambient backdrop to the sorrow and loss and horrible side of war.

If you are at all interesting in Worl War II or like war movies in general. You must do yourself a favour and check this masterpiece out. You will not be dissapointed. ... Read more

Reviews (75)

Excellent Series
When investing in any DVD, especially a boxed set, you might ponder the question, "How often will I watch this?" Let me say that your purchase of The World at War will offer you endless viewing opportunities! Besides the 26 original episodes, all of the extra features that were produced afterwards are included in the set. There is so much information generated in over 30 hours of material that you will discover something new with each repeated viewing. Each episode will hold your attention from first to last, and they are efficiently indexed so you can easily review a map or replay a speech. Along side the emotional impact of the pictorial images, you have Carl Davis' moving score, a judicious use of period music, personal accounts from all the major powers, and Sir Laurance's strong narration, making this the most comprehensive documentary on the subject. Now if we can only have World War I, narrated by Robert Ryan, available, we would have the documentary bookends to the two most devastating wars in the 20th century.

The Finest WWII Documentary Ever Produced
For History buffs and those who have a keen, deeply felt interest in World War II beyond just the military events, the World at War, produced by Thames Television (1981) and released earlier on VHS by Thorn/EMI, is a 26 episode documentary set apart from all other documentaries about WWII. No other, with the exception of Walter Cronkite's CBS series, comes close to an unbiased, analytical perspective of a War that cost perhaps 50 million lives and took an emotional and philosophical toll we are still trying to comprehend today.

Narrated by Sir Laurence Olivier and covering all aspects of the war, this definitive series is used by many colleges and universities as a source for History and Documentary Film courses. There is an incredible depth of archive footage used; skilfully woven with interviews of major figures in the War from Britain, US, Canada, Europe and Japan. Many major eye-witness leaders and ordinary people who were still alive in 1981 contributed sometimes surprising, sometimes incredible, and sometimes haunting interviews. Yet, for all its skilful editing and historical sophistication, it is clearly presented and emotionally compelling. In my opinion, it is, along with Kenneth Clark's "Civilisation", the best ever produced British documentary.

What makes this a stellar and overpowering account of the War is Olivier's narration. Never blustery, patriotic, or theatrical, Sir Laurence delivers pointed, thoughtful analysis with his incredible command of English and oration. Music for the series was composed by Carl Davis and even the opening credits set an unforgettable tone in a haunting image of a child in a photograph, dissolving in flames. This series is for those trying to make sense of a 6 year period when the world went mad. Five Stars PLUS.

Very good. Probably THE documentary set to own
This kept me going for months (in one hour segments at a time). There is so much material presented here and I learned a lot.

I wanted to give 4.5 stars and only knock a half off for the sometimes annoying menu (it could have been presented in a more orgnaized fashion, I thought), or other small problems, but half points aren't allowed on the system. Very close to perfect!

Buyer Beware
This was a wonderful documentary as originally broadcast, but I'd avoid this product if I had it to do over again: the maker's quality control is awful. Disk 1 skipped badly. And I the same problem others have reported: two copies of one of the five disks (with me, disk 5), and one disk (disk 4) entirely missing.

"Remember"
This is an excellent, extensive, British-made documentary about events leading up to, and including, World War II. With 26 episodes, there is quite a bit of material covered. Excellent narration by Laurence Olivier, and a memorable score.

If you are a war buff, particularly WW2, this is the set to have. Can't say enough good things about it. ... Read more

Amazon.com

A 26-episode World War II documentary, Victory at Sea is one of the most important series in the history of television. Made in 1952, the show was a huge success, winning many major awards and even spawning albums featuring the orchestral score by Richard Rodgers, best known for his musicals with Lorenz Hart and Oscar Hammerstein II. Produced with the full cooperation of the U.S. Navy, each 26-minute program consists of black-and-white wartime film set to a narration by Leonard Graves. The two years leading up to America's entry into the war are dismissed in episode one, while the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor gets a show of its own, the raid depicted in a brilliantly edited montage that almost certainly contains "docu-drama" footage. Each episode contains at least one powerful stand-alone sequence in the tradition of Serge Eisenstein (Battleship Potemkin), these action-suspense set-pieces giving the programs an urgent, surprisingly modern feel. Indeed, the emphasis is at least as much on entertainment as information, the factual content delivered in poetic narration, the score transforming the war into a more than usually serious Hollywood adventure. The documentaries are nothing if not wide-ranging, covering parts of the land war despite the title, and including everything from the Atlantic convoys and U-boat "Wolfpacks" to war in Alaska, the South Atlantic, and the Far East, the Pacific War, and the Fall of Japan. There is an attempt to include other nations--certainly the D-Day episode acknowledges the British far more than Saving Private Ryan--but inevitably the focus is on America's war.The very dated narration gives a fascinating insight into how America saw WWII in the early 1950s, while the dynamic cutting and often genuinely remarkable wartime footage make Victory at Sea still gripping today. Twenty years later, Granada's The World at War would become the definitive television WWII history, but this release offers a unique opportunity to see a series of great importance from the very early days of television. --Gary S. Dalkin ... Read more

Reviews (31)

5 stars for content but ZERO stars for TERRIBLE AUDIO MIX
I loved the content. Other reviewers here have verbalized my feelings concerning the quality of the video. However, the sound mix is so poor that if you set the volume to an appropriate sound level for the very nice music you are completely unable to hear the voice of the narrator. Even if you have your finger on the volume control constantly you are unable to dynamically raise and lower the audio volume to try and hear the narrator without blasting your ear drums with the elevated music sound level. I would advise anyone buying this DVD set to consider it acceptable ONLY if you listen to it with a 5 channel speaker set up with a dedicated center channel (for speech, etc.) where you are able to individually raise and lower that channel of sound. Even then you may be astonished just how much boost the center channel is going to need compared with the other sound channels. Frankly, this DVD release needs to be redone as far as the audio is concerned! Other than that, the video is great....

Victory at Sea DVD Is Awesome
I recently purchased this DVD and was very skeptical after reading all the comments about the sound track. However, I didn't find any issues with either the sound track or the narrative for all four volumes. I have a Panasonice DVD Player with the Dolby Digital,DTS Digital Surround and MPEG, and the music score by Richard Rogers is one of the reasons for buying this DVD. It is a " Must Have" for military history buffs. If you have a PC with a DVD/CD ROM Combination, you can use it to view this DVD and adjust the sound track to blend in with the narrative.

Sound issues and the original
I have the original soundtrack on LP, with the NBC Symphony Orchestra conducted by Richard Rogers himeself. It's my father's and needless to say, it does not get much play time for preservation sake. I also own both CDs "Victory at Sea" and "MORE Victory at Sea," (BMG Music 1992) both conducted by Robert Russel Bennett and contain slightly arraigned versions of the very familar complete soundtrack by the RCA Symphony Orchestra and is remixed in extremely good Dolby Surround. The original soundtrack is fairly clear and does sound a little tinny and was recorded in mono. (Unless it was a dual issue in both stereo and mono. I only have the mono.) While a properly mixed original soundtrack would sound great, IMHO, the Dolby version would sound even better. What I'm getting at is, it's not the soundtrack's fault this apparently sounds so bad. I really wanted to buy this, but I think I'll hold off and wait and see.

One star too many!
What an unmitigated hustle this dvd collection turned out to be. Equal portions of venom and spite are hereby awarded to History Channel and NBC for this travesty. My 5.1 dts sound system did nothing to alleviate the worse than poor sound quality/balance issues. This legendary series and it's participants certainly deserve better than this quick and dirty rendition gives. Maybe the capital "H" seen in the lower right hand corner of the teevee screen actually stands for "hustle". I would gladly purchase a remastered and remixed set but for now am left with this doorstop.

Good atmospheric and stirring stuff!
I came across the soundtrack many years after first hearing snippets from it on the original T.V series of the same name.
I was enthralled by the sheer vibrancy and 'now-ness' of this great piece of modern classical music. You can easily picture the great ships of both the American and Japanese fleets as they engage in the greatest sea battle of all time. The spinning, swooping aircraft as they play thier all important roles of hunter/killer.
The evocation of individual men and women enjoying a rare respite from battle in some of the quieter passages, shore leave. All part of this amazingingly descriptive music. It will continue to be an important piece by sheer virtuosity of the skillful interplay of individual instruments producing an altogether sucessful blend of sombre, stirring and gentle, very easy to listen-to-again and again music. I cannot praise it enough! ... Read more

Amazon.com

Sam Fuller's The Big Red One was already one of the best films of 1980, despite the fact that the version released to theaters ran barely half as long as the director's cut. Fuller had been America's ballsiest B-movie auteur, an ex-newspaper reporter of the hardnosed breed who made fiercely personal, radically stylized, and politically outspoken films between the early '50s (The Steel Helmet, Pickup on South Street) and the early '60s (Shock Corridor). The Big Red One was his long-dreamt-of account of World War II as experienced by his own squad of the 1st Infantry Division, USA, from the first shot fired (by a dead man, on the coast of North Africa) to the last (in a concentration camp in Czechoslovakia).

Even in the studio-truncated version, there was no shortage of astonishing moments and sequences: the squad choking on dust in a bat-filled cave in North Africa as German tanks clatter past the entrance; Fuller's cold-blooded distillation of the D-Day slaughter on Omaha Beach, with a wrist watch on a dead arm in the surf marking time as the water slopping over it grows redder; the rifle squad delivering a Frenchwoman's baby in a German tank on a battlefield full of corpses; a commando-like raid on Nazi troops bivouacked in a Belgian insane asylum. A quarter-century later, film critic Richard Schickel and Warner Bros. executive Brian Jamieson succeeded in restoring 15 never-seen sequences and fleshing out 23 others to create The Big Red One: The Reconstruction, a "new" film nearly an hour longer.

Above all, BR1: The Reconstruction has a rhythm the 1980 cut lacked. The arc of years, battles, and battlegrounds is so much more satisfying. Greater play is given to Fuller's feeling for children caught up in the sidewash of history and atrocity. And the 2004 cut puts sex back into the movie, not orgiastically but as a fact of life and a rarely forgotten driving force. We can see now that Fuller touched, bluntly and shockingly, on the phenomenon of infiltrators--English-speaking German warriors who donned GI khaki and moved among their enemies waiting for a chance to strike.

It's also apparent, as it was not in 1980, that Lee Marvin as the eternal Sergeant leading the young squad is magnificent. This was Marvin's greatest role, rivaled only by his walking dead man in John Boorman's Point Blank. Just beneath the masterly implacability, we glimpse the tenderness, rage, dark humor, experience, and wisdom beyond guilt that have enabled him to survive, to preserve others and to soldier on. His performance, like Fuller's film, is a masterpiece. --Richard T. Jameson ... Read more

Reviews (54)

THE BIG RED ONE - THE RECONSTRUCTION.
Like other reviewers, I saw the film when it first appeared and liked it. But I also felt that it also lacked some missing features which the novel supplied. Fortunately, a reconstruction has now occurred with the "missing footage" making an accomplished film more like the masterpiece Sam Fuller intended. Thanks to DVD, one does not have to live in a major city to see films like this. The 2 disk reconstruction is amazing and the restored footage is really where it belongs. This is a major work of cinema which needs to be widely disseminated.

On the whole Richard Schickel and the restorers have done a good job. On the audio-commentary, Schickel mentions that the reason Fuller's work is now relevant to today (rather than his more illustrious Academy Award winning contemporaries) is because it reflects the insecurity of life and rejects any false sense of complacency. The film contains one of Lee Marvin's best performances supported with sterling performances by those young actors who play the Four Horsemen to say nothing of those other great performances by Stephane Audran, Serge Marquand, Siegfried Rauch, and Christa Lang Fuller herself in a restored scene. I have one hesitation to record. Both Shickel and the restorers often refer to cinematic cohesion. However, Samuel Fuller would always bend or break the rules at times. That is what made his films so iconoclastic and revolutionary in the same way that his absurd dialogue such as "If you die, I'll kill you" had great emotional reverberation. It is a shame the voice-over was not removed entirely because it is really redundant. The excellent acting and relevant silences speak for themselves in the best manner of silent cinema. Somne "deleted" sequences such as the Vichy officer debate could have been restored.

But, in the last analysis, these are really minor points and we should be really grateful for this restoration which really should stimulate a Samuel Fuller Collection on DVD containing not only his most well-known works but others such as CHINA GATE (in restored letterbox form), VERBOTEN, THE CRIMSON KIMONO, and WHITE DOG to show the real diversity of this man's talent and the valuable cinematic heritage he has lef for future generations to appreciate.

Truthful, brutal and magnificent
This film commences with a hard hitting statement that is unmistakably Sam Fuller. "THIS IS FICTIONAL LIFE, ABOUT FACTUAL DEATH". From that moment, he grabs the audience by the scruff of the neck and takes them on a fascinating, ballsy, unsentimental ride through WWII as he saw it. The film is refreshing for it's determined 'survivor's' point of view. He does not judge with emotions in the simplistic way that so many war films do. Instead he puts you in the state of mind you need to actually survive a war, and given Fuller himself survived WWII, he might just be on to something. The art in this film is all in the contradictions of real life and the perverse pleasures that can arise in even the most horrific of settings. A scene in Italy where the rifle squadren liberate an asylum is magnificently chaotic and amoral in it's presentation. In the midst of this madness Griff (Mark Hamill) somehow enjoys a transformative sexual experience with a psychologically damaged woman. We are reminded time and again that these men are only human, with needs that make little sense in the context of war. Fuller shows the straightforward machine you need to become to survive a war. If you know someone in your platoon is going to die, don't bother getting to know them too well. Harsh, but that, according to Fuller, is how you make it through. Lee Marvin's performance, commented upon here by many reviewers is an engine house of repressed humanity. And it's not overdone - you wouldn't even know the humanity was there. Watch this performance then watch Liam Neeson in Schindler's List. With respect to Neeson, he is playing a character. Marvin is playing a man.

Surviving is part of the fight in reconstructed classic
Surviving war is the most challenging part of it. Whether it be surviving the physical and psychological rigors of war or it's sometimes nasty aftermath "The Big Red One: The Reconstruction" is one of the finest movies made about World War II. Fuller ("Shock Corridor" among many other films)made a lot of exploitation films during his long varied career but it's clear that here Fuller had found his best story to tell.

Lee Marvin gives a terrific performance (and one of the best of his career)as the leader of a group of young soldiers. Most of the cast does an exceptional job as well (particularly Robert Carradine essentially playing Fuller). The film has its minor flaws certainly (some of the performances are a bit stilted)but film critic Richard Schickel a long time admirer of Fuller and this film has done a marvelous job of restoring Fuller's masterpiece to its original projected length. Schickel used the original script, production notes and the memories of some of the production participants to help recreate the film Fuller intended to release in the first place.

The new version runs two hours and forty two minutes with the first disc devoted to the film. The second disc has alternate scenes; "Anatomy of a Scene" looks at the film both before and after the restoration. I haven't had time to watch "The Real Glory:Reconstructing The Big Red One" or the War department reel "The Fighting First" yet but the qualtiy of the documentary on Sam Fuller and the rest of the material is quite good.

War Classic -HORRIBLE PACKAGING MATERIALS!
Great film, DVD done right, package LOOKS good, but when I went to open it up it took ALMOST A HALF AN HOUR AND EVEN THEN THE LOW-GRADE SUPER-STICKY TAPE ON ALL EDGES OF THE CASE RUINED THE COVER! Whoever made choices contributing to this fiasco needs to be shot! Or at least fired and drummed out of the industry. Didn't help matters that on the fancy black slip cover Best Buy had slapped a big ugly price sticker that wouldn't come off all the way, even after I heated the glue up with a hair dryer. Hey, I hope you slobs responsible for these stupid choices are reading this because you are a bunch of incompetent unprofressionals. Still, buy this DVD, anyway.

Pretty good aswar movies go
As a kid I enjoyed this movie very much.It has some pretty good action sequences and in some parts, you can have true actual feelings for what soldiers go through when in battle.It has a very good ending and I feel it is definitely worth watching when you have the time.One of my favorite war movies. ... Read more

Reviews (14)

Bearing Witness To History
Watching the 9.5 hour documentary Shoah one goes through a plethora or emotions: sadness, anger and finally triumph. Shoah is living history one that we will no likely to be able to repeat as time goes on.

Claude Lanzmann gives us a history of the Holocaust from the point of view of the participants. The survivors, the guards, the townspeople who witnessed the Final Solution firsthand. The thing that makes the film amazing is that we do not see the grisly images that were so prevalent in films like Renais Night and Fog. We simply hear voices and see faces.

The interview technique is what makes this film so important. We are forced to look into these people's faces as they tell their stories. And they do have important stories to tell. Also we literally visit the places of destruction as they are now. We see green meadows that were once killing grounds like Sobibor or Chelmno. We see the village of Grabow now reduced of its Jewish population; we bear witness to the railside horrors of Treblinka, and the haunting desolation that was and is Auschwitz.

The startling thing is that the people of the film have been able to rebuild their lives and go on. This is the triumph of the film. We hear horrible things to be sure but these people are true survivors.

The DVD does not offer many extras, but then not many are needed. The end result is a sort of numb silence and this prevades the viewing. The transfer could have been a little clearer but I feel that this was more of a flaw in the source footage than a problem in the DVD creation. The only real problem with my set was on the fourth disc where there were numerous sound fall outs.

All in all Shoah is not an easy film to watch. It takes patience and careful listening if one is to truly understand but it should be regarded as essential viewing for any would be student of history.

Powerful, devastating testimony
I saw Shoah on PBS around the mid-80's and have never forgotten the experience. The documentary was shown in weekly installments. At first, I was just curious, but then I was drawn by the powerful testimony I was witnessing. I remember that while watching the last installments, I was weeping over the depravity and evil that was discussed by the aged survivors. At that time I was a Staff Sergeant with 15 years military service. We are tempted to turn away from the horrendous images and ignore the Holocaust as an anomaly or as something best left in the past. We want to move on. But listening to the stories and watching the faces of the survivors I knew that I must listen very carefully. I must not miss one moment of their testimony. Neither can you. Listen, watch, and learn what evil men can do to fellow man. It's a long, long film but it must be seen in its entirety.

The Best Documentary about the Holocaust
This first aired on PBS sometime in the early to mid eighties. I was in my first couple of years of college at the time. As many of you can relate, I had lots of fun in school (especially after classes)and didn't watch much TV. For whatever reason I was at home when the first installment aired and I was hooked. Being in college, I wasn't too much of a history buff and knew little about the Holocaust. I would come home early from parties just to get to see the next installment. Since that time I have always wanted to see the documentary again and now can say I have bought it and will watch it (this time with my wife) soon.
I had the opportunity to visit Munich some time back and didn't miss the chance to visit Dachau. Wow! What an experience... one that I shall never forget. I think watching the show this time will mean so much more than before. Make sure you get lots of Kleenex before you sit down to watch a segment.

Amazing document !
A very important, powerful, strong and
not an easy watch Holocust documentary.

The best made movie about the Holocaust
It's been 17 years since I watched this movie in a hotel room in Munich on German television. Since that time Hollywood has made their own Holocaust movies, the latest being "The Pianist." By far , "Shoah" is the most meaningful movie that was made about the Holocaust. The shear hypocrisy of the Nazi's false promise to every death camp inmate of "Arbeit Macht Frei" is revealed through the words of the apathetic hypocrits who watched from the sidelines.

It answers the question: Why could this global tragedy happen? It also answers the question: Who were these people who committed the atrocities and where were all the people who bore witness?

The movie asks these questions of the real people who we want to know the answers from. Mr. Lanzman interviews the wife of a concentration camp commandant. Her attitude and her carefully chosen words speak volumes for what she doesn't say. She embodies evil to the nth degree. Her lack of empathy and gross disdain for the 10,000s of Jews that her husband murdered makes you sick to your stomach. And yet she is not guilty of anything more than being an accessory to mass murder and she has never spent a day of her life paying for the sins of her husband. She complains that her life after the war has been hard on her. She wants our pity.

Mr. Lanzman interviews a peasant who lived along the rail line to Birkenau and Auschwitz. The jolly old peasant was proud of how he gesticulated to the hapless souls in the packed railcars how they would have their throats slit soon enough. The peasant made fun of how he convinced many a desparate Jew to throw him their jewelry in exchange for a cup of water - only to not give the Jew the promised water.

There is no ray of hope. There is no triumph of good over evil. There is only the sheer will power and determination of the few survivors that now live in comfortable flats in Israel, the United States and other parts of the world. After the war, they picked themselves by their bootstraps and mentally blocked the horrors that befell upon them by the Nazis and they succeeded to live their lives.

The conclusion I draw from this movie is to remain forever vigilant. Evil is banal. Evil can be overwhelming. Only a clear conscience, an open mind and a consistent collective voice against the darkness of evil will we keep men like Adolf Hitler from propagandizing his fellow countrymen and women into similar acts of atrocity. ... Read more

Reviews (10)

An Incredible Documentary
Vietnam: A Television History is a phenomenal documentary on the before, during and after of the American War. 14 hours and worth the time! You can watch invididual segments one hour at a time.

It's a remarkable piece for understanding this conflict. The video is rich with battle and geographic details...far reaching in its interviews of North and South Vietnamese as well as American voices...textured with information on virtually every angle (CIA involvement, the reaction in the U.S., Cambodia and Laos, etc.)...and told in a clear and gripping format. It explained a war I previously could not quite understand, and also provided a huge amount of information not found in most American shorthand retellings of the war. Hugely recommended for anyone interested in the war or interested in Southeast Asia.

This is visual war history without precedent
After seeing the series, one by one, and every which way, I can only come to the conclusion: unparalleled history. Only a doctrinere bigot and a mad-dog at that, would see how it tries to be balanced-- any rational being would see as America's greatest surrender and tragedy--so far--the Irag debacle is still underweigh. Of course, one is expected to read more, to not think this is the last word on the Vietnam War. How ridiculous! Previewed in 1983, no one should think there should be more evidence presented. Only in time, well-tested opinions and with all the evidence in, can a clear perspective be seen of the whole. I lived in that era, the Nixon era to be exact, when I understood what was happening. Before which, in my teens and brought up in rural Maine, I thought America could not be wrong, the government was right, Communionist were evil haters of our way of life. When I understood, I was against. But I was not all the way, my disagreement was fully conditional. It was Watergate and finally Reagan that made me see my intuition against the Vietnam War was right. It was not a good feeling. I did not want to think it was all in vein. I did not want to accept the inevitable. This documentary is the best balanced visual history of its kind on a post-WW2 (cold gone hot) war, from the first misunderstand to the last revisionist spin.

Great reference tool!
I had to rent this tape set for school as there was a college course on Vietnam, but decided to buy it instead! I am glad I did because I can pass this down to my daughter. It was an honest account of not only the war, but the history of the country as well, which I found interesting! Worth the money!

caution about reviewer's advice
This is a good video as introduction to the War.
It could be updated based on what we've learned since relations thawed somewhat with Vietnam.
Caution about one reviewer's advice to watch the Accuracy-In-Media rejoinder to the program:
See it. It is horrible; the video pieces don't show what they say they do; Charleton Heston narrates a sappy poem about boat people; and the head of AIM later, when confronted with the shows innacuracies said that they don't matter --- all that matters is its anti-communist point-of-view. Some "accuracy"!

So This is History?
This series is not solid history. There are two essential facts you must get right to start with in order to interpret the Vietnam war. First you must understand who Ho Chi Minh was and second you must understand the nature of the Geneva Conference of 1954. Third, in order to understand why the U.S. lost one must be understand the critical importance of two decisions made during the administration of John Kennedy. First, the 1962 Geneva Accords which created the "facade of Geneva" and prevented the U.S. from selecting a winning strategy (i.e., cutting the Ho Chi Minh Trail). See Norman Hannah's book, "The Key to Failure: Laos the Vietnam War." Second, you must understand the unethical decision made by the Kennedy administration in backing the coup against Ngo Dinh Diem that resulted in his assasination and a deeper immersion of the U.S. into the military government we created without even knowing the makeup of the characters in it. Read "A Death in November: American in Vietnam, 1963" by Ellen Hammer. The point is the war is hugely complex and the video series is not. It is extremely biased, Ho Chi Minh, a dedicated international communist is the hero! and the U.S. is the villain. The
It is only in video 13 that the producers discover that the communists are bad guys and it is a belated discovery! So they killed one third of the population in Cambodia, subjected Vietnam to hellish re-education/prison camps and produced millions of deaths, not to mention two million or so boat people who fled the country. This is the regime of a nationalist? But they constantly produce a dialog heavy in ideology, communist ideology. Perhaps that is a concidence, like their land reform program that killed off the landlord class or their police state. Just coincidences I am sure, after all, Uncle Ho was a nationalist wasn't he? The video series never takes the trouble to examine the Soviet Union or Communist China's role in the Vietnam war in any depth. It is as if all of history is understood by psychoanalysis of the what goes on in Washington. I use this series in the classroom to teach students how to detect bias in a badly flawed historical series and while there is some good history in it, there is far too much that is poorly done and now, outdated, given new information. Even communist histories belie some of the points made in the series. Hanoi now admits that planning for the war in the South began in 1956 and was well along in 1959, when the 15th Party Plenum ordered armed struggle in the South to begin. For example, Communist Party Politburo member Le Duan was responsible for the formation of 37 guerilla companies by October 1957. The respected Soviet diplomat, Andre Gromyko, said of Joseph Stalin in his Memoirs, "it seems to me that the nature had endowed him with the ability to hide the harsh side of his character, and very effectively so. He also seems to have had the capacity to appear at times even gentle and sensitive to others. The conversations he had with some foreign personalities, especially writers, confirm this." These words could have written about the man who called himself "Ho Chi Minh" or "He who enlightens." His frail and gentle manner belie the harsh, ruthless man beneath the veneer. In fact, having studied him for many years, I would have to say he was one of the greatest actors of the twentieth century and one of its most evil men. The key to understanding him lies in understanding what brought tears to his eyes. It was not the nation but rather Lenin's "thesis on national and colonial questions" which called for international communist liberation of oppressed peoples from colonialism. The trouble is so many fail to study this and therefore miss the import of Ho's ardor for the doctrine. Nationalism is the foe of internationalism and communism embraces only the latter. This is clear from Lenin's writings. Recommend you read Lenin! There is a video series that attempts to correct some of the errors (Television's Vietnam: The Real Story) in this one and although, it carries some biases of its own, it does help to bring out some of the worst features of this seris. It is put out by Accuracy in Media and is worth your effort to investigate if you are going to view this poorly done series. On the Tonkin Gulf incident, the Canadian series, the Ten Thousand Day War, is far superior. It seems American film makers are more enamored with Uncle Ho than his own people. Ask them if you don't believe me. ... Read more

Reviews (347)

Good History, Good Film
Movies based on history fall into one of two categories. They're either wonderful stories that are flawed on facts (Braveheart, JFK, for example), or they're faithful to the facts but lack drama (The Battle of Britain, produced by Harry Saltzman in the late '60s). This film, written and directed by Ronald F. Maxwell, manages to be fairly accurate storytelling and compelling drama at the same time. That Maxwell's movie embodies these two qualities in an almost four-hour picture is no small feat either.

The movie recreates the pivotal battle of the Civil War, when General Robert E. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia sought to destroy the Union forces under General George Meade at Gettysburg, a small town in Pennsylvania. Maxwell's towering achievement in this movie, besides the many well-staged battle scenes, is to highlight the personal, emotional anguish of the soldiers on both sides, some of whom had been quite close before the war began. Witness the scene in the tent of General James Longstreet (Tom Berenger) as General Lewis Armistead (Richard Jordan, in one of his last screen roles) speaks emotionally about his friend, General Hancock, who he knows is just over the ridge where they will attack the next day. Tears well up in Jordan's eyes as he recalls the deep affection that he developed for Hancock and his wife many years before.

Gettysburg is not a great movie, but it is a very good one, and well worth viewing for any American who is interested in the war that tore this nation asunder and, in some ways, made it more unified afterwards.

Absolutely excellent film making from a historical novel.
I am writing this review after my review of "Gods and General." I realized the measure of any subsequent movie would be "Gettysburg," and the problem is going to be that it is a hard act to follow. Gettysburg is everything a historical novel to movie should be. Start with a Pulitzer prize winning book, "Killer Angels." This is impeccable story telling. On the confederate side, Martin Sheen as Robert E. Lee and Tom Berenger contributed career best performances and compelling chemistry. On the Union side, Jeff Daniels as Colonel Chamberlain, C. Thomas Howell as his brother and Lieutenant, and Kevin Conroy as the tough old Mick Sargeant /veteran, provide the compelling chemistry. Sam Elliot fits the part of a veteran cavalry General perfectly. In fact, I can't think of anyone that fits the part of acting from the saddle better.

If Stonewall Jackson had lived and had surrounded the federal troops at Chancellorsville, the war might have ended. If Lee had listened to Longstreet and withdrew from Gettysburg to high ground of his own choice, he might have won the battle and ended the war. This defensive style of fighting is why Lee earned the nickname "Gray Fox." Lee made the same mistake as Union General Burnside at Fredericksburg in advancing troops uphill against an entrenched enemy while taking canon fire on three sides. If General Meade had pursued Lee out of Gettysburg to where he was backed up against a storm swollen and impassable Potomac River, the war might have ended. Instead, war went on for more than two more years, and the death toll rose to over 615,000 Americans. This section of American history is critically important and what will be a set of three movies will serve a very commendable purpose.

Gettysburg-an exciting and dramatic review of the final days
I absolutely LOVE this movie. Based on the bestselling novel 'The Killer Angels' by Michael Shaara, Gettysburg is an engaging and [MOSTLY accurate] retelling of the events surrounding what was probably the most major battle of the War of Northern Agression (no offense to anyone, I AM a southerner, but I harbor no serious prejudices toward anyone). Some minor details, such as Chamberlain's position during the battle are slightly off, but most of the historical action is dead on. Martin Sheen delivers an excellent performance as Gen. Robert E. Lee. Although this movie was released earlier, 'Gods and Generals' by Jeff Shaara (same name as the book, and Michael Shaara's son) precedes Gettysburg in historical order. Recommended to anyone interested in the American Civil War and history buffs alike.

Greatest Civil War Movie
Gettysburg is by far the best movie on the ACW ever made. I saw it in the theater as a kid and I am still impressed with it. It is much better than Gods and Generals and I think its better than Glory for the simple fact that it shows BOTH sides displaying their own feelings, emotions, and desires. I dont think Sheen was bad as Lee but at the same time I dont think Duvall had enough on screen time to properly compare him to Sheen's performance. Richard Jordan was superb in his performance as Armistead and it is a lasting tribute that his last movie before his death to a brain tumor was so powerful and emotional; sometimes I wonder if Jordan was thinking on his own death while filming those magnificent scenes for the movie.

And a little FYI to settle the harsh criticism of Maxwell picking Sheen as Lee: ROBERT DUVALL WAS MAXWELL'S FIRST CHOICE TO DO LEE IN GETTYSBURG BUT DUVALL WAS UNAVAILABLE AT THE TIME B/C HE WAS FILMING SOME OTHER MOVIE; SO MAXWELL WENT WITH A BACKUP CHOICE OF MARTIN SHEEN FOR LEE!!!

Gettysburg
I liked this movie very much, but yet I do believe that if it were made at the same time Gods and Generals was, it would have been a much better film. I thought that Sheen did a fair job at playing the great General Robert E. Lee, but he is no match for the outstanding performance of Robert Duvall. I like Tom Berenger as General Longstreet, who was also from my native state, South Carolina. Jeff Danials did a spectacular job in this film as Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain in Gettysburg as well in Gods and Generals. The effort these actors put in to this movie are so dramatic, it takes your breath away to see these men, in fact, you don't see Martin Sheen, Tom Berenger, or Jeff Danials, you see Robert E. Lee, Jamse Longstreet, and Joshua Chamberlain. But I must say, if you are going to watch Gettysburg, you mite want to watch Gods and Generals first. ... Read more

Description

Nazi Panzer forces stage a last-ditch Belgian front offensive that could turn the tide of WWII. Henry Fonda, Robert Shaw and Robert Ryan in the spectacular recreation of a crucial campaign. ... Read more

Reviews (81)

A seemingly controversial film!
Judging from all the previous opinions written on this movie, it is obvious few see it in the same light.This movie, while highly Hollywoodized (is there such a word?) is entertaining and only remotely connected to any historical reality. There is a star-studded cast with heavyweights (all gone now, I believe) like Henry Fonda, Robert Shaw, Robert Ryan, and Dana Andrews, among many others, and it is an interesting, and I found it to be, a very entertaining movie. I have owned this movie for many years on VHS and was disappointed for many of those years that it was unavailable on DVD.Why was it not available?Who cares now--it is finally out on DVD.If you don't like the movie, DVD won't change that, however.

This movie, with whatever faults (and it has many) you wish to attribute to it, is a must in any collection of war genre movies simply because of the stars and the insight it gives to movies made in 1965 while another, but realtively unpopular, war was going on. Even if you're not into war movies per se, I think it is enjoyable to watch.

If you are looking for a documentary on the history of The Battle Of the Bulge, this isn't it. As others more knowledgable than I have pointed out already, there are many inaccuracies, historically, with equipment, etc,etc.Most Hollywood movies are that way--Saving Private Ryan, Pearl Harbor, MacArthur, Patton--that's just a movie fact of life.I am sure only period films of actual combat would please some purests, so put that aside, it is worth a look soley as entertainment.In my opinion, a movie that generates this much controversy also generates curiosity as to why the controversy.See it, if you can, before buying and make up your own minds.

As comic book man would say..."Worst War Movie Ever!"
Mildly entertaining, this movie lacks in so many areas I don't know where to begin. I like to watch war movies to relive my days in the Army (I was in a tanker unit for awhile), and this movie just loses all realism and historical accuracy to the point that it resembles a circus. I saw it as a kid and liked it of course, and viewers who aren't so discerning might actually like it also, but watching it as an adult who has already watched the greatest war movies ever, I now have to give a thumbs down to this flick.
There are no unit patches on any of the soldiers whatsover. Obviously the studio must have had to cut costs somewhere. The German Tiger and Panther tanks suspiciously resemble American made tanks, the acting is so horrendous and hollywoodish, that I actually found myself rooting for the Nazis to kill them so I would no longer have to listen to their phony imitation of real soldiers over and over. Yes it was a big budget film and yes they did assemble a very all star cast, but did any of those actors ever spend 15 minutes trying to learn how actual soldiers act and talk? Actors are supposed to be believable in their roles, and this group just couldn't do it. They obviously didn't even know the right military expressions or jargon at all. Example: One of the generals making a call to HQ asks for "One hundred and fifty fives" (Howitzers), which to my knowledge has always been called one five fives (especially over a radio). Small error though it is, to me it's enough to remove any belivabilitythat the actor has ever spent a day in uniform.
The special effects are laughable, but you do have to remember the era in which this movie was filmed.High explosive tank rounds only cause a puff of smoke on enemy tanks followed by gasoline being lit on the turret.Dont expect to see turrets flying off as would be the case, oh and, soldiers don't bleed when shot either.
The end of the movie was so preposterous that I couldn't help but chuckling as Henry Fonda and Savalas rolled barrels of gasoline towards an entire column of German tanks and then tossed grenades at them and singlehandedly won the Battle of the Bulge.
This movie just seems like a sorry excuse to put Charles Bronson and Telly Savalas in other movie together to attempt to entertain the public.I'll stick to "Band Of Brothers", "When Trumpets Fade", "The Thin Red Line" or even "The Big Red One", when I need my WWII fix.

WW II Action Drama of the 1944 Ardennes Counter-Offensive
Warner Brother's 1965 epic war movie that portrays the German Ardennes Counter-Offensive in December of 1944 during WWII."Battle of the Bulge" depicts Adolf Hitler's gamble that committed three German armies to attack west to Antwerp, Belgium, and halt the Allies to force a negotiation for peace.Producer Milton Sperling and Director Ken Annakin created a movie of grand scale, but apparently chose big-screen action over historical precision to maximize box office revenue.Long relegated to infrequent television play and a chopped video tape edition, it returns on DVD restored for movie fans who like tanks and a screenplay that borders on camp by contemporary standards.

The movie depicts this historic battle through several fictional characters that eventually meet in a climatic battle that seals the Germans' fate.Henry Fonda is Lieutenant Colonel Dan Kiley, an American intelligence officer whose warnings of the coming attack fall on deaf ears.Robert Shaw is Colonel Hessler, the charismatic German Panzer (tank) commander who leads the armor spearhead towards Belgium.Charles Bronson is Major Wolinski, a tough American commander fighting the German onslaught to the last man.Telly Savalas is Sergeant Guffy, a jaded American tanker who is in the thick of the battle facing superior German tanks that relegate his to a tin can.James MacArther is Lieutenant Weaver, a slack infantry leader who survives a massacre of Allied prisoners by German soldiers.Sperling and Annakin appear to have chosen this simpler screenplay to create a few heroes who fight to overcome a seemingly invincible villain-forgoing a complex storyline as used in 20th Century Fox's 1962 "Longest Day."It works OK, certainly not on the level of "Band of Brothers," and lends a somewhat campy appeal for this 1960's action flick.

The movie does portray actual events with German paratroopers disguised as American soldiers who disrupt Allied operations, the Malmedy Massacre, and the siege of Bastogne.Their depictions contain a lot of artistic manipulation, and the relatively simple storyline faults the German defeat to depleted gasoline reserves-setting the stage for a climatic battle when Kiley, Guffy, and Weaver find themselves face-to-face with Hessler at a gasoline dump.Another gross oversight is a massive tank battle in the latter part of the movie that was apparently filmed during the spring-summer season in Spain-deplete of snow.

As long as viewers don't mind these faults-this is an entertaining movie.The M24 Chafee and M47 Patton tanks rented from the Spanish Army serve well as facsimiles for American Sherman and German Tiger tanks, and the live sets look great on the wide screen.Robert Shaw is the most charismatic in this feature and the Panzerlied chorus near the beginning of the movie is rousing.

I've always enjoyed this movie and I'm pleased with the DVD edition's restored imagery and Dolby Digital 5.1 sound, particularly the restoration of footage that I've not seen in years.

A good transfer
I will not review the movie but the DVD. It's in Widescreen. No scenes have been cut. Every minute of the movie is on this DVD. It has the overture, intermission & exit music.I saw no pops or lines in the picture. The sound & pitcure quality of this 60s movie is as good as any DVD I have. I like the movie & wish all old movies on DVD were as well done as this DVD.

dump your VHS version
I'm not going to waste your time telling you about the movie, and how great it is.
The only thing I have to say is someone did something right for a change. Whoever put this one together gave you the full version as it was first shown.
My advice if you know and love this movie, this is the one to buy, and dump your VHS. ... Read more

Reviews (155)

Great Entertainment, but . . .
George C. Scott's portrayal of General George S. Patton is outstanding in capturing the essense of the man; so much so that one thinks of Scott when considering the historic Patton! Scott's deep voice better fits the profane and volcanic nature of the General, who was "blessed" with a high and squeaky voice! A classic war film that provides great entertainment with each viewing. That said, I must take exception with a reviewer who lauded the film's accuracy. It is anything but historically accurate. The overall timeline is correct, but anyone who has read a book on Patton (especially the "Patton Papers") will spot the dramatic license taken by the Hollywood producers. Just to name a few: Patton knew that he would command Third Army before he left the Mediteranean for England. In the film, he wasn't told until after D-Day! Another: the entire exchange between Patton and Montgomery in Messina was fabricated; as was the competition between the two for Messina. This said, "Patton" remains one of my favorite movies, and I recommend it to anyone. Just have that book ready on the coffee table (also available from Amazon!)

Not the best war movie, but great character study
It may be treasonous to suggest that Patton is a flawed WW2 movie, although it is leaps and bounds the best character study ever developed inside a war movie. Not for nothing was this Nixon's favorite flick. George C. Scott justly deserved an Oscar for his portrayal of the hugely idiosyncratic Patton. I was 14 when I first saw it, and it was a real eye-opener for someone who (growing up in the military) thought all Army generals were bland smiley Eisenhower clones.

Scott's Patton is sensational, and manipulates the audience into a genuine love-hate relationship with the man. He was a tyrant, but soft-skinned. He was a brilliant tactician who was respected above all others by the Germans. He was also a mean, petty, competitive SOB who could waste soldier's lives to feed his ego, and with primitive political sensibilities - kind of an American Arik Sharon.

Flaws? Well... the movie certainly blitzes through WW2 history. Near the end of the film, the flim shows Patton's troopers rescuing the surrounded 101st Airborne at Bastogne (December 1944), and suddenly, it's May 1945. This skips over perhaps Patton's worst moment, when in 1945 he ordered a small task force to penetrate far behind German lines to attempt a rescue of his son-in law languishing in a POW camp (he was captured during the Kassarine Pass battles). The mission was a dramatic and costly failure.

I did have problems with the other significant generals portrayed in the movie. Montgomery was pompous, but he did pull the British through in North Africa. In Patton, he has few redeeming features. Karl Maulden's Omar Bradley is just too nice for a four-star general - probably because the real Bradley served as a technical consultant for the movie, which must have stirred interesting emotions in the man. The real Bradley experienced a real love-hate relationship with the flashy, tempermental Patton.

The biggest flaw in Patton is technical. Like the earlier film, "Battle of the Bulge", American tankers drive 1950's tanks (Chafees?), and the Germans get bigger American tanks. (In unlikely movies like Kelly's Heroes, they used real Shermans). This is way before "Private Ryan", so the battle scenes are dramatic enough but do not have the punch of recent movies.

The real reason for "Patton" is the man, not the battles. In this, the movie surpasses "MacArthur" and similar biopics. And this definitely has the best music score of any war movie. So maybe it gets a "five" after all.

Decent Film/No Frills DVD
It's to the much-deserved credit of the underrated George C. Scott--simply brilliant here--and director Franklin Schaffner that the celebrated general of "Patton's" title comes across more the tragic hero and less the right-wing nutjob, especially considering that the film debuted in 1970. "Patton" is worth a look for that bit of storytelling finesse alone, but the film offers much more, effectively examining both the highs and lows of the headstrong general's World War II days. Though it lacks the poetic grandeur of epics like "Lawrence of Arabia" or "How the West Was Won," "Patton" nonetheless operates on a big scale, and Scott's larger-than-life portrayal is never obscured by the production's legions of soldiers or frequent changes of scenery. The script, co-written by Francis Ford Coppola, stays focused on the professional aspects of Patton's life--his devotion to duty, command, and career--and wisely avoids bogging down with diversions into romance or family life. Some might find such an approach imbalanced, but most viewers will likely enjoy the "purity" of what is, for lack of a better term, a satisfying "guy's story." Look for Karl Malden in a great supporting role as Omar Bradley, and enjoy Jerry Goldsmith's bombastic score, rivaled only by John Williams' Indiana Jones overtures. Still, "Patton" is not without faults. Military buffs may bemoan some technical inaccuracies, such as using tanks that don't fit the historical period; at times, the characterizations devolve into caricature, especially that of British General Montgomery; and some of Patton's borderline psychotic behavior--his various rages and obsessions with dreams and reincarnation--seem too easily dismissed as colorful idiosyncracies. The DVD itself is rather bare for a film that received many Oscars, perhaps the biggest flaw of all.

GREATEST WAR FILM EVER MADE
In 1970, two films juxtaposed each other. "Patton" was an unlikely winner of eight Oscars. The pacifist Scott for all practical purposes took his Buck Turgidson character and refined him into the real-life Patton. In interviews, Scott said he found his research of Patton revealed an unbalanced man, but on screen Scott nailed him as the vainglorious, brilliant, driven warmonger he was. Steiger was offered the role first but turned it down because it glorified war. Vietnam was absolutely at its apex. It was very surprising that Hollywood would make such a film at that time. But director Frankin Schaffner had served under Patton, and after making "The Planet of the Apes" had the clout to call his shots. The film did not get America behind the war, but it did cause Nixon to start bombing Cambodia because the Patton story convinced him to get tough. The screenwriter, oddly enough, was Francis Ford Coppola, who may have done himself a turn. Coppola was no war lover, and wrote "Patton" as a man obsessed with war ("God help me, I love it so"), deluded by visions of Napoleonic grandeur mixed with Episcopalian Christianity and karmic reincarnation. The intent may have been to show a psychotic military man, to de-mask his heroism, and this may have been what prompted Scott to play it. From page to screen there are virtually no changes, but if Coppola was trying to put down the military by showing Patton's human warts, the result was a brilliant work that now is one of, if not the most, conservative pictures ever made. Watching "Patton" stirs wonderful pride in two countries (Great Britain is prominent in the film) that were tough enough to stand up to the Nazis when the rest of the world cowered in victimhood. Karl Malden's Omar Bradley is Patton's perfect foil, as is the Bernard Law Montgomery character. The film saved Coppola, who was about to be fired as "The Godfather" director. When he won the Oscar for "Patton", it gave him too much clout to get the axe.

(...)

WORTH SEEING JUST FOR THE OPENING SPEECH
In this post-9/11 world everyone should see this film if only to see and hear the famous speech Patton gave to his troops, opening the film. He starts out by saying that no one ever won a war by dying for his country. One wins a war by getting the guy on the other side to die for HIS (other) country. The Islamic terrorist plaguing the world today all say they want to die. Patton would say that he is glad to oblige them.

Just a warning, don't expect to learn anything about the conduct of the Second World War from this film. It is first and formost a character study of Patton, the man, and I can't praise George C. Scott enough for his stupendous performance. It is rare in history that an actor adapts so well to the role he is playing. ... Read more

Description

This acclaimed productioned worldwide by mystery fans. A & E Home Video presents the second DVD collection, featuring five feature-film adaptations of Miss Marple's greatest mysteries on three discs. It's hour of great whodunits for all ages! ... Read more

Reviews (34)

Entertaining and accurate for the most part
Being a scholar of history and Medieval Europe in particular, I found this documentary rather accurate on most points, despite what a few of the previous reviewers have said. Also, it was very entertaining. You can't beat that combination.

The only real problemswith it, is that it is only 4 hours long, and therefore, takes some short-cuts, oversimplifies a few things and is not as in-depth as I would have liked it to have been.

That said, it is still mostly true to the sense of the Crusades that is conveyed in many historical accounts, while at the same time cutting away the Pro-European bias that is present in many texts.

Some of the "facts" that the previous reviewers have mentioned (such as: the Crusades being a response to the Muslim takeover of the Balkans, which in actuality did not occur until well in the 14th century. another is the statement that the Muslims who eventually took over the Balkans were motivated by Mohammed's original fervor, which is also not true as these Muslims were Turks who only recently converted to Islam), are not really facts, and are clearly motivated by unfounded Anti-Muslim sentiments. I suggest ignoring them.

All in all, this is a very informative and enjoyable DVD set.

Propaganda? Make no mistake about it?
Readers and viewers of this work should realize that history contains ugly realities to anyone's perspectives. Certainly, the Moorish hordes relegated Christians and Jews to Dimi status (mostly as a sort of tax strategy), looted, enslaved, and killed masses just like the crusaders, but THIS ISN'T A BOOK ABOUT THE ARABS!!!

This same sort of 'prejuidcial history' is leveled against Noam Chomsky for his history of the Arab Israeli conflict and his focus on Israel and the U.S. As with critics of Chomsky, you should note that the author of the previous review makes no mention of the facts presented in the book. Why? Because he cannot refute them. Instead he accuses the authors of apologetic propaganda; exactly the exercise in which he is involved.

The humor of history triumphs in all the wrong places
This set of two disks takes a very modern look at about two hundred years of history, but I am not going to remember which two hundred. It was so long ago that people no longer seem to be concerned about how everyone involved managed to absorb all of the financial costs involved. Warfare often upsets some apple carts, and this presentation of the Crusades is openly aware of aristocratic ambition that could be condemned as a desire for conquest while it remains mired in the inversion of spiritual values which prompted the institutional churches at that time to consider each pathetic episode a great thing for one reason or another.

My intellectual bias in this area is that no college professor could have made a better version of a history for our times. Back in 1995, the nature of the Order of Assassins with its suicide squads high from hashish was hardly as important as it is in the world since September 11, 2001, but on the other side, the financial suicide involved in trying to change the nature of the Middle East by military invasion was as clear then as more recent expeditions threatening to last another two hundred years boggle the mind today. I might be taking a stand that is too political for 2004, which might be a year in which people in America try to impose their own interest in intelligence, competence, and living within the limits of our ability to absorb losses. This series of television shows puts a lot of emphasis on the extraordinary wealth of Constantinople and Egypt in those times, when military equipment also had a high price. What really gets your goat the first time through this series, though, is the treachery: cities plundered, caravans attacked, truces violated, and hostages held for ransom.

People with pride might feel that this DVD set is trying to chip away at it by using ridicule as the ultimate weapon against everything that used to consider itself great, and well they might. They should, too. Why am I giving this stars? Why can't I give it ARFs?

ARF, ARF, ARF, ARF, ARF!

As balanced as Humpty-Dumpty
Call this history? Try Monty Python and the Holy Grail for deeper insight, historical content and accuracy.

Giggle and Learn!
Who better than Terry Jones (Say no more, say no more, nudge nudge wink wink) to host a fresh look at warfare - in the name of Religion mind you - during the Middles Ages?

Rather conceited, in the name of reclaiming the Holy Lands (excuse for adventure and to loot!) - The Church not only encouraged the Crusades but sponsored them! It was a way a Knight could pay dispensation for sins of life and earn his way to heaven - by lopping of the heads of the Infidel (and stealing everything they had). For Centuries, involving the royal heads of France, Britain and Europe, the seemingly endless Crusades raged on and on. So who better to explain the unexplainable madness, but the head jester himself!

Terry Jones wrote each episode and starred as the host, trying to muddle through the mounds of nonsense involved everything connected to the religious sponsored mayhem. With his brilliantly incisive humour that made Monty Python was it was, he dons chain mail and pointy toe armour and has it.

It is great fun for the whole family and a painless way to have a good introduction to the Crusades. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The Longest Day is Hollywood's definitive D-day movie.More modern accounts such as Saving Private Ryan are morevividly realistic, but producer Darryl F. Zanuck's epic 1962 account isthe only one to attempt the daunting task of covering that fateful dayfrom all perspectives. From the German high command and front-lineofficers to the French Resistance and all the key Allied participants,the screenplay by Cornelius Ryan, based on his own authoritative book, is as factuallyaccurate as possible. The endless parade of stars (John Wayne, HenryFonda, Robert Mitchum, Sean Connery, and Richard Burton, to name a few)makes for an uneasy mix of verisimilitude and Hollywood star-power,however, and the film falls a little flat for too much of its three-hour running time. But the set-piece battles are still spectacular, andif the landings on Omaha Beach lack the graphic gore of PrivateRyan they nonetheless show the sheer scale and audacity of theinvasion. --Mark Walker ... Read more

Reviews (131)

Comparisons are inevitable; they're also unhelpful
The comparisons are of course between THE LONGEST DAY and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. The only similarities are: both movies depict the allied landings at Normandy on D-Day, they are tributes to the servicemen of WWII, and most importantly, both are good movies. That said, general comparisons are unhelpful because the realism that made Spielberg's movie so memorable is totally absent from THE LONGEST DAY; for two very good reasons: (1) technically, the capability was unavailable in 1962 and (2) morally, that level of graphic violence would have been unacceptable. Also, Mr Zanuck, as director, did not want to make bloody messes of his numerous stars.

Realism aside, on its own merits THE LONGEST DAY is a tribute that has stood the test of time. The huge collection of stars (over 40) and the near 3 hour length qualifies it as epic. On an emotional level, it is a patriotic salute to the soldiers who went ashore. With a scope larger than Omaha beach, the focus is not exclusively American; the movie depicts the role of the British, and other allied troops, as well as the work of the French resistance. German dialogue is subtitled to add some realism. Perhaps the best aspect of the movie is that as an adaptation of Cornelius Ryan's book of the same name, it is based on a historically accurate account of the battle.

For realism, patriotism, and a sentimental heroic story, only partially based on real events of D-Day, watch SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. For an old fashioned, "clean" war movie based on history with good acting (Henry Fonda, Robert Mitchum, John Wayne, Curt Jurgens) watch THE LONGEST DAY. Better yet, view both, just don't spoil the experience with a lot of comparisons.

The Longest View
Unlike Saving Private Ryan, The Longest Day was filmed to dramatize the true, unfolding story of the invasion of France beginning several days before the invasion, which was documented for all time by journalist Cornelius Ryan. Ryan did something few historians have successfully accomplished since the end of the war. He compiled thousands of interviews and wrote a realistic account of the invasion which reads like a suspense and action novel. The movie seeks to combine many characters taken from Ryan's book, and is therefore fiction as well as history, but it is masterfully done and is otherwise true to history. Stereotypes of incompetent German officers and troops, so common in film and television of the early 1960's was not a problem in this movie, nor is the graphic violence of Private Ryan observable. The true story is the focus of the movie, and it was made primarily for veterans who had seen the real violence and had fought tough, intellegent and brave Germans, and had no need to be reminded of those horrors. They did have a desire to see their sacrifices and trials acknowledged alongside the background of historical context. It is a gripping movie. A side note for those who might want to compare The Longest Day with Saving Private Ryan. These should compliment each other, not be compared with each other. The audience for The Longest Day was primarily the veterans, their peers and children. The audience or Saving Private Ryan is primarily the grandchildren of the veterans, young people who are in the main, quite ignorant of history. There is no doubt that Saving Private Ryan is more accurate a portayal of historical American and German weapons and villages, but this was not even attempted in the Longest Day. If you will read The Longest Day before watching Saving Private Ryan, you will see that the sites and sounds remembered by many of the interviewed veterans who were at Omaha and Utah beaches somehow happened at the same time and place in Saving Private Ryan. That makes Saving Private Ryan as inaccurate for what it shows, as is The Longest Day, for what it doesn't show. Both movies are excellent, and both are moving.

IT HAS NOT STOOD THE TEST OF