Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting

Bea Swanson This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Jerrie It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

MartinHafer I cannot understand why the current rating for this is so mediocre. Perhaps it's because the war itself wasn't much of a war--but this is all the more reason to love and appreciate this long and extremely rich documentary. That's because VERY FEW films have ever talked about this war--so few that I would venture to say that a huge percentage of Americans know absolutely nothing about it.Using the usual great narration, photos, recreations and music, the film spins a fine tale. It also re-frames the story as not just a war between an upstart America and a world-class super-power (Britain), but goes so far as to say it was like a second war for independence. I loved this film from start to finish but particularly admired how one long gunman (whose identity is cloaked with the ages) who actually turned the tide after the horrible loss of Washinton, DC to the Brits. Well worth seeing--and well worth seeing again.

starry-messenger I find the Canadian reviews far more interesting than the documentary. Its interesting that all Canadian reviews find it inaccurate and the rest including this one are responding to their comments. I work with many Canadians (French and English) and didn't realize that the War of 1812 is viewed by Canadians the way Americans view the American Revolutionary War.At the time of the War of 1812 current Canada was British North America, part of the British Empire. The Dominion of Canada did not become a nation until 1867 (as a result of the U.S. Civil War) and even to this day retains the British Crown. The War of 1812 was between the United States and British Empire. British North America at the time offered a convenient (if unsuccessful) point to attack the British Empire. U.S. expansionism was a motivation but as you all point out invasions to the north were very unsuccessful and not well manned or prepared. Regardless the U.S. attempted to invaded a British territory, not another country. I am unaware of any U.S. military invasion of Canada since 1867 and in fact the two countries share the longest unguarded border in the world.I want to respond to the points raised by jcp-9.1) After American independence Britain didn't recognize naturalized American citizenship, and treated anyone born a British subject as still "British" — as a result, the Royal Navy impressed over 9,000 sailors who claimed to be American citizens. Impressment was not abolished by the British until 1814. Impressment of a nation's citizens by another nation is an act of war. 2) British forces certainly invaded Chesapeake Bay and New Orleans. They were not invited. Yes the U.S. did declare war on the British Empire and this was in response to impressment as well as other grievances. 3) The United States was fighting the British Empire. The U.S. at the time was clearly the underdog. Again at the time Canada did not exist as a nation but as British North America. 4) Regarding the Battle of New Orleans, if the war was over why were the British invading? Communications were slow and neither side was aware of the Treaty of Ghent.Another point from Erik Kaufman, "Condemned to Rootlessness: The Loyalist Origins of Canada's Identity Crisis", Nationalism and Ethnic Politics: "Already, the War was being turned to mythical ends in Upper Canada: Britain had defended her colonies and Providence had ensured the 'Triumph of virtue over vice, of a good cause over a bad one...Together, Upper Canadians came to believe, they had vanquished the forces of tyranny and oppression. Out of the war there arose a sense of community, an awareness of being Upper Canadian, which encompassed all settlers. The War of 1812 came to be considered by many as the colony's rite of passage into young adulthood.'"

julian-mazur I have read the reviews and as a Canadian I beg to differ in regard to this documentary. No wonder it was never shown in Canada. What do the film makers mean America won the War of 1812 ? You never conquered my country.Consider these facts. In February, 1815 our British forces controlled the District of Maine; Prairie Du Chein in Wisconsin, ( This fort controlled the fur trade on the upper Mississippi and access to the Great Lakes. ), Fort St. Mary along with the town and Cumberland Island, Georgia and Fort Bowyer, Alabama.And how much territory in Canada did American forces control in February, 1815 ? Oh yeah. None.In addition to this the British were effectively blockading all eastern and southern American ports and six American states were considering succession from the Union. ( Hartford Convention. ) Now I want to set the record straight regarding the Battle of Baltimore. You did not give us a Stalingrad ! A small diversionary force of 4,000 British soldiers and sailors took on 12,000 American soldiers who stayed behind their walls of Fort McHenry and in the city while the rockets from the British ships tried to knock the well built walls of the fort down. After 25 hours the British stopped their bombardment and slowly withdrew. The Americans did not pursue us. The British left well satisfied because they knew they had greatly exceeded their original mission which was to take Washington D.C. We had also taken Fort Washington; Alexandria, Virginia; won two battles - Bladenburg and North Point and perhaps best of all, liberated approx. 2,000 black slaves in the Chesapeake area and took them away with us to start new lives as free people in Canada, Bermuda and Trinidad. We also liberated approx. 1,500 more slaves on Cumberland Island, Georgia and more were set free elsewhere. Why didn't the documentary tell the American viewers about all this ? As the Treaty of Ghent, Belgium makes clear, the War of 1812 ended in a draw but the British were clearly winning it.It would be wrong to call the war, America's Second War of Independence as we only intended to take the Territory of Michigan from you to give to Britain's Indian allies as their own permanent land.Finally, what should have been covered by this documentary were all the tens of thousands of American P.O.W's that were imprisoned at Melville Island, Halifax, Nova Scotia, at Dartmoor Prison in England and elsewhere. Believe me, their story needs to be told.

jcp-9 I am not a regular viewer of the History Channel, and I can only hope that the jingoist bias and chauvinistic pandering which deface this production are not representative of what that network presents to Americans as their "history". This video might work as a documentary to viewers in the U.S.; to Canadians, it is effective only as comedy. Imagine watching a German documentary which claims that Hitler invaded Poland only because he was provoked, and you'll understand how a Canadian reacts to this nonsense.This video's production values are fine, but a documentary needs to do more than just look good. It has an ethical responsibility. It needs to meet a certain standard of documentary credibility; otherwise, it cannot claim membership in the genre. On that score, this work fails miserably.This piece manages to misinterpret or skew virtually every historical detail concerning the reasons for and conduct of the war. Some assertions are more idiotic than others:1) The video asserts that Britain kidnapped American sailors on the high seas. In fact, Britain merely claimed the right to search American ships for Royal Navy deserters, many of whom ended up serving on American ships. In fact, the American Navy freely admitted that many British deserters served in its crews.2) The video describes the war as a British "invasion" of the U.S. This is absolute rubbish. The Americans were the belligerents. The U.S. Congress declared war on Great Britain, and the first hostility occurred when an American force invaded Canada. After it was thrown back across the border, Isaac Brock decided to take the initiative and, with his tiny force of Canadian militia and British regulars, decided to make a retaliatory strike into the U.S. For Britain and Canada, the war was always purely defensive. This video inverts the morality of the war entirely.3) The video speaks of America as the "underdog", whose amateur army took on the might of Great Britain's "battle-hardened" soldiers. In fact, for most of the war, Canada had only a minuscule force at her disposal, much of it made up of militia (i.e.Canadian farmers), many of whom were unfamiliar with basic military tactics. These inexperienced militia faced American regulars in battles that were always absurdly lopsided, with the Canadians outnumbered by ratios approaching ten to one. The notion that it was the Americans who were at a military disadvantage is sheer idiocy.4) The video claims that the Americans won the war and uses the Battle of New Orleans to punctuate this point. Two problems. First, the Battle of New Orleans occurred AFTER the war was over. Secondly, when you attempt to invade a country and are repulsed, you lose. America's attempt to invade and occupy Canada failed; America lost.I had not realised that the American myth of invincibility is strong enough to lead to this kind of Stalinist distortion. It's a little sad, and it's regrettable that so many, especially the young, will swallow this pap as if it were real history. What next? Are we going to begin seeing documentaries celebrating the American "victory" in Vietnam?