Incannerax What a waste of my time!!!

GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Yash Wade Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

dimitrios karagiannis Imagine if someone was making a documentary for the First Civil War without even mentioning Belgium ,what kind of documentary would that be deemed? Now the producers managed to achieve no mention of Greece, whilst having the opportunity to do so for 10 episodes!And no, we are not talking about interpretations of facts (the Armenian/Pontian genocide is 'disputed' according to the authors) , we are talking about just mentioning Greece (!) despite the fact that Greece participated in the First World WarIf someone didn't know anything about the First World War ,this documentary gives the impression that Greece didn't participate at all!!That's an utter disgrace and the explanation is simple.Either the producers did that one deliberately , or they are incompetentAnd whilst the documentary is in general well produced , they managed to fail spectacularly by NOT including one of the main countries who participated in the First World War

Miles-10 You would not recommend reading only one history book, so why would anyone recommend only one documentary about World War I? This is a good documentary because it covers a great deal and very engagingly, but sometimes it tries to cover too much and necessarily leaves gaps. If you watch other documentaries, you will find out that the first great tank breakthrough was preceded by a tank failure and that the British Expeditionary Force was so unprepared for the breakthrough when it came that they failed to send enough troops into the breach to secure it, leading to the German recapture of the temporarily lost territory.There is confusion, too, as when it is said that German commander von Hutier's attack on Amiens, France had no purpose, but a few minutes later it is said that when Ludendorff decided to attack Amiens he had an objective of smashing the railroad nexus there. Had Hutier succeeded, wouldn't that have served the same purpose even if accidentally?A mass of information is presented that dizzies the old hand let alone the beginner, but even so, I was glad that this documentary offers a wealth of stimulating information about all sides of the conflict. The fact that it is British-made gives it an unavoidable bias that is made up for by its attempt to bring other nation's voices into the narrative, using the accounts of both well-known and relatively unknown participants.There are many documentaries about World War I that are also good. Some, for example, focus more than this one on the war from the point of view of those outside of Europe. This one gives a lot of information about that aspect of the war even though it tries to cover too much ground to tell the viewer all the details. This is a survey, and a pretty good starting point. Learn more about World War I, and you will come to see that there are other opinions on some of the topics. There is more subject matter than this documentary had time to cover, and you might even think that what they left out is awfully important. You might, nevertheless, always remember "The First World War" fondly as an equally informative and moving introduction.

quadrivist I had to write this comment because the person whose comment I saw first was absolutely ridiculous, saying that this documentary is slanted and biased toward a British point of view. I disagree.I watch everything I can about WWI & WWII, and have been repeatedly dissatisfied with most WWI doc.s because they are too few and often do not even attempt to take on the monumental task with such depth as did this series. Specifically, I recall thinking to myself several times how honest and objective the documentary was.I came away from the series with an understanding of the gray aspects of all the sides concerned and their respective actions (sometimes ethically questionable, sometimes not - on all sides). This war was not like WWII in many ways, not as clear cut, not as linear. Each nation, each major player, had its own entry and mode of operating during the war, which differed as time passed. No one was clearly the knight in shining armor, nor does this documentary propose such a thing, though the players involved at the time may have. I dare say it would not hold your attention for ten episodes if it was not masterfully nuanced in its portrayal of this under-studied, seldom understood war. This series satisfies the desire to know the time line in much deeper detail, spans many countries, people, and reminds the viewer to try and see the story unfold from the perspective of the contemporary. Wonderfully produced. A must see. 10 out of 10 !

John Esche I was eagerly looking forward to this ten episode, four DVD set (8 hours and 23 minutes in all) based on the claims on the box of previously unseen film footage and newly accessible archival material from Central and Eastern European sources and most especially the ties to a book by a "professor" (presumably of history - Hew Strachan). Unfortunately, as assembled (in an initially promising chronological format) by BBC 4, there is little or no pretense of objective history and far too many omissions and distortions in the service of a strictly British viewpoint. The over all effect, despite copious quotations from participants on all sides, is like a history of World War II's "D-Day" told entirely from Field Marshall Montgomery's aide de camp's viewpoint.The vast majority of film footage (mostly acknowledged - but not some of the obvious naval model work; possibly from faked "newsreels"?) is from 1920's and 30's film reconstructions and fictionalizations mixed with color footage of locales as they look today. While there is interesting period movie footage, it is almost all behind the lines and of close-up non-action scenes and TV cameras scanning across still photos.One of the single most desired sequences, the final newsreel footage of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand leaving the Serajevo City Hall moments before his assassination, is only shown in the abbreviated and already much circulated cut. The reasons for Franz Ferdinand - a fascinating, complex figure given very short shrift here (and his Sophie) being in Bosnia that day (their 14th Wedding Anniversary) are totally omitted - as are any understanding of his reigning Uncle, Emperor Franz Joseph at the head of a great multi-cultural empire or the reasons the majority of Moslem Bosnia was opposed to Eastern Orthodox Serbian pretensions over their territory since both broke away from the shrinking Ottoman Empire.Once the war itself started (you will be hard pressed to understand why from the sketchy story told here), the British documentary almost entirely ignores the original combatants but focuses on the British and their conflict with Austria's unsubtle allies in Germany.Because of the British confrontations (to their considerable discomfort) with the Ottoman Turk, much time is spent on this front, allowing at least rudimentary (and that's about all) discussion of the source of the continuing Armenian question in Episode Four, but even here, there is almost no followable line of the way the Ottoman wobbled in and out of the war until finally committing to the Central Powers following the second Russian Revolution in 1917, removing them from the war. There is even less discussion of impact of the tenuous Japanese alliance with the Russians and British springing from the settlement of the Russo-Japanese War in 1905.A far better look at the complexity of World War I (although neither attempt or claim to be as complete in the material covered), with far more actual footage from the period in question is available in several documentaries ranging from Hollywood GOES TO WAR to WORLD WAR I IN COLOR. This Anglophile attempt at history is only for the dedicated Anglophile looking for entertainment pretending to be serious, not the serious amateur historian who will see too many holes spoiling the fun.