grendelkhan The hook of this documentary series is the footage in color and hi-def. In that, it succeeds. As an account of the war, with its complexity, it fails miserably. As a collection of first hand recollections, it has some very moving moments. In all, it's a bit of a mixed bag.The series is only looking at the American aspects of the war, with the Pacific getting the stronger treatment. This is in part due to the greater amount of color footage shot in the Pacific theater. Some of it has been seen before, as far back as the 1970s, in The World at War. The series also adds dramatic presentations of personal accounts, ala Ken Burns' work. However, it does this when it has the real subjects in interviews and their conversations, however halting and unpolished they may be, are far more powerful than those delivered by actors. The use of an actor narration, where the subject has passed on, makes sense; but, not when the subject is still alive and captured on film.The Good:Some of the footage has been rarely seen, or not seen at all by younger audiences. It doesn't shy away from showing the horror of the carnage, which is something that people need to remember in an era where war is presented like a video game, rather than death and destruction. A common theme amongst the veterans is that they witnessed terrible things and hope that the world can learn from its mistakes and settle things peacefully, so that no one has to suffer like that again.Some of the stories are heartbreaking, especially Rocky Blunt, who thought he was untouched by Army conditioning to kill, until it came down to his life or a German soldier. There is no Hollywood gloss as he tells, agonizingly, how he slit a German soldier's throat to keep him from giving away Blunt's position. It is obvious that he is haunted by that act to this day. Army Nurse June Wandry's account (via a dramatized narration) about treating the survivors of concentration camps brings tears to your eyes.The series also features some minority voices, via a member of the 442 Regimental Combat Team (the Nissei unit) and a pilot of the Tuskeege Airmen. These men had to endure prejudice as well as the horrors of war.The Bad:The background of the war is glossed over badly and one never gets a sense of the other side as anything other than "the enemy." The Eastern Front is completely ignored, as if the suffering of the Russian people is of little consequence. Allied forces are rarely presented, as if the US was alone in the war, giving a rather distorted perspective. Some of the footage is repeated at different points, suggesting that images have been placed in sections to illustrate the narrative, not based on where and when they were actually shot. Finally, the series is over-narrated in sections, when images can tell the story.In summary, if you want a comprehensive history of the war, with all of its complexity, then this isn't the series to provide that. The British series The World as War is the one you want. If you want to hear first hand accounts and see color footage, then this will suffice.

Dennis The History Channel is airing this series again and I am watching it for the first time. I think it is an important production because they have interviewed many veterans to include their stories in this narrative. These scenes are filmed in HD with the 1.77 aspect ratio. This is great. Voted 9 of 10.However, the cut-in scenes of vintage film should have preserved the 1.3 aspect ratio with side bars. The result is a distorted view. The planes don't look like they should, the people are broader. Why do professional image makers do this? This still happens in 2011 after HD format is becoming the TV norm.Since the title of the series is WWII in HD, I suppose the producers felt that they had to present the historical footage in a screen filling format. Voted -4, net vote is 5, Average. I'd watch it on cable, but wouldn't pay a dime for distorted historical images.

Kristaps Ozolins ...if only we took away politics. This is just another propaganda material, which justify some allied war crimes and demonize Germans and Japanese. It's understandable when you make such movies in war time, but it's not understandable when you make them 50 years after. In reality there is no bad or good people, there is no evil ones or holy ones, there are just people, some are worse, some are better. OK, if we put politics away, then there is left a bunch of good and not so good quality WWII war footage. It's very educational and impressive to watch. You can get sneak peak into real WWII world, not Hollywood-made one. Movie is made chronologically and starts with Guadalcanal operation, some intro is made before. Movie tells the story of American version of WWII - Pacific front, North Africa, Italy and France, so if you are more interested in eastern front and events before 7th December of 1941, this movie is not for you. I can't give this movie more than 3 stars because of massive propaganda. If you are easily influenced, don't watch it, otherwise get ready for some brainwashing and good luck!

mattmccleary I think people are generally misunderstanding that just because the film footage is not as clear or detailed as recent films that this is not "high definition". It is a high definition transfer of the footage we have of the war. This is just about as good as we are going to get this footage. A good complaint would be that this footage would generally be properly displayed in a 1.33:1 format, but people are unfairly complaining of the video quality of the film footage.The work they did here is generally fantastic, even if it is not in the correct aspect ratio.