Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

National Geographic: Generals At War (seen 5 battles mentioned)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • National Geographic: Generals At War (seen 5 battles mentioned)

    Saw these on the ole newsgroup, and being something of a junkie for docus downloaded them to check out.

    Watched the Battle of the Bulge briefly, then skipped to the Kursk one even more briefly.

    Ok it won't come as any shock when I say it I suppose, but god they sucked. If you have contemplated watching them, don't waste the effort.

    It's not the factual accuracy, its the excessive blandness. They have two individuals that have genuine military service take up the role of the key commander on one of the sides and examine that leader in detail. They examne the battle from all points as well of course.

    Well that is the claim.

    But the treatment is so utterly bland, lightweight, substance less. Not much in the way of archival footage at all. Really cheesy models and sucktastic visuals.

    You won't come away thinking your time was well spent. It won't be.
    Life is change. Built models for decades.
    Not sure anyone here actually knows the real me.
    I didn't for a long time either.

  • #2
    It has got to be one of the most 'low budget' looking production I've ever seen. For goodness sake, they use cardboard cut-out models of tanks, soldiers and aircraft! And the two actors they use usually have little to no expressions.

    I agree. Waste of my time, especially if you know something beyond their superficial and simplistic treatment of the battles already.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by les Brains View Post
      Saw these on the ole newsgroup, and being something of a junkie for docus downloaded them to check out.

      Watched the Battle of the Bulge briefly, then skipped to the Kursk one even more briefly.

      Ok it won't come as any shock when I say it I suppose, but god they sucked. If you have contemplated watching them, don't waste the effort.

      It's not the factual accuracy, its the excessive blandness. They have two individuals that have genuine military service take up the role of the key commander on one of the sides and examine that leader in detail. They examne the battle from all points as well of course.

      Well that is the claim.

      But the treatment is so utterly bland, lightweight, substance less. Not much in the way of archival footage at all. Really cheesy models and sucktastic visuals.

      You won't come away thinking your time was well spent. It won't be.
      Looks like I should give it a pass. Thanks for the info.

      Comment

      Latest Topics

      Collapse

      Working...
      X