This is an amazing series! I show this series to my high school history class and they are captivated by the stories of these men. One of the reviews was so negative it was sickening (show some respect for the veterans of World War II). My dad was a World War II vet and he fought in the Battle of the Bulge. I would rather show this series than "Saving Private Ryan," or the "Band of Brothers." While, the production is better, after watching the "World War II: The Last Heroes," I felt like I experienced what is was truly like during those battles. I highly recommend this series!
5 Reviews
Amazing.
majekcarter15 July 2015
I've watched hundreds and hundreds of documentaries on military history and I've read as many books. From a Historian perspective, you probably won't like this series ... it's not a dissection of strategies, exploration of leadership styles, or meticulously detailed analysis of anything (the thing we historians love). What this is is simply this ... it's an effort to give a voice to some of the last living WWII combat veterans before there are none left. That's it ... and that's okay. Sure, this series could have been told with half the number of episodes (a lot of the footage is repeated) ... but the producers/directors are trying to paint a picture and the footage is only one color on their canvas; and like a painting, colors are often repeated.
What this series is ideal for ... is the modern generation. It's short, visual, and emotional that introduces more WWII history than is currently taught in the public schools. Every High School should show this series ... with signed parental authorization, of course (ironically, boys the same age today would need permission slips to watch the movie ... whereas 70+ years ago, boys of the same age, were living it); that is, if you can break them away from the Kardassians, Survivor and Facebook.
What this series is ideal for ... is the modern generation. It's short, visual, and emotional that introduces more WWII history than is currently taught in the public schools. Every High School should show this series ... with signed parental authorization, of course (ironically, boys the same age today would need permission slips to watch the movie ... whereas 70+ years ago, boys of the same age, were living it); that is, if you can break them away from the Kardassians, Survivor and Facebook.
Excellent
terlgerl15 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
My husband and I love history, especially WW2. We were riveted throughout this documentary series. It chronicles the Allied troops taking back occupied Europe from fanatical Nazis who fought to the death. It weaves stories from the men who fought (and one women!), original footage, and dramatic reenactments (mostly blowing stuff up). Many of the aged veterans tell their stories with deep emotion and seem to remember many details vividly- sights, smells, sounds, etc. From the excitement to the heart-wrenching to the terrifying. The series did an excellent job of making the not too distant history come alive. We have a deeper appreciation of the sacrifices of so many, to keep the world from falling into the hands of an evil dictator. We both had tears in our eyes at the graphic footage of the horrors of what was discovered in the concentration camps by G.I.'s; battle-hardened men who couldn't speak of what they had seen for years. They also don't breeze over the high, high cost these men payed. The ones who survived struggled with what we now know as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. They truly were Heroes and their story deserves to be told.
Toys over brains
YohjiArmstrong8 November 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This is a six part documentary covering the period from D-Day to the fall of Berlin, using archive footage, interviews with veterans and expensive re-enactments.
WORLD WAR II: THE LAST HEROES is a missed opportunity. The problem, very simply, lies in the way that television is commissioned. This series was made by the same people who made BLITZ STREET and like that series they sold this on the basis of their re-enactments of various period weapons filmed in HD. This is gimmick broadcasting.
There are a number of problems. First is the lack of a thesis. The last two decades of scholarship have over-turned a number of hoary old ideas and a programme which took on board the re-assessment of the British-Canadian Army (Ashley-Hart, Copp, Buckley etc.) or which dealt seriously with the Soviets (Glantz) would have been novel and educational. Unfortunately that would have required hiring historians rather than explosives experts. Secondly is the lack of a driving narrative. This is the fault of the writers, who do not understand their subject and have little skill at telling a story. As a result the whole thing drags.
Thirdly is dubious use of archive, due to lack of a decent archivist. To give only one of numerous examples, during the episode dealing with Operation Market Garden the v/o talks of British paratroopers but the images show normal infantry. Either nobody spotted that error, nobody understood the difference in uniforms or it was the result of limited archive/budget/time that necessitated the use of inappropriate archive to fill a gap.
Fourthly are the interviews. Partly the problem here is age because there are so few veterans left and those that are are very old and consequently facing their mortality which unsurprisingly colours their views. Furthermore many of the interviews were conducted by women (I can't say how I know), who were not interested or experienced in the subject and to whom the soldiers were unlikely to divulge themselves fully. The result is a over- emphasis on emotion over anecdote and an over-reverence towards the veterans that helps nobody. Fifthly are the whole reason for the series, the weapon re-enactments. These are jarringly unrelated to the rest of the programme, provide no real insight and exist only as a gimmick or to liven up trailers. To try to disguise this there are frequent cuts to short shots of explosions from these re-enactments which serve no purpose but to fill up time between the next interview or bit of narrative.
The sixth problem is that the v/o is awful, the voice clearly being that of one of the programme makers rather than a professional, which sucks the life out of the script.
This is a good example of the problems in historical factual programming today, namely that commissioning is usually predicated on novelty rather than scholarship. Hence decisions made even before the programme was started sank it. Added to is a general lack of knowledge or understanding of the subject, not unusual in a business that relies on small companies who cannot specialise and who have limited time to learn. Furthermore there is the dreadful modern tendency towards a skewed social history that prefers emotion over analysis.
Clearly some hard work went into this series but the concept was flawed and the execution was patchy. Like so many series a lack of ambition, knowledge and skill condemns it to be forgotten. Which is sad considering that this probably cost £2-3 million and that a further series on this subject is now unlikely to be made in the next half- decade for fear of repetition.
WORLD WAR II: THE LAST HEROES is a missed opportunity. The problem, very simply, lies in the way that television is commissioned. This series was made by the same people who made BLITZ STREET and like that series they sold this on the basis of their re-enactments of various period weapons filmed in HD. This is gimmick broadcasting.
There are a number of problems. First is the lack of a thesis. The last two decades of scholarship have over-turned a number of hoary old ideas and a programme which took on board the re-assessment of the British-Canadian Army (Ashley-Hart, Copp, Buckley etc.) or which dealt seriously with the Soviets (Glantz) would have been novel and educational. Unfortunately that would have required hiring historians rather than explosives experts. Secondly is the lack of a driving narrative. This is the fault of the writers, who do not understand their subject and have little skill at telling a story. As a result the whole thing drags.
Thirdly is dubious use of archive, due to lack of a decent archivist. To give only one of numerous examples, during the episode dealing with Operation Market Garden the v/o talks of British paratroopers but the images show normal infantry. Either nobody spotted that error, nobody understood the difference in uniforms or it was the result of limited archive/budget/time that necessitated the use of inappropriate archive to fill a gap.
Fourthly are the interviews. Partly the problem here is age because there are so few veterans left and those that are are very old and consequently facing their mortality which unsurprisingly colours their views. Furthermore many of the interviews were conducted by women (I can't say how I know), who were not interested or experienced in the subject and to whom the soldiers were unlikely to divulge themselves fully. The result is a over- emphasis on emotion over anecdote and an over-reverence towards the veterans that helps nobody. Fifthly are the whole reason for the series, the weapon re-enactments. These are jarringly unrelated to the rest of the programme, provide no real insight and exist only as a gimmick or to liven up trailers. To try to disguise this there are frequent cuts to short shots of explosions from these re-enactments which serve no purpose but to fill up time between the next interview or bit of narrative.
The sixth problem is that the v/o is awful, the voice clearly being that of one of the programme makers rather than a professional, which sucks the life out of the script.
This is a good example of the problems in historical factual programming today, namely that commissioning is usually predicated on novelty rather than scholarship. Hence decisions made even before the programme was started sank it. Added to is a general lack of knowledge or understanding of the subject, not unusual in a business that relies on small companies who cannot specialise and who have limited time to learn. Furthermore there is the dreadful modern tendency towards a skewed social history that prefers emotion over analysis.
Clearly some hard work went into this series but the concept was flawed and the execution was patchy. Like so many series a lack of ambition, knowledge and skill condemns it to be forgotten. Which is sad considering that this probably cost £2-3 million and that a further series on this subject is now unlikely to be made in the next half- decade for fear of repetition.
If you like looking inside of noses and eyeballs this film has it all.
normangrochowski24 June 2016
The super close ups of the faces of people being interviewed is really annoying in this series.
The viewer doesn't need to see the eye of a person fill up the entire monitor screen. Nor does it help to show the close up of the inside of the nostrils of someone as they are telling their story.
Somehow the director or editor must have thought that this technique was innovative, because it's used every 2 minutes in the first two episodes. I'm not about to watch the 3rd.
They need to get a clue and just show us the veterans speaking like they're sitting in a room. Not like the viewer is sitting on their lap trying to examine how many nose hairs they have. Fortunately, they do pan away every once in a while a show the vet at a practical distance.
This probably could have been a good documentary of the account of the veterans experience but the inane close up techniques make it very boring very quick.
I had to stop watching, not because their stories weren't interesting but because of the trite attempt of whatever it was these super closeup shots and their redundant occurrence were trying to achieve.
I'd truly like to know, what the director or editor was thinking when they added this feature, or if they even knew that it was occurring as they filmed the interviews with the surviving veterans.
They must have known, and I would like to know what they thought might be so interesting in looking into full blown nostrils, mouths and iris's of eyeballs.
The viewer doesn't need to see the eye of a person fill up the entire monitor screen. Nor does it help to show the close up of the inside of the nostrils of someone as they are telling their story.
Somehow the director or editor must have thought that this technique was innovative, because it's used every 2 minutes in the first two episodes. I'm not about to watch the 3rd.
They need to get a clue and just show us the veterans speaking like they're sitting in a room. Not like the viewer is sitting on their lap trying to examine how many nose hairs they have. Fortunately, they do pan away every once in a while a show the vet at a practical distance.
This probably could have been a good documentary of the account of the veterans experience but the inane close up techniques make it very boring very quick.
I had to stop watching, not because their stories weren't interesting but because of the trite attempt of whatever it was these super closeup shots and their redundant occurrence were trying to achieve.
I'd truly like to know, what the director or editor was thinking when they added this feature, or if they even knew that it was occurring as they filmed the interviews with the surviving veterans.
They must have known, and I would like to know what they thought might be so interesting in looking into full blown nostrils, mouths and iris's of eyeballs.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
