The World Wars

:

Season 1
Metascore
62

Generally favorable reviews - based on 7 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 3 out of 7
  2. Mixed: 4 out of 7
  3. Negative: 0 out of 7
Watch Now

Where To Watch

Buy on
Stream On

Critic Reviews

  1. Los Angeles Times
    Reviewed by: Mary McNamara
    May 27, 2014
    60
    There is much to like and learn from the miniseries. Alas, executive producer Stephen David and his creative team seem intent on getting in their own way, cluttering up the inevitably fascinating narrative (offered here by Jeremy Renner) with all manner of clunky historical reenactments, hyperbolic characterizations and a soundtrack that should be shot for treason.
  2. Denver Post
    Reviewed by: Joanne Ostrow
    May 23, 2014
    60
    Nobody will accuse it of being ponderous or academic. It's expensive-looking and shallow but long.
  3. Variety
    Reviewed by: Brian Lowry
    May 23, 2014
    50
    A three-part, six-hour undertaking that proves fitfully interesting despite its offputting narrative approach.
  5. The A.V. Club
    Reviewed by: Alasdair Wilkins
    May 27, 2014
    42
    This impulse for larger-than-life storytelling does mean that The World Wars is terminally superficial.

Awards & Rankings

89
#89 Most Discussed TV Season of 2014
87
#87 Most Shared TV Season of 2014

User Reviews

All reviews »
User Score
4.1

Mixed or average reviews- based on 24 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 8 out of 24
  2. Mixed: 1 out of 24
  3. Negative: 15 out of 24
  1. irjebiv
    May 28, 2014
    2
    I signed up for an account just to have my say on this show. I had to turn it off during the second episode because it was just so wrong andI signed up for an account just to have my say on this show. I had to turn it off during the second episode because it was just so wrong and full of outright falsehoods. I can't believe this is a History Channel production and it is really disturbing that the commercial authority on "history" would release this with so many errors and outright lies. I am now worried that this is what people will actually begin to think is true.

    I am giving the show a 2 because it was pleasant to watch (at first). The WWI scenes were nicely depicted even though the tanks were wrong. The image of a young MacArthur casually walking across the battle field is exactly how I envisioned it. However, the gross negligent errors later will quickly put everything about this show in question, and the History Channel's credentials as well.

    This is not nitpicking. These are atrocious mistakes. The Germans really had B-17 bombers in the 1939 blitzkrieg of Poland? Did the Germans really have Soviet T-54s (a 1950/60's era tank) during the blitzkrieg of France in 1941? This show actually says the Germans attacked straight through the Maginot line and won because of "blitzkrieg"!!! No mention of bypassing static defenses and cutting off the BEF and mobile French forces that were NOT sitting in the impenetrable Maginot Line. This show didn't even mention the British and French pact to go to war with Germany should Poland be attacked. It made it look like Churchill pressured Chamberlain into declaring war after the fact! MacArthur was not a 5 star General during the 1930's depression! This isn't just nitpicking small details like "they got the wrong rifles", these are very substantial errors and my fear is people will think this is the truth! Now that I've seen this I have to question the History Channel's authority to release or publish anything on history at all. Their credibility is gone as far as I'm concerned.

    Dear American Public, please enjoy this show for it's art and cgi war scenes only as it is beautiful, and they got Churchill down to a tee, but do not accept any of this show as real facts. Indeed, if I were a teacher I'd assign this show for my class to discover each and every falsehood and outright lie, and for extra credit, for them to find any actual truth in the entire series.

    How could this get past editors, or even the guy who gets everyone coffee? How could this be published under the History Channel's name without anyone noticing these things? I guess this explains why the channel's format is dominated by Pawn Stars, moonshine runners and alligator hunters. Disgusting...    … Full Review »
  2. frank36695
    May 28, 2014
    3
    There are many historical errors, as pointed out by others It is quite unsatisfying and glossed over for anyone familiar with the period andThere are many historical errors, as pointed out by others It is quite unsatisfying and glossed over for anyone familiar with the period and the events portrayed.

    Hitler is often shown as a dwarf surrounded by subordinates that tower over him. He was 5'9", which was average for that time. This rather obvious misrepresentation is not necessary.

    Overall I found it tedious..    … Full Review »
  3. racer67
    May 26, 2014
    7
    Correction to my earlier review. I watched Episode 1 again. The idea of following the key players and events that were involved in both warsCorrection to my earlier review. I watched Episode 1 again. The idea of following the key players and events that were involved in both wars is a good idea. Lots of money spent on the production but not enough research on the authenticity of the arms and equipment used. The use of British rifles by the German troops and the post-war German revolutionaries and the WWII rifles used by the German troops was wrong for WWI. I doubt that the American rifle used by Churchill in the British trenches was correct. Because of my correction I bumped up my rating by one.… Full Review »
See all user reviews »