History's Verdict (TV Series 2013– ) Poster

(2013– )

User Reviews

Review this title
7 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Exceptionally Editorial.
rmax30482326 August 2015
Since IMDb.com doesn't list the episodes separately, I'll only make some remarks on the ninth in the series, "Patton." First of all, this is quite different from the usual military documentaries dealing with World War II. The ordinary format is to trace the individual from childhood, through his adult career, and his final demise. This episode DOES do that, but the narration makes value judgments all the way through that can only be called editorial.

The general we learn about here is not George C. Scott winning an Academy Award for his impersonation in the feature film "Patton." We're now at a sufficient remove from events that we can afford exposure to a close up of the man, warts and all, rather than a hagiography.

Patton is idolized by many Americans and for good reason. He was an extraordinarily brave soldier in World War I, where he was badly wounded. And before that, he was outstanding in pursuit of Pancho Villa after the Mexican bandit's raid on Columbus, New Mexico. It was on the Southwest frontier that he picked up the habit of carrying an old Colt revolver in his holster. He was not only personally courageous but a skilled and aggressive tactician. When he was chosen to command the demoralized American forces in North Africa, he sternly whipped them into shape. It's not noted that Montgomery faced precisely the same problem with the recently defeated British Eighth Army but with much less gasconade.

Every virtue implies its opposite flaw. Patton's aggressiveness, which earns him so much praise today, was at times thoughtless, whimsical, and imprudent, not just in the cost to his men but to his own career. It was also tainted in a sense by ambition.

In the early years of World War II he led American tanks against French tanks in North Africa at Casablanca. (I had no idea the fighting was so intense.) Patton then led his army across Sicily and beat the British to the last German-held outpost of Messina. But Patton was relieved of his command after a highly publicized "slapping incident" involving two men in a hospital.

At this point, the narration skips to Patton's sweep across France, already in Lorraine, as if a reel were missing. Hitler was preparing a last-ditch attack that became known as the Battle of the Bulge. Patton's troops were far to the south but he was alone in believing that the Germans would move through the Ardennes forest and he prepared his army for a difficult pivot to the north if it became necessary. It did, and Patton was instrumental in relieving the surrounded troops at Bastogne.

Patton was killed in an auto accident shortly after the war and the program ends with an assessment of his character and undeniable achievements by various friend and writers.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Nuanced picture of Hirohito
italianwolf6 July 2017
I got more deeply interested when I watched the episode on Hirohito. Familiar with many of the key figures in this series through extensive reading, I really was not at all familiar with the Japanese emperor. I thought that the episode captured the nuances of this very complex man, while dispensing with some common misconceptions. It made me want to continue with additional episodes. All in all, I think that this approach is revelatory in ways that other historical approaches to the complexity of WW II can miss. If you're a WWII buff, you may well find your knowledge enriched, even in the face of some editorializing in the commentary; even so, there are alternative hypotheses offered for the behavior of a given individual.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Narrator error
michaelyn-6869611 August 2016
Am I the only one who has noticed the narrator error in the FDR episode? Exactly twenty minutes and 8 seconds into the Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jonathan David Mellor mistakenly says November seventh instead of December seventh. Think they should have had a do over on that. I like Mr Mellor's voice and cadence. Overall, I am impressed by the amount of bare facts squeezed into a single episode. After the second time I use the word "seventh", I am merely attempting to use more words to fulfill IMDb's requirement. I do think the episode well worth watching; but initially, just anted to report this single error. Of course, the first episode I viewed was the one about Winston Spencer Churchill. He will always be my favourite person in history.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Same video clip is used in two different episodes.
yolandabai13 March 2019
A same video clip is used for Hirohito and De Galle. In Hirohito episode, the video clip is used to show that Japanese is plotting a railroad booming and uses the incident for an excuse to take military action against Chinese. The individuals set the boom all look Caucasia with curly hair in the video. I thought for a moment I never heard Japanese hired European for the job. Then the same video showed up in De Galle episode depicting French resistance against Germany. In general, this is biased. Mentioned nothing on the HUGE American aids in Africa. If it weren't for the American aids and sons, Rommel would have won. Churchill's WWII series have the details.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Often Incredibly Informative, Often Outrageously Biased, Mostly Rambling
craigbenting28 December 2020
I watched most of the episodes of this series. The problem with the entire series is incredible, yet predictable, british bias. I've never actually seen such incredible bias in what's supposed to be a historical TV show.

The bias is really hard to pinpoint in a few episodes because it is so absolute. I get the feeling that whoever wrote the series' episodes just allowed their personal bias to blast through in a few of them.

The second most common problem in all the episodes of this series is how many times the videos being shown during an episode were completely unrelated to what they were talking about. Sometimes is was so obvious because they used footage used in other historical TV shows that, unlike this series, actually described what was being shown in the various pieces of footage. This series seems to have just been put together using narrators reading a very long essay, never looking at the footage that was assembled by completely different people (who also never heard the very long essay that was read during their assemblies of footage).

The third problem with this entire series seems to be that they never actually realize the goal of the name of the series: "History's Verdict: Hero or Villain".

Again, it's predictably british to go on and on, speaking but never actually making a point. I mean, what's the verdict in any of these episodes? I guess we're supposed to make the call based on their incredibly biased essays, accompanied by unrelated historical footage, and I get the feeling they're just hoping and praying we make the right call, matching their bias.

As a result, the more balanced and informative episodes actually end up being a rambling mess that go nowhere. But, they were informative at least, even if they made no actual point.

In the end, if it weren't for all the actual informative information in some of the episodes, I would have given the series a 1 or 2. And if it weren't for the laughably outrageous bias in some of the episodes, I would have given it an 8 or 9.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Informative but undermined by quirky faults
kroolshooz20 January 2023
This series contained some information that was new and interesting to me, a layman fairly well-read on WW II. So I have to give it that. But the series undermines itself in small but cumulative ways. The video clips are a really weird grab bag. Many are clearly from old movies, not war footage, so you never know if what you're seeing is real or some director's fantasy. Some clips seem like they were randomly drawn from a hat. For instance, in describing Patton's traffic accident there are random shots of different vehicles driving in varied terrain, in summer and winter, and one shot of a guy in shades who looks like a truck driver from a 70s road movie toolin' down the road. Just weird.

In addition, the narrator clearly has little knowledge of the topic, so mispronounces words and place names. (e.g., "Afrika Corpse" comes up again and again). Little things like this undermine the authority of the series.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
King's College Madrid?
davalew12 May 2024
Why are all the historians providing contributions for this production shown as being academics from King's College MADRID. King's College Madrid is a co-ed British secondary school in Spain's capital. Are these sage experts real experts or merely secondary school teachers needing a little extra pocket money? Their contributions in person seem to be of little consequence and they could have be been omitted. On the other hand they may have made real contributions behind the scenes but the labeling of their academic seat of learning does tend to undermine the validity of their contribution. Or was this just editorial incompetence?
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed