Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Borgarkeri A bit overrated, but still an amazing film

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

evilwillhunting-633-904681 "Who would win in a fight between X and Y?"This game basically takes this schoolyard discussion and couches it in a simulation, following demonstration of the weaponry of the participants.If you are a fan of history, the show is interesting, showing the cool weaponry and giving a little insight to the men using the weaponry. Plus, it's undeniably cool to see them test the weapons.But, the show does get a bit preposterous often. Some of the history is not accurate, the "experts" have shaky credentials (some are just actors), and the battles come down pretty much to the weapons, not to the warriors, tactics or battlefields.The simulations at the end are entertaining, but they all follow the same formula: expect every weapon to make one appearance (and a kill in squad battles) and it comes down to one on one after a relatively even battle. The action and costumes are pretty good, but the special effects can get a bit cheesy at times. After three seasons, it becomes pretty predictable.I do have a problem with their top-secret "sophisticated computer program" determining the battles. It looks like a pretty simple spreadsheet crunch against an random number generator. This might have flown back in the 80s, when the average person knew nothing about computers or what they could do, but not today.Also, the experts on both sides do childish smack-talk and totally dismiss the other side's weaponry. It comes across as juvenile and contrived.In all, it's still quite entertaining. Skewed though it may be, it's interesting to see these warriors of history square off. It's definitely worth a look, just as long as you don't put it under too much scrutiny.

engima571 I first saw this show in 2009 when it first came out, and was quite excited.It promised to deliver interesting outcomes from hypothetical battles between some of the most famous warriors of all time. I was perfectly happy watching it in '09, but when I caught up with it in '12, it looked just plain awful. This show was clearly written with the most casual military/weapon enthusiast in mind, because it quite honestly has little to no credibility or realism. Many of the so-called "experts" are shown handling their weapons as if they were toys, keeping their fingers on the triggers and waving the muzzles at the cameras, generally having little respect for the weapons they're holding. Many of the actors representing the various armed forces lack even basic training in the use of firearms (See: Viet Cong vs. Waffen SS) and are sometimes shown with a complete misrepresentation of the weapons, gear, and uniforms issued to those forces (See: Green Beret vs. Spetsnaz and Viet Cong vs. Waffen SS). On top of that, incorrect data is often shown when displaying the weapons during the show's trials, further demonstrating the lack of attention to detail that goes into this show's production. The biggest problem that I have with this show overall is that it completely misrepresents how a conflict would have turned out between any two forces, particularly because the only factors that are utilized in choosing the "victors" are the show's dismal understanding of weapon specs and poorly-informed personal opinion on the part of the hosts. The value of a weapon or a piece of equipment is determined chiefly by the skill of the operator, and this show completely ignores this critical area in favor of Call of Duty-style showboating, bad special effects, and bunch of idiots attempting to figure out how weapons work. I enjoy this show (and I use that term very loosely) when there is literally nothing else on TV, but otherwise, I'll pass on it.

Theo Robertson This is a notorious show that came to the British publics attention with one episode that featured The Taliban versus the IRA . Many people thought it was some sort of urban myth but no - it's a real show and what the point of it is I have no idea because as history it fails and it often goes beyond even car crash TV style entertainment The show revolves around a bunch of experts but they're not really experts . The Taliban/IRA episode features " IRA descendant and historian " Skoti Collins who if you look up his CV on this site will find that he's not a historian he is a professional actor . Maybe he's playing a historian ? Actually the show could do with a historian since it states " The IRA lost the war of independence in 1920 " Hmmm so how did the Irish Free State / Republic Of Ireland come in to being then ? We get to see reconstructions of IRA operations against the British army and you're left in no doubt that the provisional IRA seen here are no different from the IRA of the Anglo-Irish war of 1920 . The IRA wear a uniform and confine their campaign to military targets so there's no scenes of civilians being murdered because they're protestants or suspected informers . . Team Taliban are just as badly inaccurate since they're represented by an Afghan actor who supposedly fought the Soviets in his youth . I don't doubt Fahim Fazil did this . What I do doubt is that he qualifies as former Taliban because he's even described as " Mujuhideen Freedom Fighter " which you read even the most basic history book on Afghanistan you'll learn the Muj and the Talibs are two entirely separate organizations . Eventually in a scenario the IRA beat the Taliban in a battle that many people would find offensive if it wasn't so laugh out loud funny . Strangely in a later show the IRA are beaten by the Spetnatz . Can anyone notice a gap in logic to this ? If the Afghans beat the Soviets and the Afghans lost to the IRA what's the chances the IRA would lose to the Spetnatz ? The other episodes are somewhat tame compared to this debacle . We see Braveheart vs Chaka Zulu with the two teams throwing insults like " Your grass skirt won't save you Zulu " and " Ah'm gonna have a Scottish barbecue " along with dubious facts that " The Scottish claymore was a long range weapon " ! Long range as in five feet is a long way away ? We see the Waffen SS take on the Viet Cong . Strangely stringing up civilians with piano wire and shooting POWs don't feature too heavily in the information given for the SS . And there's a ridiculous anachronism saying that " If you had fillings you weren't allowed to join the SS and had to show you were of Aryan stock . This is true when it was recruiting in the 1930s - not when it was fighting in the 1940s . In fact the Waffen SS happily recruited Slavs from the Balkans like the 13th and 14th Waffen SS divisions . Likewise the show describes the punji stick as deadly but there's no documented case of an American soldier being killed by a punji stick My abiding opinion of this show is that it's like " MYTHBUSTERS on acid " Some dubious enjoyment might be had on seeing what the weapons can do but since the rest of the show doesn't care one ounce for any sort of research or accuracy how does the audience know that the stage explosions etc are in any way accurate . Certainly the show's major failing is that it's very , very poor history indeed and I would hate it if anyone watching it thought any information put out was worth listening to

mm-39 Not a bad macho show! My wife though the show was gross, while to my wife's annoyance, I was fixated with the show and did not change the channel. I found the premise interesting. How would soldiers from different cultures, and time fair in combat. The Deadliest Warrior has experts on who give their opinions on weapons medical etc. The strongest part of the series is the demonstrations of what would happen with each weapon. The conclusion is a computer animated program which declare who would win the battle. Something new, and educational for reality TV. Deadliest Warrior is better than other reality TV where one see science and reason instead big egos and shock; however the show is marred with personal opinion. I give Deadliest Warrior with my marred personal opinion a seven out of ten