Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Senteur As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

Brooklynn There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

verbusen When the film changes history before it gets to the 1/3 point I could not take it anymore. Did you know that the USA and Japan were at war on Dec 7th 1941? Yes we all know that. But, did you know that the USA was not at war with Nazi Germany until 4 DAYS later when Hitler declared war on the US? Well, you sure wouldn't know that by watching this film because it's never mentioned! Hey, if I'm going to watch a 3 hour film about history they better get it RIGHT! I had objections with parts of the film before that, I think a lot of it is speculation. All the talk about helping the USSR before Pearl Harbor from the US is pretty bogus. We did start to ship them war materials but Russia paid for them in gold and in 1941 it was a small fraction of the amount sent after the USA entered the war. Here it has FDR saying double this and do that to help our Allie, this is BEFORE Pearl Harbor in the film, we were not Allies yet, America was neutral. Then there is this shock when FDR gets the message that Pearl Harbor has been attacked with his character saying I tried to keep America out of the war. Whatever. Hard to believe when the facts are so wrong. I stayed with it to see the moment after Pearl Harbor and the debate from the British side about the USA going to war with Germany, but it never happened in the film. That was a really interesting story to retell, crazy that they didn't go there, maybe they didn't know themselves when they made the film? I suspect that it is because they did not want a Hitler character to overshadow the main 3 that the film is about, which it no doubt would have, but by doing so you are only getting half the story and a flawed one at that since it omits reality. I should give it a lower rating but I realize it's a dramatized retelling and not totally based on fact so I give it a 6 of 10, just out of respect to the production values and actors involved. Another reviewer said this is worth watching only if you are a history buff. I disagree, if you are a history buff this will probably anger you when they retell history differently from what actually happened.

npshive The lack of Hollywood-level production values should not take away from the overall quality of this miniseries. The casting and acting is superb and the amount of research must have been incredible. The script lags at some points and there are some anachronisms (most notably the many maps of Europe which show postwar boundaries), but it accurately captures the interplay between three giants of history. It's interesting to note that there are only 5 significant speaking parts (the Big 3 plus Molotov and Hopkins), and the film does a good job capturing the dialogue between them even when they're separate geographically. A simple production that is pure history without unnecessary and distracting dramatic elements -- the history of the time and how the Big 3 interacted with each other produced more than enough drama.

jvdesuit1 This everlasting subject of the relations between the three major leaders in charge of defeating the Nazis and settling a lasting peace in the world benefits here of an original staging.All along the movie the director gives us the impression that a dialog was set between the three leaders, while in reality we know it was a dialog between deaf guys.Churchill knew from the beginning that Stalin was a liar, deceitful rascal, FDR was already too ill to oppose the cynical Stalin and had to sustain the eternal isolationism of the American people (we must really thank Japan for Pearl Harbor because otherwise Europe would be one of the Nazi provinces), Stalin was in Russia murdering his opponents, fighting against Germany and would have probably concluded a separate peace treaty with the Nazis if Churchill and FDR had not fallen into the trap he presented them at Yalta.As far as the casting of the three head of states, the poorest choice was Bob Hoskins impersonating Churchill. He did not have the looks, he did not master the speech. Michael Caine makes a splendid impersonation of Stalin although his face is still far from the dictator's one. John Lithgow is a very credible FDR. As for Harry Hopkins there is no resemblance but this is not important in itself. Molotov aka Jan Tríska was not a bad choice.There are of course errors in the staging. Stalin used always an interpreter. I'm not even sure he could speak English.As for the historical facts they are accurate as you can't change such important events which shaped the world history and the fate of millions of people.The merit of the movie is it emphasizes the blindness of the USA President as regards USSR and the sinister cynicism with which poor Poland and many other eastern countries were treated and still are.Nothing has changed since, the USA are always the poorest international diplomats abroad because of their stubbornness to impose their language to the rest of the world forgetting that to understand a foreign country's culture and mentality it is mandatory to speak its language. We've seen the result in Irak, in Vietnam, in Egypt, in Lybia and in Afghanistan now. Force is not the sole solution, it generates humiliation and anger. That was the case with Germany which lead to WWII and the Nazis.Will the lesson be understood one day? I doubt, splendid isolationism which was before the attribute of England, is now anchored in the USA's people mentality whatever their leaders' declarations may be....

sbox [Warning: Spoilers Ahead.]This very rarely seen gem is the brainchild of Hoskins, Caine, and other financial sources who thought it a good thing to present the political realities of World War II in the form of a close up drama. The result, if you are lucky enough to find this film is your own private play available in the comfort of your living room. It goes without saying that the cast is spectacular, or should I say the film was spectacularly cast.Hoskins delivers perhaps the best Churchill as I've ever seen. Audiences might recall that he also portrays another giant of contemporary history, Nikita Krushchev in Jean-Jacques Annaud's, "Enemy at the Gates." Likewise, Caine delivers a poignant and striking "Uncle Joe." As for Lithgow, I am amazed at how much he looks like F.D.R. in makeup, when in real life he looks nothing like Roosevelt. His performance is also excellent. My favorite scene involving Lithgow is when he is receiving very dire news from his allies and they wonder if the U.S.A. can provide just a little more aid per month. Lithgow interrupts the request and deadpans, "double it," invoking the limitless pocketbook of American resources.Normally, I abhor the use of films as educational tools for high school students. I will make an exception with this film. This is not an action packed, mindlessly scripted, Hollywood explosion fest. On the contrary, this is more akin to watching an Arthur Miller play, with the exception that the script in this one in non-fiction. I do not pretend that a high schooler will walk away from this epic with a complete knowledge of World War II. On the contrary, hopefully he or she will be left with more questions than answers. I do hope they realize that the Allied cause was a full partnership between the Big Three.This movie rates eight out of ten and should not be missed.