World War II: When Lions Roared
World War II: When Lions Roared
| 01 January 1994 (USA)
SEASON & EPISODES
  • 1
  • Reviews
    HotToastyRag

    This three-hour miniseries is a bit of an acquired taste, so if I warn you of what you're getting into, you'll be in a better position to appreciate it. First of all, it's extremely wordy. David W. Rintels's script is well-researched, but it feels like he's written a play rather than a teleplay. With exception to the real-life war footage that's shown—and that could be projected onto a backdrop onstage—the entire movie feels like a taped live theatrical performance. Secondly, it was written in a very unusual style: the three lead characters are in completely separate environments, but they have conversations with each other in the same scene. For the majority of the film, the screen is split in halves or thirds, showing the characters speaking in a dialogue as if they're in the same room, rather than separate countries. Sometimes it feels a little jarring or strange, but if you imagine you're watching a play and the stage is separated into thirds and lit up in accordance to who's talking, it's much more entertaining. And hats off to the editor, John A. Martinelli, who no doubt had his hands full! The film starts in 1941, months before Pearl Harbor, and follows the involvements and interactions of Winston Churchill, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Joseph Stalin through the Tehran Conference in 1943. John Lithgow plays FDR, and while he looks very much like the president, he still sounds like himself. Bob Hoskins, on the other hand, is just the opposite. He doesn't look a thing like Churchill, but if you close your eyes, he sounds exactly like him! With Michael Caine as Joseph Stalin, you get the best of both worlds; not only is his appearance picture-perfect, but he puts on a surprisingly good Russian accent. The performances are very fun to watch, so even if you can't make it through the entire three-hour running time, at least watch a half hour of it to appreciate the acting.

    ... View More
    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.

    ... View More
    Mark Hone

    I'm afraid that I couldn't get past the miscasting of Bob ('Gor Blimey, Guvnor') Hoskins as Churchill and Michael Caine as Stalin. As soon as they appeared the whole credibility of the movie went out of the window for me, I'm afraid. It's one thing to have star names but when their presence distracts attention from the dramatic production itself, you are in trouble. Bob Hoskins has many qualities, but giving a convincing portrayal of Churchill isn't one of them. He looks woeful beside Albert Finney's performance in the HBO/BBC 'The Gathering Storm' or Simon Russell Beale (albeit too young) in the BBC mini-series 'Dunkirk'. Anyone interested in the events portrayed in 'When Lions Roared' should see the superb BBC/US co-production 'World War II: Behind Closed Doors' (2008)instead. This features archive footage, interviews with participants and convincing dramatized reconstructions to tell the story.

    ... View More
    skallisjr

    Since this just appeared on DVD, I rented a copy and screened it with my wife. She said, "This was taken from a stage play, wasn't it?" Basically, it showed the interactions between FDR, Stalin, and Churchill. But the interactions were "conversational," even though from the screen display the three principals were often actually separated by thousands of miles. The background of battle/newsreel footage probably makes it confusing to younger viewers.The film conveys a lot of the undercurrents of the relationship between the three men, but it helps to have lived during the war years. It's entertaining for those who have an appreciation of the personalities involved, but it might be confusing for a viewer who's trying to gather historic data.

    ... View More
    Similar Movies to World War II: When Lions Roared