Dubbed "Then There Were Giants" on cable, this made-for-tv two part film spends three hours presenting a theatrical digest of the communication which ostensibly took place between FDR, Churchill, and Stalin during WWII. Against a backdrop of file footage and the various sets required for conferences (Teheran, Yalta, etc.), the trio of heads-of-state build complex relationships of diplomacy as they map out plans for D-Day, the UN, and more. Lithgow, Hoskins, and Caine turn in excellent performances in this sterling characterization of the men who occasioned some of the 20th centuries most momentous events. Great stuff for WWII history buffs.
20 Reviews
Out with Action, In with Theatre. Bravo!
sbox25 July 2001
Warning: Spoilers
[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.
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.
Very Well Done
npshive19 November 2015
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.
Helps If You've Lived Through It
skallisjr14 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
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.
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.
History Rewritten
verbusen4 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
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.
Highly Recommended
GentleKnight11 October 2004
I couldn't disagree more with the teenager that watched it for school. This was terrific acting of an episode in history that affects any resident of the world. Well acted by the leading characters, good explanation of the historical context of the situation, and a fascinating portrayal of the differing interests of the three nations involved. I was riveted to it. The stakes involved for each country were enormous beyond belief, and I appreciate that it wasn't trivialized by Hollywood by throwing in love interests, happy endings, and 'awesome' special effects. Rather, it's an editing and re-enactment of actual words, meetings, press releases, etc that nevertheless is very dramatic and straightforward. I have watched this show, and, in addition, the Band of Brothers mini-series, and Patton for a good understanding of the interrelationships, tribulations, and objectives of WW II at the leadership level, the military's level, and at the level of the guy in the trenches. It all makes sense when you put it all together, with each reinforcing the other.
Old movies never die, they just fade away (apologies). Frankly, I don't buy many DVDs, but I will be looking for this one!
Since I first wrote this in 2004, I have just discovered (May 2007) that it was released on DVD back in Feb. ! I'm anxiously awaiting delivery.
Old movies never die, they just fade away (apologies). Frankly, I don't buy many DVDs, but I will be looking for this one!
Since I first wrote this in 2004, I have just discovered (May 2007) that it was released on DVD back in Feb. ! I'm anxiously awaiting delivery.
The greatest of them all is absent
rfndayitabi26 January 2022
The weakness of this movie is that the real giant of WW2 is never mentioned! General De Gaulle outshines Stalin, the greatest of the 3, not to mention Roosevelt who was in his decline and Churchill who was more braggatio than anything else. De Gaulle was able to take a defeated, demoralized and betrayed concept, the French Republic, and revived it.
A Docudrama that Entertains and Informs
gradyharp20 March 2007
It is good to see this 1994 television miniseries finally come out on DVD. Be prepared for a long evening (the running time for the two discs is three hours 23 minutes) but it is time well invested. WORLD WAR II: WHEN LIONS ROARED is a creative montage of actual film clips from the newsreels shown in theaters at that time together with contemporary filmed drama in script written by David W. Rintels and crafted and directed by Joseph Sargent. This film allows us to revisit history the way it was - with more behind the scenes activity among the great powers than most other films offer.
The roaring lions are very well portrayed by John Lithgow as Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Bob Hoskins as Winston Churchill and Michael Caine as Stalin. Each actor steps wholly into his role without resorting to mimicry or simply stage makeup. It is fascinating to see how the USA was a non-intervener at first (a refreshingly different stance form the current aggressor role we have adopted) and how the needs of the planet required global cooperation in the face of Hitler et al. Ed Begley Jr. offers a lot of information about the important figure Harry Hopkins about whom we hear little as does Jan Triska as Vyacheslav Molotav, Stalin's key man.
The compilation of real footage with created footage including the split screen technique to allow the three leaders to interact from their different locations works well. This is one of those historic films that deserves repeated viewing. An excellent production. Grady Harp
The roaring lions are very well portrayed by John Lithgow as Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Bob Hoskins as Winston Churchill and Michael Caine as Stalin. Each actor steps wholly into his role without resorting to mimicry or simply stage makeup. It is fascinating to see how the USA was a non-intervener at first (a refreshingly different stance form the current aggressor role we have adopted) and how the needs of the planet required global cooperation in the face of Hitler et al. Ed Begley Jr. offers a lot of information about the important figure Harry Hopkins about whom we hear little as does Jan Triska as Vyacheslav Molotav, Stalin's key man.
The compilation of real footage with created footage including the split screen technique to allow the three leaders to interact from their different locations works well. This is one of those historic films that deserves repeated viewing. An excellent production. Grady Harp
Behind Closed Doors.
rmax30482322 January 2014
This docudrama covers the period from Germany's invasion of Poland in 1939 to the end of the war in Europe in Spring, 1945, and concerns the interactions -- both personal and political -- of Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Josef Stalin.
Kids, this war was called "World War Two". The reason it's called "World War Two" is that it came after "World War One." Churchill was the Prime Minister of Great Britain. He was short, fat, bald, and smoked cigars. He was a good guy though, even though he smoked. Stalin smoked a pipe and combed his hair straight back and had a vicious mustache. But he always smiled, even when he was murdering friends. He was a "communist" but was on our side at the time. Franklin D. Roosevelt was one of the presidents of the United States. He smoked too -- cigarettes in a holder. He would never be elected a president today because he smoked. He couldn't walk either. They'd tear him apart in the press; he wouldn't have a prayer. The moral to this is that if somebody offers you a cigarette, don't take it, unless it has no label and is wrapped at both ends. Then it's okay. Thank you for your attention.
The miniseries is necessarily sketchy but not hard to follow. Most of the dialog must have been taken from formal speeches or personal memoirs because that's exactly what it sounds like. The director uses a split screen to suggest some of the communications between the three leaders. And while some of the meetings are skipped (Quebec, Casablanca) others are covered in more detail (Teheran, Yalta). At the meetings, everyone sits around a table and speaks very diplomatically, sometimes making small jokes that break the tension. It could be shown in a class on communications. "We agree with you, though we are of course concerned about the Baltics" means, "Keep your Commie nose out of Yugoslavia." It quickly becomes clear that, although Churchill and Stalin are both fighting a common enemy, neither trusts the other. Roosevelt is in the middle, always the worried optimist.
Considering the limitations both of the material and the medium, you have to give this an extra point or two. It's not only a lesson in geopolitics but it gives us a glimpse into the personalities of the three eponymous lions, and each has a chance to present his point of view. Stalin was a terrible thug, of course, but that has nothing to do with the subject matter dealt with here.
Kids, this war was called "World War Two". The reason it's called "World War Two" is that it came after "World War One." Churchill was the Prime Minister of Great Britain. He was short, fat, bald, and smoked cigars. He was a good guy though, even though he smoked. Stalin smoked a pipe and combed his hair straight back and had a vicious mustache. But he always smiled, even when he was murdering friends. He was a "communist" but was on our side at the time. Franklin D. Roosevelt was one of the presidents of the United States. He smoked too -- cigarettes in a holder. He would never be elected a president today because he smoked. He couldn't walk either. They'd tear him apart in the press; he wouldn't have a prayer. The moral to this is that if somebody offers you a cigarette, don't take it, unless it has no label and is wrapped at both ends. Then it's okay. Thank you for your attention.
The miniseries is necessarily sketchy but not hard to follow. Most of the dialog must have been taken from formal speeches or personal memoirs because that's exactly what it sounds like. The director uses a split screen to suggest some of the communications between the three leaders. And while some of the meetings are skipped (Quebec, Casablanca) others are covered in more detail (Teheran, Yalta). At the meetings, everyone sits around a table and speaks very diplomatically, sometimes making small jokes that break the tension. It could be shown in a class on communications. "We agree with you, though we are of course concerned about the Baltics" means, "Keep your Commie nose out of Yugoslavia." It quickly becomes clear that, although Churchill and Stalin are both fighting a common enemy, neither trusts the other. Roosevelt is in the middle, always the worried optimist.
Considering the limitations both of the material and the medium, you have to give this an extra point or two. It's not only a lesson in geopolitics but it gives us a glimpse into the personalities of the three eponymous lions, and each has a chance to present his point of view. Stalin was a terrible thug, of course, but that has nothing to do with the subject matter dealt with here.
Great performances
HotToastyRag2 December 2017
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.
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.
A delight for history lovers...and probably pretty boring for others.
planktonrules30 July 2021
"When Lions Roared" ("Then There Were Giants") is a meticulously crafted film that is sure to delight lovers of historical films. I cannot stress enough how impressive this film was. That being said....it's not surprising I'd love it, as I was a world and US history teacher. But for non-history lovers, the film would probably be a bit confusing as to what is happening and, a bit boring. It's a shame, but I cannot imagine folks feeling neutral towards the film in most cases...you'll either love it or you'll hate it.
The film consists of exchanges, by phone, mail, through envoys and in person between the leaders of the Allies during WWII. Bob Hoskins plays Churchill, John Lithgow plays Roosevelt and Michael Caine (who is WAY too tall to play the diminutive man) plays Stalin. And, to get it right, they make sure to use the men's own words. How can you do any better than this?! Well crafted and pretty amazing.
The film consists of exchanges, by phone, mail, through envoys and in person between the leaders of the Allies during WWII. Bob Hoskins plays Churchill, John Lithgow plays Roosevelt and Michael Caine (who is WAY too tall to play the diminutive man) plays Stalin. And, to get it right, they make sure to use the men's own words. How can you do any better than this?! Well crafted and pretty amazing.
A Shoddy Piece of Work
JoshuaMHetu28 March 2020
"When Lions Roared" is a bizarre miniseries that on the one hand features quality performances from the main cast, while on the other hand suffering from poor production value and inexplicable storytelling choices. John Lithgow, Bob Hoskins, and especially Michael Caine do a good job portraying complex historical figures and for the most part I enjoyed seeing them bring the Allied leaders to life. But the performances aren't enough to make up for bad sets and costumes that look obviously fake, even for a 1990s miniseries. The unnecessary usage of green screen is jarring; often the series looks more like an SNL than an Emmy-worthy drama.
But worst of all was the strange decision to have Churchill, FDR, and Stalin somehow interact via split screen - while Churchill is in London he looks to his right and starts speaking to Stalin, who is shown in Moscow. Then at the far end of the screen Roosevelt pops up and he starts speaking to both Churchill and Stalin - even though he's halfway around the world! There are equally strange moments when FDR and Churchill suddenly stare off into the distance, and then the screen splits and Stalin starts speaking to them directly from Moscow - even though he's in another country! I found this choice distracting and silly. Characters break the fourth wall and the portrayal of Roosevelt is not historically accurate: after the attack on Pearl Harbor is shown to be upset that America has entered the war, while in reality FDR had wanted to enter the war on the side of the Allies and he'd spent years preparing the United States for just that. Overall "When Lions Roared" contains good performances but on the whole it's poorly made. 5/10
But worst of all was the strange decision to have Churchill, FDR, and Stalin somehow interact via split screen - while Churchill is in London he looks to his right and starts speaking to Stalin, who is shown in Moscow. Then at the far end of the screen Roosevelt pops up and he starts speaking to both Churchill and Stalin - even though he's halfway around the world! There are equally strange moments when FDR and Churchill suddenly stare off into the distance, and then the screen splits and Stalin starts speaking to them directly from Moscow - even though he's in another country! I found this choice distracting and silly. Characters break the fourth wall and the portrayal of Roosevelt is not historically accurate: after the attack on Pearl Harbor is shown to be upset that America has entered the war, while in reality FDR had wanted to enter the war on the side of the Allies and he'd spent years preparing the United States for just that. Overall "When Lions Roared" contains good performances but on the whole it's poorly made. 5/10
Fantastic character study, of the big three!
RatedVforVinny1 December 2019
First rate WW2 (TV) drama, concerning the power politics between the three major players on the allied side. Fascinating stuff indeed and learn why Churchill had little appetite for the D-Day landings or the virtually unknown fact that Stalin had a playful sense of humour. With both Bob Hoskins and Michael Caine in top form. We all know what happened on the ground but so little of the personalities (and relationships) of those leaders, pulling the strings. Compelling view.
The Three Wise Men?
geoffreyharris20035 March 2021
An interesting and very different take on the 2nd World War. The three main characters of Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin. Thrash out their views, opinions and solutions on the best way to defeat Hitler. Hoskins, Lithgow and Caine were quite convincing on the whole, particularly John Lithgow who seemed to have an uncanny resemblance to the Real FDR. When one considers the intrigue and distrust that they all shared, it was quite amazing that the Allies won the war at all. As with most historical films, I'm sure a fair amount of poetic licence was included in this film, along with some accurate minutes of the various meetings.
Worthy project bizarrely miscast
mark-15714 December 2008
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.
Excellent and historically correct
alain-bednar7 August 2012
Film historic rep-rending quasi textually letters and text of this time. Film courageous also in this time of war against Staline. Film historic rep-rending quasi textually letters and text of this time. Film courageous also in this time of war against Staline. Film historic rep-rending quasi textually letters and text of this time. Film courageous also in this time of war against Staline. Film historic rep-rending quasi textually letters and text of this time. Film courageous also in this time of war against Staline. Film historic rep-rending quasi textually letters and text of this time. Film courageous also in this time of war against Staline. Film historic rep-rending quasi textually letters and text of this time. Film courageous also in this time of war against Staline.
Original Staging, medium casting
jvdesuit116 June 2014
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....
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....
Giants indeed
davegreen-040418 July 2020
History made boring
raymond-andre27 September 2009
Keep your children away from this sorry production, lest they be put off WWII history forever.
The three principals are too well known to play the parts in this particular production. Their twisted make-up and sometimes dreary imitations of the famous personages take attention away from the central heart of the story, which is (or should be) the evolving relationships of three countries and leaders.
This IDEA was interesting, but the execution becomes dreary in the long run. It should have been kept to under ninety minutes. Instead of a shorter, punchier piece this becomes a rambling mess.
The idea that this is a proper representation of history can easily be challenged. The newsreel footage does not adequately contextualize the diplomatic exchanges between the three leaders of that war.
For hard core WWII history buffs only.
The three principals are too well known to play the parts in this particular production. Their twisted make-up and sometimes dreary imitations of the famous personages take attention away from the central heart of the story, which is (or should be) the evolving relationships of three countries and leaders.
This IDEA was interesting, but the execution becomes dreary in the long run. It should have been kept to under ninety minutes. Instead of a shorter, punchier piece this becomes a rambling mess.
The idea that this is a proper representation of history can easily be challenged. The newsreel footage does not adequately contextualize the diplomatic exchanges between the three leaders of that war.
For hard core WWII history buffs only.
horrible
jeffdogg1114 January 2004
as a high school student subjected to watch this film by an extremely intelligent teacher, im ashamed that he would choose this to show to us. it is so boring, so poorly acted, and so poorly filmed admist many a blue-screen and black and white images that don't fit in at all. now i know i sound like a teenager, but i usually like this stuff. this was horrible though. churchill annoyed me to no end and lithgow as f.d.r. was just annoying. stalin, hes a funny man.
"uncle joe" "i think ill leave now"
are you kidding?
1/10
"uncle joe" "i think ill leave now"
are you kidding?
1/10
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
