WWII with Tom Hanks (2026)

 

            The History Channel has returned to its roots when it was the Hitler Channel. It took Tom Hanks to convince the bosses to carve out some time between programs like Pawn Stars and Ancient Aliens. It will be 20 episodes and promises to be all encompassing. Here’s what the first episode tells us about the series.

            The first episode is entitled “The Beginning”. It starts with a “graphic images” warning, but few people watching it will be traumatized by what appeared in episode one. The series will undoubtedly show quite a few dead bodies, but it will be more traumatizing to be reminded how bad some humans can be to other humans. There is a good short introduction by Hanks and he serves as the narrator for the series. (He narrates the great film at the WWII Museum in New Orleans.) For those not aware of it, the actor has history cred. And not just because he has starred in some good to great WWII movies. But he is not just an actor. He was very hands-on for “Band of Brothers” and significantly did not take a role. I trust him.

            Hanks is not one of the talking heads. Those consist of mostly college professors, probably because they are used to lecturing students, as opposed to historians whose main talent is writing. (I bet the vetting of the experts included what percentage of their students fall asleep in class.) Not surprisingly, the experts are not just white males. Please don’t assume this makes the series “woke”. I did not notice anything in the first episode that would indicate the series has a liberal agenda. Unless you consider portraying both Hitler and Stalin as evil to be “woke”. (If so, stop reading this and go f*** yourself.) There are some historians of note, including Jon Meacham and Anthony Beevor. I have read extensively on the war and taught it for decades, so I can vouch for the accuracy of what episode 1 covers. There were only a few things I had never read about, so that’s a credit to it.

            The episode begins oddly with the invasion of Poland. I assume that was to get explosions in early to keep the audience from leaving. Thankfully, after that taste, it flashes back to the Versailles Conference and gives background leading to the invasion. However, it is just a cursory look at events leading to the start of the war. In a series that has 20 episodes, I would think it would have allowed for a whole first episode dedicated to how we got to Poland. The invasion of Poland should have been episode 2, but you can’t have a whole first episode with no shots fired. Hitler gets some biographical coverage, but there is no mention of the Reichstag Fire. The audience is left with little understanding of how he came to power. Although I assume there will be an episode on the Holocaust, the series does not wait for that to begin coverage of the mistreatment of the Jews. The SS and the Einsatzgruppen are introduced. And so are the NKVD as the series is not going to play nice with Stalin. The Katyn massacre is mentioned. The episode concludes with the bombing of Warsaw. Oddly, there is no mention of blitzkrieg. The series is not going to be a treat for hard core military history buffs.           

            The obvious comparison would be to the “World at War” series. Since that was my generations gold standard, “WWII with Tom Hanks” clearly hopes to be the 21^st Century equivalent. It actually has more in common in format to Ken Burns’ Civil War and American Revolution series. It compares well to them and benefits from the massive amount of footage. Any topic the talking heads want to talk about has visuals to match. Fans of “World at War” might find the colorized pictures jarring, but the History Channel has prepared us for the colorization of the war. However, for this series, the decision was made to use colorized photos, but not footage. And the decision was made to forego the docudrama approach. I just finished watching the excellent docudrama “Soviet Storm” about the Great Patriotic War and it is superior to this series, if you want a heavy dose of strategy and tactics. For your average viewer, the History Channel made the right decision on format.

            I am happy to report that my fear of it being pop history was unfounded. Although the very first expert is a podcaster (Dan Carlin of Hardcore History, wearing a baseball cap), the series does not try to sensationalize the war. It does skip boring stuff and concentrate on the greatest hits. For instance, in the second episode, which covers the invasion of France and the Battle of Britain, there is a long segment on Dunkirk and little about Norway. Based on the first three episodes, it appears the series will have problems with running out of time to cover the episode’s topic and has no interest in carrying on in the next episode. It just moves on to Operation Barbarossa in episode 3. Speaking of which, that episode gets all the way to the Battle of Moscow.

            Overall, I recommend the series and I am looking forward to watching it. None of my red flags were confirmed. I was worried about the lack of maps, but there are seven in the first episode and they are animated. I can’t be too hard on the History Channel because I don’t want to discourage it from airing history. I do believe in redemption and I encourage the executives to try to get into Heaven. Clearly they are concerned because this same week they are starting a series on the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire. You go months of nonstop reality shows and then two history series in the same week?! I’ll take it. This is what DVRs were made for.

GRADE =  A-

Operation Chromite (2016)

                   It took 35 years for another movie to be made about Inchon.  “Inchon” (1981) starring Sir Laurence Olivier is famous as one of the biggest turkeys of the 1980s.  “Operation Chromite” was the first joint American/South Korean production focusing on the Korean War since “Inchon”.  Continuing a recent trend that has included Bruce Willis, it stars a big American actor who clearly loves money and cares little for reputation.  In this case, Liam Neeson takes the cash and saunters as Douglas MacArthur.  Ironically, Douglas MacArthur turned in better acting performances than the actors who have portrayed him.

 

                   The title refers to the code name for the invasion at Inchon.  MacArthur’s plan was to make a daring landing behind enemy lines to change the momentum of the war.  The port of Inchon was a particularly difficult location for an amphibious landing.  Part of the problem was the tides and the mines.  To recon the harbor and gather intelligence information, a crack squad of eight South Korean soldiers are sent behind enemy lines.  They are led by Capt. Jang Hak-soo (Lee Jong-jae).   Plausibility gets off to a rough start when the men kill eight North Korean soldiers on a train and take their identities.  As per the war movie cliché, the uniforms fit perfectly.  They masquerade as an inspection team, but the local villain Lim Gye-jin (Lee Beom-soo) is suspicious because apparently some North Koreans had brains.  The clock is ticking.  Ticking toward when the crazy ass Korean combat kicks in.  Meanwhile, we intercut to the pompous MacArthur discussing his plan.

 

                   “Operation Chromite” is not among the better Korean war movies.  I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the worst ones have American involvement.  There certainly is a huge gap between a movie like this and movies like “Tae Guk Gi”.  You get the kick-ass combat cinematography Korean war films are noted for, but unfortunately the script and acting do not match the fireworks.  In this case, the plot starts off ridiculous and spirals to bonkers quickly.  There is very little resemblance to the actual invasion.  You will learn nothing historical from it. 

 

                   The acting is wooden, with Neeson leading the way.  It’s an embarrassing performance, but it gets forgotten in the lunacy that surrounds it.  There is little resemblance to reality and the poor CGI does not help.  The naval bombardment is straight out of a video game.  There is no character development other than Jang and Lim.  Jang is an action hero and Lim is a cartoonish villain.  The movie becomes a series of confrontations between the two.  Lim is one tough dude to kill.  It comes down to a tank duel, so try not to drink yourself into a stupor before the big finish. 

 

GRADE  =  D

 

BINGEWORTHY? The Attackers (Istrebiteli) (2013)

 

                   I like to watch Amazon Prime Russian television series while walking on the treadmill.  Concentrating on the subtitles takes my mind off the walking.  Amazon has a surprising number of Russian series set in WWII.  The first series I watched was “Night Swallows”.  The series are similar in that they both cover air warfare on the Eastern Front.  “Night Swallows” is the story of a squadron of female bomber pilots and “The Attackers” is about a fighter squadron that includes female pilots. 

                   “The Attackers” is set in 1943 during the period when the situation was in flux.  The squadron of Yaks is based near the front line and is mainly tasked with determining and thwarting German intentions.  They occasionally tangle with “Messerschmitts” (Me. 109s).   The characters include the pilots, their commanders, and the ground crew.  The main characters are a count who is an excellent pilot but suspected of being a German supporter, two brash young male pilots, a no-nonsense female veteran pilot, her friend who is more feminine, a slimy political commissar, and their gruff, but empathetic boss.  The twelve episodes play out as an extended soap opera with the pilot’s lives intermixing and some romances ensuing.  The soap opera scenes are leavened with some action, usually brief missions to locate enemy bases or downed pilots.  Some of the missions are carried out by biplanes.  This all leads to a German assault on their airfield which forces them to defend themselves and it will not end well for several of the main characters. 

                   “The Attackers” is pretty typical for a Star Media production.  You can expect competent acting by a decent cast.  Usually  there are photogenic female actors and in this case, a particularly cute pilot who is worth watching while walking on a treadmill.  The characters are distinctive and appealing.  They are not as stereotypical as you would expect.  Noteworthy is the commander who goes to bat for his men and women and often stands up to his superiors (although not successfully).  The villain is the political commissar, but he is not totally evil and gets a bit of a redemption arc.  The Germans are faceless and not demonized.  The series is not particularly propagandistic.  It does have an interesting episode where the count is captured and put in a camp with Soviet collaborators who are treated well by the Germans, but it turns out to just be for propaganda purposes.

                   The weakness comes in the quantity and quality of the air combat.  The CGI is inferior.  The dogfights are too rudimentary and sometimes don’t fit the scenario.  However, at least the Yaks are not made to do things they were not capable of.  For a series about a fighter squadron, there is a surprising lack of action.  The missions are abbreviated and sometimes end abruptly.  And they tend to be repetitive.  Speaking of abruptly, the final episode is a major letdown.  It appears the producers ran out of time and had to rush the conclusion, which is decidedly unsatisfying and blew a clear opportunity to end with a bang.  Kudos for being willing to kill off major characters.

                   “The Attackers” is a decent watch.  It should be near the end of your to-be-binged list. I would watch “Night Swallows” before it.

GRADE  =  C

Hill 24 Doesn’t Answer (1955)

                   “Hill 24 Doesn’t Answer” is an Israeli film that was directed by Thorold Dickinson.  It was the first feature film produced in Israel.  It is a tale set in the last hours of the 1948 War for Independence.

                   The movie focuses on four people who are sent to occupy and defend a hill before the cease fire goes into effect.  The 24 refers to the height of the hill, which means the movie is making a mountain out of a molehill.  The story of the four is being told by James Finnegan (Edward Mulhare).  Finnegan was an Irish policeman who fell in love with a Jewish woman.  His flashback shows how he came to be a fighter for Israeli independence.  Each of the other four get their own flashbacks to explain why they are willing to die for Israel.  Finnegan’s is by far the longest back-story.  The movie is more about Finnegan than the group. 

                   This is a boring movie.  Finnegan’s tale is about an incompetent policeman who falls in love with a woman he is surveilling.  It does include some action that is realistic street-fighting, although  they do pull the grenade pins with their teeth.  The cinematography reminds of “Rome, Open City”, but the screenplay doesn’t.  It is Israeli propaganda, which doesn’t disqualify it.  It’s simply not an entertaining war movie.  The cast does not make it more interesting.  Mulhare is the only recognizable actor and he is just as week as the rest.  It had the making of a good film.  The flashback structure is nothing new, but it is botched.  One of the four is not even given a flashback!  And although you might have sensed the outcome, the movie foolishly leads with the results of the hill battle. 

                   I had “Hill 24 Doesn’t Answer” on my watch list because I had seen it on some best-of lists.  I have no idea what those critics were thinking.  This is not even a good movie, much less great.  When it comes calling, don’t answer.

GRADE  =  D