Reviews (3)

Watkins would change the world if anyone cared to
Edvard Munch is the Citizen Kane that nobody saw. From a storytelling point of view, its portrayal of the constant torment that led to Munch's art is oddly enthralling throughout its 3+ hr length. From a filmmaking point of view, Munch is like no other (except, perhaps, Watkins other later work). To my knowledge, no one has so expertly reproduced the personal thoughts and internal feelings of a man on screen as Watkins does in Munch. Sounds, images, narration, recollections--all float in and out of Munch's consciousness and into ours during this captivating biography on the Norwegian artist most famous for "The Shriek."
Perhaps every aspect of this film is avant-garde, from its editing all the way down to its casting (many parts were played by non-professionals), but perhaps no other movie has enveloped me in its universe the way that Munch does. I have always marveled at how little-known Peter Watkins' Edvard Munch is, and I've been so thankful that it found me. You will be too.

DEMANDING BEAUTY DRINKS YOU INTO ITS LIGHT
I've seen this twice, the first time in its theatrical showing, maybe twenty years ago, then more recently on video, which as I recall was also in widescreen. So that's six hours with Watkins' demandingly beautiful film. For awhile I later confused Watkins with David Watkins, the fabulous photographer of OUT OF AFRICA, and for all I know these two filmmakers are related. EDVARD MUNCH is a masterpiece of tonalities. This is a movie about light. You are in a Munch work just by the demanding beauty of the light and of Watkins' inspired painterliness with rich Munch-like blues. The smokey blue scenes in Bohemian bars have the same dense sense of lost time recaptured as do scenes of Munch painting in his attics and scoring his pictures violently as the sharp end of his brush digs into fresh paint and almost rips his canvas. When you think of John Huston's MOULIN ROUGE, a dull film with some good moments, particularly when Lautrec's "hand" draws figures on a restaurant table, we remember mostly idle moments in Lautrec's lovelife (and of course the Can-Can dancers). From EDVARD MUNCH we recall far more extraordinary feelings of being lifted out of ourselves and thrust back into the very rooms Munch lived in and the into the Scandanavian light he worked in and into the tortured set of his mind as he shrank figures into hard, strong, symbolic forms. I await the day this film appears digitally (it was never a laser disc, sad to say, or I'd have it already). Since it may not be issued on DVD for eight or ten years, seek the video cassette version. You will watch it more than once. Maybe not in the same year but it will be a respected treasure that you will thank yourself for having sought out. Or rent it first. Maybe you don't really have to own it if it will be on hand for renting. Still, not all that many stores will have it ready to rent, now that it's out of print. And even if the video is not in widescreen, you will be dazzled just by the blue tones filling the monitor.

Things that Obsess
EDVARD MUNCH is an ambitious, often heavy-going effort to transcend traditional artist biographies with a cinematic equivalent of the artist's paintings. It fails, but on the way succeeds in so many other ways that the failure almost doesn't matter.

In interviews, director Peter Watkins has been explicit about his total identification with Munch, how in the obsessive effort to portray the artist's life on screen, he effectively was revealing his own neuroses and experiences. People might be put off by the results. Watkins gives the film the look of a fictional biography. He then films events as if he were a documentary filmmaker present at the time. So there is a lot of loose, hand-held camera; there are "interviews" with actors (many of whom improvised or wrote their responses) speaking in character; and Watkins himself frequently intrudes with narration that helps us understand both Munch's significance in the history of art and how his times influenced his work. The voice-over also tells us what Munch feels and experiences, much as the narrator of a novel pretends to know what his protagonist is thinking at any given moment.

It is this effort to reveal the relationship between the artist's turmoil and his work that motivates the kaleidoscopic editing style, jumping from one event in the "present," to one in the past, sideways to another, back to something else we've already seen, then out again. Sometimes these edits are built on visual associations; often Watkins relies on the soundtrack to glue them together. It is here that the film's ambitions start to unravel. Other filmmakers who have used such technique (Eisenstein, Resnais, Godard and Roeg, for example) let their cuts ebb and flow over time. Watkins simply cuts, constantly, repeatedly, without much variation in speed or rhythm. Either through a lack of confidence or talent, the images fail to compel on their own, to persuade that there is any relationship between shots not forced by the editor's heavy hand. After nearly three hours, the barrage is exhausting.

But also exhaustive. Most artist biographies on film are an embarrassment. EDVARD MUNCH is one of the very few to give us a sense of both the man and his work. You do not have to be particularly interested in Munch to find the film's experiments fascinating, even in their failure. Just be prepared to get up to stretch every once in a while. ... Read more

Amazon.com

In the mid-'60s, the BBC funded a documentary on how World War III would affect Britain. But the film director Peter Watkins gave them was never aired, and the BBC released a statement saying it was "too horrifying" for television. Despite this, it won an Oscar for Best Documentary Feature, and hit worldwide theatrical release in the coming years. Even today, it has a shocking gravity that is undiminished by time. Using County Kent as the backdrop, a highly effective newsreel style takes the viewer on the Cold War prelude, the attack itself (striking military targets many miles away), and the desperate anarchy that ensues. Subtlety isn't Watkins's suit (perhaps the BBC objected to the film's blunt antiestablishment politics as much as anything), but by breaking taboos such as showing graphic carnage and plausibly depicting the brutal postnuclear martial law, The War Game is a monumental predecessor to The Day After and Testament. --Alan E. Rapp ... Read more

Reviews (11)

Still has impact
I saw this film at a nuclear bunker museum in the county of Cheshire, in a small cinema in a crisis briefing room! A stunning and uncomfortably realistic account of how Britain might be affected by a limited nuclear strike. In particular, the focus is on the county of Kent, near London(contains several major targets, i.e. the government, Heathrow Airport, the ports, etc) and how the survivors come to terms with radiation, food riots, martial law, euthenasia for prolonged radiation suffering and a total breakdown in society. Even though this film is over thirty years old, it does still disturb in places. The cold war may be over, but nuclear weapons are still fact. The BBC used the child actors well to portray the hopelessness in the final scenes, and their words will remain on your mind. Do not miss this film, you must see it.

THE GREATEST WORK OF ART EVER PRODUCED
I first saw this film about one year ago and I have been trying to get other people interested in it ever since. Adopting a similar structure to Watkins's previous masterpiece 'CULLODEN',using a newsreel effect to tell the story,Watkins describes the possible effects of a nuclear strike on Britain. The BBC commissioned the film and then got cold feet when they realised that the reality was far more harrowing than they imagined it would be. It has only been shown once on British television and is now incredibly hard to get hold of;especially in its country of origin. In 47 minutes of blistering drama and amazingly realistic 'firestorm' effects Watkins manages to place the viewer right in the middle of this terrifying situation,constantly asking questions about why nuclear weapons exist and why there is an almost complete silence from government and public alike as to what we would do if we ever were threatened with nuclear weapons. Unfortunately,I have only seen two of Watkins's films: 'THE WAR GAME' and 'CULLODEN'. Both 'PRIVILEGE' and 'PUNISHMENT PARK' appear to be completely unavailable in any format anywhere in the world. 'THE COMMUNE',Watkins's last film also appears to be unavailable on both video and DVD. Why are films made by the world's greatest living artist so difficult to get hold of? For some time now I have considered 'THE WAR GAME' to be not just the greatest and the most important film in the history of cinema,but,quite simply,the greatest work of art ever produced!
SEE IT TODAY!!!

If I had been a BBC Commissioner, I'd have banned it too.
It is incredibly easy to understand why this film was banned in the UK. As someone incredibly familiar with the horrors of Dresden and the holocaust, this was gut wrenching. Ringing so true it feels like a sledge hammer to the head, it very effectively uses WWII era film and information about fire storms. The fact that it does not show spectacular special effects of the actual blast is completely irrelevent to the power of the film.

Boring infomercial
Bad quality, b/w infomercial reminds me of a WW2 government infomercial. They didn't even bother showing (faking) a decent nuclear explosion. Perhaps it was banned because it would put people to sleep. Nothing even close to The Day After. I'd return it if I could.

The War Game
Every person on earth should see this film, and stop America from even considering the use of the bomb in any kind of use, even as a tactical weapon... ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Watkins would change the world if anyone cared to
Edvard Munch is the Citizen Kane that nobody saw. From a storytelling point of view, its portrayal of the constant torment that led to Munch's art is oddly enthralling throughout its 3+ hr length. From a filmmaking point of view, Munch is like no other (except, perhaps, Watkins other later work). To my knowledge, no one has so expertly reproduced the personal thoughts and internal feelings of a man on screen as Watkins does in Munch. Sounds, images, narration, recollections--all float in and out of Munch's consciousness and into ours during this captivating biography on the Norwegian artist most famous for "The Shriek."
Perhaps every aspect of this film is avant-garde, from its editing all the way down to its casting (many parts were played by non-professionals), but perhaps no other movie has enveloped me in its universe the way that Munch does. I have always marveled at how little-known Peter Watkins' Edvard Munch is, and I've been so thankful that it found me. You will be too.

DEMANDING BEAUTY DRINKS YOU INTO ITS LIGHT
I've seen this twice, the first time in its theatrical showing, maybe twenty years ago, then more recently on video, which as I recall was also in widescreen. So that's six hours with Watkins' demandingly beautiful film. For awhile I later confused Watkins with David Watkins, the fabulous photographer of OUT OF AFRICA, and for all I know these two filmmakers are related. EDVARD MUNCH is a masterpiece of tonalities. This is a movie about light. You are in a Munch work just by the demanding beauty of the light and of Watkins' inspired painterliness with rich Munch-like blues. The smokey blue scenes in Bohemian bars have the same dense sense of lost time recaptured as do scenes of Munch painting in his attics and scoring his pictures violently as the sharp end of his brush digs into fresh paint and almost rips his canvas. When you think of John Huston's MOULIN ROUGE, a dull film with some good moments, particularly when Lautrec's "hand" draws figures on a restaurant table, we remember mostly idle moments in Lautrec's lovelife (and of course the Can-Can dancers). From EDVARD MUNCH we recall far more extraordinary feelings of being lifted out of ourselves and thrust back into the very rooms Munch lived in and the into the Scandanavian light he worked in and into the tortured set of his mind as he shrank figures into hard, strong, symbolic forms. I await the day this film appears digitally (it was never a laser disc, sad to say, or I'd have it already). Since it may not be issued on DVD for eight or ten years, seek the video cassette version. You will watch it more than once. Maybe not in the same year but it will be a respected treasure that you will thank yourself for having sought out. Or rent it first. Maybe you don't really have to own it if it will be on hand for renting. Still, not all that many stores will have it ready to rent, now that it's out of print. And even if the video is not in widescreen, you will be dazzled just by the blue tones filling the monitor.

Things that Obsess
EDVARD MUNCH is an ambitious, often heavy-going effort to transcend traditional artist biographies with a cinematic equivalent of the artist's paintings. It fails, but on the way succeeds in so many other ways that the failure almost doesn't matter.

In interviews, director Peter Watkins has been explicit about his total identification with Munch, how in the obsessive effort to portray the artist's life on screen, he effectively was revealing his own neuroses and experiences. People might be put off by the results. Watkins gives the film the look of a fictional biography. He then films events as if he were a documentary filmmaker present at the time. So there is a lot of loose, hand-held camera; there are "interviews" with actors (many of whom improvised or wrote their responses) speaking in character; and Watkins himself frequently intrudes with narration that helps us understand both Munch's significance in the history of art and how his times influenced his work. The voice-over also tells us what Munch feels and experiences, much as the narrator of a novel pretends to know what his protagonist is thinking at any given moment.

It is this effort to reveal the relationship between the artist's turmoil and his work that motivates the kaleidoscopic editing style, jumping from one event in the "present," to one in the past, sideways to another, back to something else we've already seen, then out again. Sometimes these edits are built on visual associations; often Watkins relies on the soundtrack to glue them together. It is here that the film's ambitions start to unravel. Other filmmakers who have used such technique (Eisenstein, Resnais, Godard and Roeg, for example) let their cuts ebb and flow over time. Watkins simply cuts, constantly, repeatedly, without much variation in speed or rhythm. Either through a lack of confidence or talent, the images fail to compel on their own, to persuade that there is any relationship between shots not forced by the editor's heavy hand. After nearly three hours, the barrage is exhausting.

But also exhaustive. Most artist biographies on film are an embarrassment. EDVARD MUNCH is one of the very few to give us a sense of both the man and his work. You do not have to be particularly interested in Munch to find the film's experiments fascinating, even in their failure. Just be prepared to get up to stretch every once in a while. ... Read more

Reviews (11)

Still has impact
I saw this film at a nuclear bunker museum in the county of Cheshire, in a small cinema in a crisis briefing room! A stunning and uncomfortably realistic account of how Britain might be affected by a limited nuclear strike. In particular, the focus is on the county of Kent, near London(contains several major targets, i.e. the government, Heathrow Airport, the ports, etc) and how the survivors come to terms with radiation, food riots, martial law, euthenasia for prolonged radiation suffering and a total breakdown in society. Even though this film is over thirty years old, it does still disturb in places. The cold war may be over, but nuclear weapons are still fact. The BBC used the child actors well to portray the hopelessness in the final scenes, and their words will remain on your mind. Do not miss this film, you must see it.

THE GREATEST WORK OF ART EVER PRODUCED
I first saw this film about one year ago and I have been trying to get other people interested in it ever since. Adopting a similar structure to Watkins's previous masterpiece 'CULLODEN',using a newsreel effect to tell the story,Watkins describes the possible effects of a nuclear strike on Britain. The BBC commissioned the film and then got cold feet when they realised that the reality was far more harrowing than they imagined it would be. It has only been shown once on British television and is now incredibly hard to get hold of;especially in its country of origin. In 47 minutes of blistering drama and amazingly realistic 'firestorm' effects Watkins manages to place the viewer right in the middle of this terrifying situation,constantly asking questions about why nuclear weapons exist and why there is an almost complete silence from government and public alike as to what we would do if we ever were threatened with nuclear weapons. Unfortunately,I have only seen two of Watkins's films: 'THE WAR GAME' and 'CULLODEN'. Both 'PRIVILEGE' and 'PUNISHMENT PARK' appear to be completely unavailable in any format anywhere in the world. 'THE COMMUNE',Watkins's last film also appears to be unavailable on both video and DVD. Why are films made by the world's greatest living artist so difficult to get hold of? For some time now I have considered 'THE WAR GAME' to be not just the greatest and the most important film in the history of cinema,but,quite simply,the greatest work of art ever produced!
SEE IT TODAY!!!

If I had been a BBC Commissioner, I'd have banned it too.
It is incredibly easy to understand why this film was banned in the UK. As someone incredibly familiar with the horrors of Dresden and the holocaust, this was gut wrenching. Ringing so true it feels like a sledge hammer to the head, it very effectively uses WWII era film and information about fire storms. The fact that it does not show spectacular special effects of the actual blast is completely irrelevent to the power of the film.

Boring infomercial
Bad quality, b/w infomercial reminds me of a WW2 government infomercial. They didn't even bother showing (faking) a decent nuclear explosion. Perhaps it was banned because it would put people to sleep. Nothing even close to The Day After. I'd return it if I could.

The War Game
Every person on earth should see this film, and stop America from even considering the use of the bomb in any kind of use, even as a tactical weapon... ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Lessons in History
Watkin's adopts the style of BBC documentary (complete with crew and battlefield interviews) to satirise the disaster that is the massacre of Culloden. Like all good satire it exposes the brutality, incompetence, absurdity, futile horror of the battlefield and its aftermath through showing the leading players for what they were in essence: Power hungry, violent and vain glorious and completely disconnected from the lives and fates of their 'subjects'. (Sound familiar?). Through his application of style and the blackest of humour, Watkins simultaneously makes us laugh at the main players and recoil at the terror they unleash. By applying a modern documentary format it resembles any subsequent news documentary (or even reality TV documentary) popular today. It is certainly not a history lesson, but rather a lesson in history. Although, attached to a particular time and battle it is indicative of any 'campaign' in the past, present and future. It is the polemic of an artist -political and humanist- a clinical assassination of one of the most important disasters in Scottish 'military' history and the voyeuristic romanticism that has turned it, like all good massacres, into a voyeuristic attraction that we all enjoy pouring over in present times from the safety of historical distance.

Try to imagine the Sixty Minutes crew in 1746 Scotland
While telling the story of the famous battle that was the climax of the '45 Rebellion, the film maker does not try to glamourize war, nor does he choose sides. This dirty, gritty portrayal of mid-eighteenth century Britain shows the armies of the Duke of Cumberland and Bonnie Prince Charlie in what must have been very close to the real deal. There are plenty of inaccuracies in the clothing and weapons, but it's an excellent film nonetheless. A must-have for any military history buff! Pick up "Like Hungry Wolves" by Stuart Reid for a great book on the topic.

Powerful Docudrama of 18th Century warfare
I haven't seen this video, but I remember seeing the film several years ago. This is the story of the battle that ended Bonnie Prince Charlie's efforts to regain the Scottish throne and, not incidentally, take over the English one. But this is no romantic tale of the Young Pretender. It's a re-creation of the brutal period warfare done in documentary style, with handheld cameras. The English Army taking on a tired, outnumbered band of Highlanders and crushing the rebellion on the field at Culloden. This does seem to put the viewer in a battle, unflinchingly. ... Read more

Description

Shot on location in Norway and drawing from Munch'spaintings and writings, this program explores theorigins of some of the most arresting images in European art. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Watkins would change the world if anyone cared to
Edvard Munch is the Citizen Kane that nobody saw. From a storytelling point of view, its portrayal of the constant torment that led to Munch's art is oddly enthralling throughout its 3+ hr length. From a filmmaking point of view, Munch is like no other (except, perhaps, Watkins other later work). To my knowledge, no one has so expertly reproduced the personal thoughts and internal feelings of a man on screen as Watkins does in Munch. Sounds, images, narration, recollections--all float in and out of Munch's consciousness and into ours during this captivating biography on the Norwegian artist most famous for "The Shriek."
Perhaps every aspect of this film is avant-garde, from its editing all the way down to its casting (many parts were played by non-professionals), but perhaps no other movie has enveloped me in its universe the way that Munch does. I have always marveled at how little-known Peter Watkins' Edvard Munch is, and I've been so thankful that it found me. You will be too.

DEMANDING BEAUTY DRINKS YOU INTO ITS LIGHT
I've seen this twice, the first time in its theatrical showing, maybe twenty years ago, then more recently on video, which as I recall was also in widescreen. So that's six hours with Watkins' demandingly beautiful film. For awhile I later confused Watkins with David Watkins, the fabulous photographer of OUT OF AFRICA, and for all I know these two filmmakers are related. EDVARD MUNCH is a masterpiece of tonalities. This is a movie about light. You are in a Munch work just by the demanding beauty of the light and of Watkins' inspired painterliness with rich Munch-like blues. The smokey blue scenes in Bohemian bars have the same dense sense of lost time recaptured as do scenes of Munch painting in his attics and scoring his pictures violently as the sharp end of his brush digs into fresh paint and almost rips his canvas. When you think of John Huston's MOULIN ROUGE, a dull film with some good moments, particularly when Lautrec's "hand" draws figures on a restaurant table, we remember mostly idle moments in Lautrec's lovelife (and of course the Can-Can dancers). From EDVARD MUNCH we recall far more extraordinary feelings of being lifted out of ourselves and thrust back into the very rooms Munch lived in and the into the Scandanavian light he worked in and into the tortured set of his mind as he shrank figures into hard, strong, symbolic forms. I await the day this film appears digitally (it was never a laser disc, sad to say, or I'd have it already). Since it may not be issued on DVD for eight or ten years, seek the video cassette version. You will watch it more than once. Maybe not in the same year but it will be a respected treasure that you will thank yourself for having sought out. Or rent it first. Maybe you don't really have to own it if it will be on hand for renting. Still, not all that many stores will have it ready to rent, now that it's out of print. And even if the video is not in widescreen, you will be dazzled just by the blue tones filling the monitor.

Things that Obsess
EDVARD MUNCH is an ambitious, often heavy-going effort to transcend traditional artist biographies with a cinematic equivalent of the artist's paintings. It fails, but on the way succeeds in so many other ways that the failure almost doesn't matter.

In interviews, director Peter Watkins has been explicit about his total identification with Munch, how in the obsessive effort to portray the artist's life on screen, he effectively was revealing his own neuroses and experiences. People might be put off by the results. Watkins gives the film the look of a fictional biography. He then films events as if he were a documentary filmmaker present at the time. So there is a lot of loose, hand-held camera; there are "interviews" with actors (many of whom improvised or wrote their responses) speaking in character; and Watkins himself frequently intrudes with narration that helps us understand both Munch's significance in the history of art and how his times influenced his work. The voice-over also tells us what Munch feels and experiences, much as the narrator of a novel pretends to know what his protagonist is thinking at any given moment.

It is this effort to reveal the relationship between the artist's turmoil and his work that motivates the kaleidoscopic editing style, jumping from one event in the "present," to one in the past, sideways to another, back to something else we've already seen, then out again. Sometimes these edits are built on visual associations; often Watkins relies on the soundtrack to glue them together. It is here that the film's ambitions start to unravel. Other filmmakers who have used such technique (Eisenstein, Resnais, Godard and Roeg, for example) let their cuts ebb and flow over time. Watkins simply cuts, constantly, repeatedly, without much variation in speed or rhythm. Either through a lack of confidence or talent, the images fail to compel on their own, to persuade that there is any relationship between shots not forced by the editor's heavy hand. After nearly three hours, the barrage is exhausting.

But also exhaustive. Most artist biographies on film are an embarrassment. EDVARD MUNCH is one of the very few to give us a sense of both the man and his work. You do not have to be particularly interested in Munch to find the film's experiments fascinating, even in their failure. Just be prepared to get up to stretch every once in a while. ... Read more

Description

Directed, produced and scripted by PETER WATKINS. This important film is an original and daring, sobering and stunning "staged documentary" which graphically brings home the stark reality of nuclear war. In so doing, it remains as timely today as when it was first seen. Watkins, who began his career in the 1950s as an assistant producer of television commercials, vividly portrays the effect of nuclear war by combining cleverly filmed simulated newsreels and interviews with a take-no-sides narration. In his scenario, theres a "Berlin crisis," the result of which is an exchange of nuclear warheads between the United States and the Soviet Union. One bomb lands 27 miles from the English city of Kent (where the film was shot on location). In the wake of this disaster, homes are destroyed; people are killed or maimed; the medical establishment is unable to cope with the crisis; looters run rampant and anarchy becomes the order of the day. Interspersed with this footage are interviews with religious and political figures, who comment on the hows and whys of nuclear war. The film was made by the British Broadcasting Corporation and the British Film Institute; it was supposed to be screened on British television, but was not shown because the BBC deemed it "unsuitable" for home viewing. Eventually, it was released to theaters and it went on to earn a most deserved Best Documentary Academy Award. 48 minutes. ... Read more

Reviews (11)

Still has impact
I saw this film at a nuclear bunker museum in the county of Cheshire, in a small cinema in a crisis briefing room! A stunning and uncomfortably realistic account of how Britain might be affected by a limited nuclear strike. In particular, the focus is on the county of Kent, near London(contains several major targets, i.e. the government, Heathrow Airport, the ports, etc) and how the survivors come to terms with radiation, food riots, martial law, euthenasia for prolonged radiation suffering and a total breakdown in society. Even though this film is over thirty years old, it does still disturb in places. The cold war may be over, but nuclear weapons are still fact. The BBC used the child actors well to portray the hopelessness in the final scenes, and their words will remain on your mind. Do not miss this film, you must see it.

THE GREATEST WORK OF ART EVER PRODUCED
I first saw this film about one year ago and I have been trying to get other people interested in it ever since. Adopting a similar structure to Watkins's previous masterpiece 'CULLODEN',using a newsreel effect to tell the story,Watkins describes the possible effects of a nuclear strike on Britain. The BBC commissioned the film and then got cold feet when they realised that the reality was far more harrowing than they imagined it would be. It has only been shown once on British television and is now incredibly hard to get hold of;especially in its country of origin. In 47 minutes of blistering drama and amazingly realistic 'firestorm' effects Watkins manages to place the viewer right in the middle of this terrifying situation,constantly asking questions about why nuclear weapons exist and why there is an almost complete silence from government and public alike as to what we would do if we ever were threatened with nuclear weapons. Unfortunately,I have only seen two of Watkins's films: 'THE WAR GAME' and 'CULLODEN'. Both 'PRIVILEGE' and 'PUNISHMENT PARK' appear to be completely unavailable in any format anywhere in the world. 'THE COMMUNE',Watkins's last film also appears to be unavailable on both video and DVD. Why are films made by the world's greatest living artist so difficult to get hold of? For some time now I have considered 'THE WAR GAME' to be not just the greatest and the most important film in the history of cinema,but,quite simply,the greatest work of art ever produced!
SEE IT TODAY!!!

If I had been a BBC Commissioner, I'd have banned it too.
It is incredibly easy to understand why this film was banned in the UK. As someone incredibly familiar with the horrors of Dresden and the holocaust, this was gut wrenching. Ringing so true it feels like a sledge hammer to the head, it very effectively uses WWII era film and information about fire storms. The fact that it does not show spectacular special effects of the actual blast is completely irrelevent to the power of the film.

Boring infomercial
Bad quality, b/w infomercial reminds me of a WW2 government infomercial. They didn't even bother showing (faking) a decent nuclear explosion. Perhaps it was banned because it would put people to sleep. Nothing even close to The Day After. I'd return it if I could.

The War Game
Every person on earth should see this film, and stop America from even considering the use of the bomb in any kind of use, even as a tactical weapon... ... Read more