Like Season 1, there are a few times when the coincidences that put everyone in the right place at the right time can strain credibility. But somehow, the series never feels like it's trying to do too much, even when it is obviously straining VFX budgets to the limit.
In the wrong hands, World on Fire could well be very boring – the Second World War is not exactly new narrative territory. But Bowker makes both the grand narratives and the minutiae equally vivid and stirring, and it becomes impossible not to be enraptured by at least one of them.
I have been slightly spoiled for second world war dramas by the gregarious SAS: Rogue Heroes, and this does not share that bounce or spirit. But it does have an immaculate grasp of tension and character. As this is war, people come and go; they live and they die. By the end of the opening episode, I was fully invested in their fates.
It’s true that not every story line gets equal attention or succeeds equally well, and it does take a little while for authentic characters to emerge from artificial scene-setting. But emerge they do, and my growing desire to peek at the end — as a TV critic, I have that power — was a sign that I had become deeply invested in their fates.
If not a light escape, it makes for a beautifully made, extremely soapy "Masterpiece" series.
A a chillier and occasionally provocative rumination on how hard it can be to navigate an altered world. These characters are full of ambivalence, doubt and occasional resignations to their fates. ... The writing is brisk and efficient, but it does take a few more episodes (there are seven in all) to make the best use of actors as talented as Hunt, Bean and Manville.
There are parts of “World on Fire,” a 2019 work written for the 80th anniversary of the start of World War II, that aren’t equal to the whole, and some characters that don’t ring true, but their number is negligible. As is their impact on this extraordinarily affecting series, so clearly powered by its passion for the history it represents, and by a remarkable cast.
It’s an ambitious and broad look at the onslaught of war and the ugliness — as well as the occasional heroism, but mostly the ugliness — that it ushered in.
“World on Fire” hits the ground running and doesn’t let up. While it might take a bit of time to grasp everything onscreen, once you do you’re in for an emotional and jaw-dropping ride.
There is plenty of action, for those who want it, but this is far from the standard wartime miniseries. It is a beautifully turned ensemble piece, with everyone getting their time in the spotlight as we move between locations without anybody’s characters or storylines feeling underbaked.
Disappointing. Good production as usual, but none of the characters are terribly appealing, making it difficult for me to care what happens to them. Maybe it gets better -- I'm only 2 episodes in -- but I'm not terribly inclined to continue.
This is right down there with other duds, such as the much too long, Mr. Selfrage, and the more recent hugely disappointing so-called Jane Austin adaptation, Sandition.
Historical dramas are always my favorite ones but World On Fire has a different perspective about WWII which makes the show more interesting. I do like the idea of having ordinary people in front during these dark period of history because it shows the effects on these people. We get used to see the war strategies, politics in these kind of period dramas. However while watching World On Fire you see how it becomes difficult to survive and/or think of simple daily decisions in your life. Yes it might be a little bit soapy because of the love storylines but even in the war this is part of the life. I am really looking forward to see the next chapter of these characters' lives!
Character driven drama set during the events leading up to WW2, and the impact it has on these people. Very well done.
Sign in to write reviews, reply to threads, and like content.