8 user 2 critic

First Invasion: The War of 1812 (2004)

Elaborate reenactments are juxtaposed with comments by historians in this glossy review of America's "Second War of Independence" against Britain (1812-15). Included: the causes of the ... See full summary »



On Disc

at Amazon

Nominated for 1 Primetime Emmy. See more awards »


Add Image Add an image

Do you have any images for this title?



Cast overview, first billed only:
Mark D. Hutter ...
Sally E. Bennett ...
Dave Fagerberg ...
H. David Wright ...
General Samuel Smith
Craig Fisher ...
Victor Suthren ...
Admiral Alexander Cochrane
William Rachel ...
Captain Edward Codrington
Ray Gardner ...
General John Armstrong
David Williams Lamb ...
Steve Brazelton
Cynda Carpenter-Abolt ...
Alan Gephardt ...
Harold R. Raleigh ...
Doug DeCroix ...
Captain George Glieg
Dave Jurgella ...
General John Stricker


Elaborate reenactments are juxtaposed with comments by historians in this glossy review of America's "Second War of Independence" against Britain (1812-15). Included: the causes of the conflict; American designs on Canada; the burning of Washington D.C.; the Battle of New Orleans. Edward Herrmann narrates.

Plot Summary | Add Synopsis

Plot Keywords:

reenactment | See All (1) »


It's America's redeclaration of Independence.





Release Date:

12 September 2004 (USA)  »

Company Credits

Production Co:

Show detailed on  »

Technical Specs


See  »

Frequently Asked Questions

This FAQ is empty. Add the first question.

User Reviews

Your a bit too Patriotic, but i do love Canada...
3 April 2006 | by (United States) – See all my reviews

I agree with you on a couple of the points you had made, and am very disappointed that the History Channel would make something of such a poor-quality. However I do think that you are a little over-zealous in your patriotic nitpicking of this movie. You may not have meant to do that, but to a uneducated on the subject reader you may come across as a zany Canadien (which isn't all bad). The video states that America is the underdog. You disagree and we must agree to disagree. The War is divided into two sections commonly; the first phase, in which Britain sent a few blockades now and gain but nothing special, and the second phase after the war with he French in which they concentrated all attention on America. Now remember at the time Britain's Navy was the greatest in the world, had the arguably best Army as well. (After defeating one of the greatest military minds of his time in Napolean I agree) Now, because Britain is overseas from the United States, there must have been naval battles out there. Now take in mind that America's Navy at the time consisted of 15 rickety old ships already not in the best of shape after a brief war with Tripoli (spelling?) was all that was mustered, and that the U.S. army was cut by Thomas Jefferson, while the Embargo Act was drastically cutting funds, and Britain had allies in and Native American tribes, so almost it was like 1 on 2 how can you even consider the U.S. to not be underdogs. The country we were attacking was, Canada yes, but it wasn't the only country attacking, and also the British could, and did, reinforce after the war with the French. (Napoleonic Wars) Now your notion that the History Channel claims that America won the war is true, it does, and not at all subtly. But most historians do not agree on the victor. For one, the purposes of the war were expansion into Canada, which failed, so chalk one up for the British. But also it was because of the impressment of American soldiers into British service (By the way, your point on the fact that the British merely requested soldiers be returned to them is somewhat ridiculous, why would British soldiers fight in American armies for one?) Which ceased after the war, chalk one up for America. Also the war was a result of Britain attacking U.S. merchant, which stopped. Chalk one up for America. In my opinion though your best point by far was the one about the Canadians fighting off American forces, and because of this Briain won the War. Props for that. Chalk one up for Britain. So as you see it is undecided. Overall good movie. Also in response to that last paragraph of yours, I do not think that young viewers will think of America being invincible because of the current war in which 1-4 men can destroy cities. (Super-Terrorism is a horrible thing) But also this movie can't be that horrible as you say (in my opinion it was tasteful yet lacking in some areas, mainly informational areas), because it was nominated for a Emmy.

9 of 15 people found this review helpful.  Was this review helpful to you?

Contribute to This Page

Create a character page for: