Smartorhypo
Highly Overrated But Still Good
Nayan Gough
A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.
Bob
This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.
lavatch
The shortcomings of this well-produced, twelve-part series lie primarily in the selection of commentators. It was not clear why celebrities were selected over scholars, but the choice came back to bite the filmmakers. Martha Stewart, Brian Williams, Tom Brokaw, and David Petraeus have all had their careers besmirched since the series was released. The main point is that they did not provide stellar insights into U.S. history. And neither did Michael Douglas or Meryl Streep!The major strength of the episodes were the dynamic use of computer graphic images. Such technological achievements as the building of the Erie Canal, skyscrapers like New York's Flatiron Building, and the construction of Hoover Dam were brilliantly recreated. The best programs were those of the early history of the nation, leading up to the Civil War. But after 1860s, the events were telescoped into superficial capsules. A glaring omission was the progressive movement in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The closing segments focused far too much on scientific and cultural history (suburbia, computer revolution, NASA) at the expense of social and political events. For viewers who enjoyed these programs, there is a beautifully written book by Kevin Brown that is a companion to the series. The twelve-chapter book dovetails closely with the episodes and offers more detailed coverage of the topics. This series is briskly paced and dynamically narrated by Liev Schreiber. While it may be slanted in the area of "feel good" propaganda, it nonetheless covers the basics of American history. One of the most interesting touches was the occasional commentary from Donald J. Trump, which was delivered at a time when he did not have presidential aspirations. One of his most interesting points was that to succeed in America takes not merely perseverance, but also brains-an assertion that is borne out in the coverage of the great entrepreneurs covered in the series.
daisyfaye724-176-816326
When I first saw the ads for this program, I was highly interested in it and made plans to watch. After viewing the first few episodes, I couldn't stand to see any more. It would have been a really great series if they had taken it seriously and done a much better job on incorporating as much important US history as possible, even if it meant making the series longer. What they ended up doing is focusing and repeating a few events and completely leaving out others. They spent a lot of time on the Civil War and entrepeneurs such as Carnegie. It's not that those weren't important events,indeed they were, but by being so repetitive in their coverage they left out other events that deserved screen time. I never saw much mention of the War of 1812, good coverage of our forefathers and I could be wrong, but I don't think they even covered women's suffrage! If they were going to set out to create a program that truly encompassed the United States' history and its people then they should have understood what all in entailed and planned accordingly. What truly disappointed me was the face that they felt the need to use celebrity testimony instead of credible historical experts, educated people that are the backbone of this country. What do P Diddy or Sheryl Crow have to do with the study of history (other than their part in the *entertainment* aspect)? This is being shown in classrooms, I understand: is that what we should teach our children? If you want to learn history, look to our celebrities and movie stars? Completely ridiculous. I was wanting this to be an awesome series, which it could have been. Instead I ended up having my intelligence insulted and my time wasted.
xjumper65
I agree with the other reviewers that commentators like Sheryl Crow, P Diddy, and Michael Douglas are absurd. And while these people are far from being "experts," I have an even greater objection to people like Al Sharpton and Sean Hannity. These two, despite being on the opposite sides of the ideological spectrum, can be grouped together as because unlike the other non-experts, these 2 are dangerous; they closer to enemies of the state then "experts." Al Sharpton is an instigator, fabricator and inciter (remember Tawana Brawley?). Sean Hannity, as a high-school drop-out is undereducated and divisive figure who represents the worst of what America has to offer. In my opinion, this man (and I use the term loosely) is one of the most un-American figures in today's society. He incites racism, division, and elitism which are completely at odds with the American narrative and ideals. What in the world could they be thinking by including a man whose values are professed to be purely American, but in reality are antithetical to the core American values of charity, equality, liberty, and justice. He is what the Father of our Country, George Washington, warned us about when he warned us to be wary of "the impostures of pretended patriotism." Hannity is a self-ordained patriot who cloaks the invective he spews in Americanism and distorts what true Americans, like those who HAVE served our Country, know America is about. I would have liked to use this to stimulate historical discussion with my young daughter, but the inclusion of Sean Hannity is a deal-breaker for me. I wouldn't let this fraud teach my kids to floss, let alone let him comment about what it means to be an American. And what's the deal Margaret Cho and the guy from Pawn Stars? Cho is a comedian and one of the worst ones at that. She has no business in any history production. I don't know if the producers were desperate, to find 'celebrities' to comment, but in any case these 2 certainly don't qualify as celebrities. They should have gotten Kathy Griffin-she is head and shoulders above them, making at least to the height of the D-List. Bottom line: Save yourself time and frustration—avoid this show and read a history book.
RFM-2
I was sorely disappointed with this highly touted History Channel offering. At first, I was disturbed mainly by reenactments which were too often grossly inaccurate, but as the series began to cover eras and events that I was more familiar with, it became apparent that the narrative was also misleading. (There are too many incidents to relate, but was Lincoln REALLY "best known," prior to his presidential election, for loosing two bids for the Senate? What a misrepresentation of his political life--including two years in Congress--let alone his reputation as a public speaker.) Some "talking heads" had an aura of authority to speak on the events being covered, but too many were simply "celebrities" with apparently no expertise, and sometimes, little relevance to the current topic. One has to wonder why certain events were chosen to depict an era or turning point in the Nation's history for any reason other than their sensationalist value.This is History for those who can only tolerate short snippets and catchy graphics. Worse than being over simplified, too much is simply misleading in the way it is presented. Alas, this is pretty much what the "New" History Channel produces now. It is sensationalism over substance; entertainment over education. Such a shame...
