scarletminded
I can agree with other reviews that the narrator not pronouncing Antietam right is annoying. And the narrator is listed as Liev Schreiber, but it doesn't sound like Liev Schreiber to me, since I've since a lot of his films, but I guess it is. It's odd his voice doesn't sound like I am used to hearing it. Was it altered in some way?But other things people don't like, like comparing textile machine technology to computers was actually shown to me at our local (not defunct) computer museum. I saw a large chip that was actually handwoven. So that I don't mind, because it does come from a factual source.The graphics can get too CSI or Sci-Fi Channel at times, but are OK. They can be a bit violent, as to make people with children a bit uneasy in viewing them, since they are intense. One of my other complains was that the interview parts seemed to only copy VH1 style shows, where people comment without it meaning anything deep. Like you could take Brian Williams' comments about America being full of integrity and hard work and apply it to any of the stories here. I mean, fine, have college professors and history authors talk about this, why why Sheryl Crow and Donald Trump? Their comments seem out of place a lot of the time, like they were recorded for another show and lopped into this one.But besides all that, I think it is an OK show. OK, being C average. I heard that in America, the most successful people got Cs in school...so it's probably fitting. Not horrible, but not outstanding. Just Joe Average. 70%.If one person gets at least a vague US history time line from this show, someone who normally doesn't watch the History Channel...I feel then the show has done its job. If the CSI graphics draw a younger crowd, like people who liked the movie 300, then good. They probably learned something. And yes, maybe it does make some historical items seem more important than they should or jumps to an assumption here and there, but it's decent to watch and entertaining as a whole. I know so many people who know nothing about American History. Nothing. So if they leave at least knowing when the Civil War occurred, it's a great boon. One part of the show that I did enjoy was that it isn't all "We're #1!!!" like other American history shows are. The show points out how women, blacks and Native Americans were all treated like they had no rights or less than human. It shows how we basically got here and took over, fighting nature...which we probably should have done with such zest. It isn't sugarcoating anything. The stories presented in little vignettes containing a character or two, is a refreshing change from history shows that bombard the viewer with tons of information. I tend to retain more information from the vignette style, because it is more personal. It is more like hearing stories around the campfire. I am not a fact checker by any means either, but if something doesn't sound right to me, I would be compelled to look it up, which I haven't yet. I did like learning about people like Baron von Steuben, which though accused of being a homosexual, was still adopted into George Washington's army. I wonder if George Washington had a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. :) But to me, that proves the greatness of America, that the Revolutionary Army accepted all types of people, that in time, we can rise past the sexist, racist and homophobic parts of our society and make this country a true melting pot, where people can live freely and have true liberty in their life's decisions.Some of the graphics were OK too, I liked when the buildings built themselves. And some of the war graphics. I mean, they have to fill the video with something!
M Campbell
From the narrator mispronouncing names like Powhatan and Antietam to repeating well-refuted legends such as buckets of blood and human flesh at the Donner Party campsite, I spotted one factual error after another in this series. The show even goes so far as to speculate that modern day computers are based on 19th century textile machine "technology" but states it as if it's fact. Add to that the annoying "shaky cam" effects during action scenes and flashing camera cuts and it all adds up to colossal disappointment which outweighs anything good the series might have to offer.I was pleased to see some attention given to the presence and contributions of free blacks early in our nation's history. Native Americans were also presented in a more even-handed manner than I've seen in other historic shows. Some of the special effects, such as the computer simulations of the growth of cities, were well done. Other special effects done in the manner of "CSI" were unnecessary and seemed out of place.The commentators were a mish-mash of celebrities and "experts" with only a handful of them adding any kind of useful or factual insights. Again, so much of the information was incorrect or slanted to support certain modern day perspectives that it was difficult to know what was credible and what wasn't which, in my humble opinion, makes this a pretty useless history show.
