Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Taraparain Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Marva-nova Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

edh-thwacker First, there are no factual errors. You can check this stuff in a text book. But the 1849 gold is in the provocative interpretation and connections this series makes! History is two things: facts (black and white, easy to check), and then on top of this, the story and interpretation of a national experience. That's awesome and wholly subjective! (Has the question of what caused the Civil War ever been resolved? I think not! Never will be!!! :-) ). And why not hear from the chords of Sheryl Crow and Michael Douglas? Would Professor Such-and-such from Unknown University be any better? (Although there is plenty of input from the likes of David Baldacci, Henry Louis Gates/Harvard Emeritus, and Colin Powell). My family, we know the facts. This series took us to the next level of discussion and lively debate.

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.

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!

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...