America: The Story of Us
America: The Story of Us
TV-PG | 25 April 2010 (USA)
SEASON & EPISODES
  • 1
  • 0
  • Reviews
    Titreenp

    SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

    ... View More
    Ketrivie

    It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

    ... View More
    Hadrina

    The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

    ... View More
    Mehdi Hoffman

    There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

    ... View More
    yuengling215

    ThisIs a well-done series! I enjoyed it when it was on TV before and still enjoy today actually re-watched the entire series... Pay no mind to the negative reviewers who are never happy about any thing. The series is well thought out from the beginning of America until now. Definitely worth the watch.

    ... View More
    mr_midnight_show

    If the History Channel can produce a 1000 hour program about United States history, that still would not be enough. We would have to start from Columbus for great detail but the show isn't about the discovery of land, it is about the concept of a free nation and the choices people made to survive. This documentary was made to show how the American people kept moving on from the turning points that shaped the "concept" which was built on blood and struggle.Sure they missed some key historical turning points but the show kept me interested enough that I found myself researching them online after watching an episode.Liev Schreibers narration is great as well.

    ... View More
    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!

    ... View More
    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.

    ... View More