I'll tell you why so serious

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

I was really annoyed to see British soldiers in Revolutionary War era uniforms in the Battle of New Orleans segnents. But we had already seen William Henry Harrison stuck in his Revolutionary War uniform well into the 19th Century as well. Oddly, in one battle, the Americans are shown marching in with 18th Century uniforms, then suddenly fight the battle wearing the more updated 19th Century uniforms. A gaffe of this nature plagues virtually every episode This tells me that in editing the people responsible just would look for general army footage that resembled the story being told, but with zero eye as to detail. This is pretty sad for a channel that purportedly is a presenter of historical facts; we can see "historical films" with all sorts of innaccuracies anytime we want, but I would hope that History Channel, after tapping all the historians who cameo on the show, would make a better effort to be accurate. Someone else mentioned the pacing seems rushed; perhaps this is a symptom of that, as well.

This broadcast has severe audio problems - editing. Could barely hear most of it but ads were at 20x the volume! We finally gave up trying to watch this FIASCO! The historical commentary was juvenile and ridiculously botched at times. Thisprogram needs serious re-editing with serious technical audio fixes... sorry.

I've watched the first two episodes of the this show. I don't know which is more appalling: the ridiculous costumes, characterizations, and "settings", or the startling disregard for "fact" in telling this "history." To cite a few examples, perhaps the creators should recognize there is a proper way for a rifleman to carry his powder horn if he intends to use it. They might recognize that scruffy beard and "frontiersman" and not synonymous. There are perfectly good and fairly accurate renditions of Fort Mandan and Fort Clatsop already in existence that they could have used instead of the weird and completely inaccurate examples they depicted for Lewis and Clark's winter quarters. They might actually have them raise the proper flag over their forts as well. When it comes to the telling, the "general" William Henry Harrison was actually 21 years old at the Battle of Fallen Timbers--younger than William Clark. When a map of the Louisiana Purchase is shown, it should not cut off part of the Missouri River--the Purchase was the western drainage of the Mississippi River; so all the Missouri and its tributaries qualify. Lewis and Clark did not walk to the Pacific from Fort Mandan; they actually left a tributary of the Missouri River almost 1,000 miles further along their route. They were not led to the Pacific by Sacagawea (as they called her!), they didn't scale 14,000 foot mountains (there aren't any in Montana or Idaho), they didn't eat their pack horses, and if there were 2,000 American muskets at the Battle of Fallen Timbers, the few men of Lewis and Clark's command didn't have the largest arsenal the frontier had ever seen. This series is low budget, lazy, and a gross distortion of "history." There's a great story to be told, and the History Channel is NOT telling it. Unless you just like to see how much they get wrong, don't waste your time. You'll actually know less when you finish than you did before you started.

I have only seen the Daniel Boone episode at this point, but I loved it. They left out a lot, but it's the History Channel and they tend to do that, plus they only had a certain amount of time.I like how they included Boone's daughter as being a strong woman.I beg of anyone who knows, to tell me the theme song.