Why is everyone contrasting this against the John Adams mini-series? It's clearly a documentary done in documentary-style format with commentary from various historians. No matter what, it'll never be accurate enough for some people and the actors will never look enough like the real people, etc., but I enjoyed it for the simple fact that it was well-made and the actor playing Washington was engaging and did what I can only assume was a great job with his accent (he's Scottish and we really have no idea how "Americans" talked back then). One of the things that irked me was the filmmakers showing us how woke they were by pointing out how unwoke Washington was because he owned slaves and took pains to make sure they didn't win their freedom by a technicality. You know who else owned slaves? Literally most everybody else who could afford it back then. And I guarantee you they would have taken the same steps to safeguard against the loss of their property, too. We know he's human and has flaws and I think we already at least assumed he owned slaves, so this was unnecessary. So, does this mean the father of our country is cancelled now, or is it okay if we can at least appreciate the positive contributions he made?
30 Reviews
First 3rd is pretty good but
yerlo24 May 2020
Why is Bill Clinton one of the commenters? I never once heard he has any cred as a historian. Then there is the attempt to elevate Obama in stature by saying Washington, like Obama and Gerald Ford, was raised by a single mother. Nice try. Washington was raised by his widowed mother from age 11. Gerald Ford's parents split but at age 3 he had his stepfather in the home so he not only had a father but took his name. Obama was raised by a divorced mother because Obama rotten drunken bigamous father abandoned her and Barry when Barry was quite small. Then she married again but soon sent Barry to be raised by her parents. All very different. This series has a bias and agenda. Hate that.
No documentary can cover every point in the life of anyone, nor the events surrounding that life. Read books, lots of books, if you want that. But much is covered very well. Some bios make it sound like he was a poor-ish fortune hunter who married an old very wealthy widow for her money. No, it was a marriage of equals. She was only 2 years older at 28. His family was very well off and he continued to grow that fortune as well as his wife's fortune. He was a folk hero and a rock star socially and a good catch. It was a good match.
I liked best the presentation of the events that formed him as the force that would aggressively lead the country out of onerous submission to a violent England to be the nascent superpower of the world. THAT journey is the best part of this first third of the series which is all I've watched so far.
No documentary can cover every point in the life of anyone, nor the events surrounding that life. Read books, lots of books, if you want that. But much is covered very well. Some bios make it sound like he was a poor-ish fortune hunter who married an old very wealthy widow for her money. No, it was a marriage of equals. She was only 2 years older at 28. His family was very well off and he continued to grow that fortune as well as his wife's fortune. He was a folk hero and a rock star socially and a good catch. It was a good match.
I liked best the presentation of the events that formed him as the force that would aggressively lead the country out of onerous submission to a violent England to be the nascent superpower of the world. THAT journey is the best part of this first third of the series which is all I've watched so far.
Relevant and worth watching
mba2419 February 2020
Warning: Spoilers
This was a decent effort by The History Channel, a network that has dependably sidetracked itself with forays into junk hoarding and alien conspiracies. Timing a Washington bio in conjunction with Presidents Day was sensible, and they promoted it non-stop to get the interest of viewers not generally interested in, well, history. And who better to center it on than the pre-eminent figure in US history? Very relevant choice, both on the calendar, and to shed light on a man who has taken a recent beating by the PC revisionist mob lately.
They did a great job in fleshing out how Washington's early years formed him into the man and leader he would gradually become, encounter by encounter. His bungling of the mission into the Ohio Country started the French and Indian War, an expensive struggle that eventually led to taxation and Revolution. Failure being the best teacher, he was cool under fire during the Braddock disaster. Every step of the way, Washington wrote voluminously; being his own PR department, in an effort to rise in military and societal prominence. The experiences he faced, and his descriptions of them, give us insight into what forged this raw and unprepared enthusiast, encounter by encounter, into the leader we are familiar with. The series serves this learning process, both for him and us, well.
But Washington is like many prominent people of his time, or any time for that matter. A complex character ardently dedicated to the independence of a nation's people against a tyrant, yet a slaveholder. A man who groomed his impeccable image with preparation and self-restraint, yet obtained vast land-holdings, some by questionable dealings. And was his self-promoting (while appearing humble) pursuit of command of the army from Congress motivated by pure patriotism or somewhat his contempt for the British army? just how did this man manage to hang onto command when he got it, after defeat upon defeat? And, what was his motivation to return from private life to lead a very troubled new nation? This series does a decent job addressing many these questions, while permitting the viewer to think along, all in just six hours. It is brilliant in that regard.
Now, the nit-picky stuff that we hyper-historians love to point out. The usual production goofs: The defeat at Fort Necessity during the driving rain, except the sun is out; the young commander drilling his raw Virginia recruits on musket and bayonet when he himself hadn't been trained (and one militia man actually fires his musket without the lock secured); the opinions of some of the guest historians that Washington's escape from New York was due to his brilliance, when in fact luck, weather, and Howe's hesitancy were more important in getting him out of a mess of his own design; attacking active Trenton sentry posts in the dark of night, when in fact it was already morning and the Hessions were hung over; the curious omission of how Washington drove the British out of Boston with that undisciplined rabble he first encounters at Cambridge; how pivotal Benedict Arnold was in the first three years of the war to the patriot cause; and... having Henry Knox played by a tall, slender actor. (C'mon, Knox was a blimp!)
I appreciated the balance in considering Washington's apparent character contradictions and tactical errors; especially he being the quintessential advocate of freedom while holding slaves. I thought these considerations were even-handed, especially the one's made by the African-American historians. Washington is looked at, as they say; "warts and all", a man of his times and situations. Is he called to task for many transgressions and failures? I think, yes, and fairly. Is there an attempt to wipe him from the prominence of our history which seems in vogue these days? No, and again, fairly.
Just who was he then? A sports commentator might say, "Hereza guy...who at least a half dozen times, strapped America on his back, and single-handedly kept us in the game, carrying us across the goal line!" And THAT would be pretty much spot on. No Washington...NO United States.
They did a great job in fleshing out how Washington's early years formed him into the man and leader he would gradually become, encounter by encounter. His bungling of the mission into the Ohio Country started the French and Indian War, an expensive struggle that eventually led to taxation and Revolution. Failure being the best teacher, he was cool under fire during the Braddock disaster. Every step of the way, Washington wrote voluminously; being his own PR department, in an effort to rise in military and societal prominence. The experiences he faced, and his descriptions of them, give us insight into what forged this raw and unprepared enthusiast, encounter by encounter, into the leader we are familiar with. The series serves this learning process, both for him and us, well.
But Washington is like many prominent people of his time, or any time for that matter. A complex character ardently dedicated to the independence of a nation's people against a tyrant, yet a slaveholder. A man who groomed his impeccable image with preparation and self-restraint, yet obtained vast land-holdings, some by questionable dealings. And was his self-promoting (while appearing humble) pursuit of command of the army from Congress motivated by pure patriotism or somewhat his contempt for the British army? just how did this man manage to hang onto command when he got it, after defeat upon defeat? And, what was his motivation to return from private life to lead a very troubled new nation? This series does a decent job addressing many these questions, while permitting the viewer to think along, all in just six hours. It is brilliant in that regard.
Now, the nit-picky stuff that we hyper-historians love to point out. The usual production goofs: The defeat at Fort Necessity during the driving rain, except the sun is out; the young commander drilling his raw Virginia recruits on musket and bayonet when he himself hadn't been trained (and one militia man actually fires his musket without the lock secured); the opinions of some of the guest historians that Washington's escape from New York was due to his brilliance, when in fact luck, weather, and Howe's hesitancy were more important in getting him out of a mess of his own design; attacking active Trenton sentry posts in the dark of night, when in fact it was already morning and the Hessions were hung over; the curious omission of how Washington drove the British out of Boston with that undisciplined rabble he first encounters at Cambridge; how pivotal Benedict Arnold was in the first three years of the war to the patriot cause; and... having Henry Knox played by a tall, slender actor. (C'mon, Knox was a blimp!)
I appreciated the balance in considering Washington's apparent character contradictions and tactical errors; especially he being the quintessential advocate of freedom while holding slaves. I thought these considerations were even-handed, especially the one's made by the African-American historians. Washington is looked at, as they say; "warts and all", a man of his times and situations. Is he called to task for many transgressions and failures? I think, yes, and fairly. Is there an attempt to wipe him from the prominence of our history which seems in vogue these days? No, and again, fairly.
Just who was he then? A sports commentator might say, "Hereza guy...who at least a half dozen times, strapped America on his back, and single-handedly kept us in the game, carrying us across the goal line!" And THAT would be pretty much spot on. No Washington...NO United States.
Great History, Meh Documentary
ajricks19 February 2020
8 rating for the historical content alone. Strong lead character but I question casting choice for looks. Definitely could do without this type of documentary especially given they chose Bill Clinton to speak.
Mostly the "professional" historians offer surface analysis and apparently didn't mind repeating themselves like the reality program / Top Chef nonsense, or oversimplifying and assessing history with a modern lens. Not really for the history buff but nice to see actual history on this channel.
Mostly the "professional" historians offer surface analysis and apparently didn't mind repeating themselves like the reality program / Top Chef nonsense, or oversimplifying and assessing history with a modern lens. Not really for the history buff but nice to see actual history on this channel.
Nicolas Rowe as George Washington
ags-839731 August 2020
Before watching this I knew very little about George Washington or that era of American history so I certainly learned a great deal even if some of the actual facts are either omitted or not entirely accurate. I loved the portrayal of the main character by Nicholas Rowe who brought a very regal bearing and much screen presence to the part even if he doesn't resemble Washington. Only drawback imo was the 'fluff' added by Powell and Clinton who didn't really add anything constructive.
Kudos to History Channel!
gaiamuse2 March 2020
What a great job! Thanks for a riveting look at the story of our first president. Thanks for improving your production quality! Revealing story that most people don't know. Great cast. Great talking heads. Great voice over. Great script. Yes, there's a couple of issues that prevent me from giving it the rating of 10...but please keep this up. Do more! I have been waiting for your channel to target watchers like me for decades. I consider myself an 'informed' viewer and unless I was interested in watching a piece in which the information was skewed, sometimes invented, with dubious backup and a way over-dreicted voice-over -- I'd just end up switching channels. I've recommended this piece to several people..
I applaud nearly any attention to Washington, but there are some real problems here
random-7077824 February 2020
Firstly why have non historians such as Bill Clinton and Colin Powell in this? Especially if they are going to make statements like Powell's: "He (Washington) could have been King." That is ludicrous. Worse yet I read an interview with one of the makers of the historians "advising" that this "contrasted" Washington with Trump. What? 1. The "refused to be king" nonsense has been as debunked as the Cherry Tree legend. 2. this points to a motive int eh glaring omission of any exposition at all on the power of the presidency at the time which was profoundly limited in nature literally almost that of simply a presiding officer at the time, when today when the US presidency in the 21st century is a profoundly more powerful office -- and one which arguably virtually the American colonial revolutionaries would consider tyrannical by its nature since FDR or earlier. Once you realize this is going on there is a bit of insidiousness and agenda to the selection of the short phrase sized quotes chosen by the makers.
As far as the military aspect, both the role of the militias, and the role of the French, is given very short shrift and it is made to seem the Continental Army was virtually the entire effort. Sadly one starts to wonder if this is agenda driven. Sure as cultural decedents of the British, we all like to hate on the French a bit. But at the time of the American Revolution they were a massive factor in Britain's inability to quash the revolution. The role of the militia was also key. The peer reviewed work looking at the writings of the British military leaders show this was more of a problem than the Continental forces. Yes, classically British military trained officers in the US continental Army downplayed the militia, did not like the militia tactic of attacking and fading/harassing, and irregular warfare. But the evidence is that this forced the British to constantly use resources, move men around, be unable to concentrate forces and eventually be beaten in a couple of key battles by the continental army. in this sense it is like the Viet Cong in Vietnam conflict. yes we beat the and NVA when they stood for fixed engagement, but they only made that mistake of participating in pitched battle a couple of times. The general effect of the Viet cong. and the US militia was to counter area denial, cause attrition of men, materiel and political will, to huge practical effect.
I give this four out of ten stars. See the HBO Adams series which is better acting and better history.
As far as the military aspect, both the role of the militias, and the role of the French, is given very short shrift and it is made to seem the Continental Army was virtually the entire effort. Sadly one starts to wonder if this is agenda driven. Sure as cultural decedents of the British, we all like to hate on the French a bit. But at the time of the American Revolution they were a massive factor in Britain's inability to quash the revolution. The role of the militia was also key. The peer reviewed work looking at the writings of the British military leaders show this was more of a problem than the Continental forces. Yes, classically British military trained officers in the US continental Army downplayed the militia, did not like the militia tactic of attacking and fading/harassing, and irregular warfare. But the evidence is that this forced the British to constantly use resources, move men around, be unable to concentrate forces and eventually be beaten in a couple of key battles by the continental army. in this sense it is like the Viet Cong in Vietnam conflict. yes we beat the and NVA when they stood for fixed engagement, but they only made that mistake of participating in pitched battle a couple of times. The general effect of the Viet cong. and the US militia was to counter area denial, cause attrition of men, materiel and political will, to huge practical effect.
I give this four out of ten stars. See the HBO Adams series which is better acting and better history.
Loved.
kristilyn-4107710 March 2020
Interesting and some characters not believable
evanandriopoulos25 May 2021
Great job done by the various historians, politicians and military leaders (former) on telling the story. PC geberated Graphics were not bad either. Washington's character was played by the most non Washington looking character. Skinny and middle height, Washington was a very big man for his time, fuller face. Knox was nearer 300lbs in real life and Cornwallis was not elderly as portayed in the documentary. Hamilton and Arnold did not fit either.
Filming in Romania shows through with the people and tri-corn hats there were popular. These hats in the documentary were oversized and out of shape. Odd..
Filming in Romania shows through with the people and tri-corn hats there were popular. These hats in the documentary were oversized and out of shape. Odd..
Brilliant!!!
DragonFireBreather5 March 2020
Nicolas Rowe was OUTSTANDING in his portrayal of George Washington. I was completely blown away by his take on the father of our nation. So much in this documentary that I did not know, I feel so much more educated watching this. Bravo History channel... simply BRAVO!!!
Washington:The Freemason
alanjherron6 July 2020
Very accurate
hornet-5402918 February 2020
Very good and very accurate in historical accuracy. Would have given it a soloist 10 if they would not have not put Bill Clinton's opinions in there. What the hell would he know about military strategy. Or anything for that matter.
The Cliff's Notes rendering of G. Washington
glennabello-0152422 February 2020
I was curious to see how the often PC History Channel would present the life of our first President and one of the dynamic forces in the founding of the United States. While understanding that no 6-hour series can properly cover the life of Washington, there were too many gaps and misinformation in the actual history. Some of the commentary implied that Washington singlehandedly defeated the British Empire during the War. Glossed over were events such as the Battle at Freeman's Farm (Saratoga), in which Washington had no role. The defeat of the British army here created the impetus for the French to join the cause. No mention was made of Baron Von Steuben's work at Valley Forge in shaping and discipling the Continental Army into a world-class fighting force able to stand toe-to-toe with the British army. Washington had little to do with this, although the implication was that he was the reason for this transformation. The "historians" also claimed that Washington lived with the average soldier during that winter of 1777-78 at Valley Forge. Yes, Washington was there, but his quarters were in a mansion located on the site, complete with servants and all of the amenities. Anyone who has ever visited Valley Forge can see this for themselves. As for the talking heads doing the commentary, most were taking advantage of their 15 minutes of fame. Especially of note was the Yale historian (Joanne Freeman) who appeared as though she was auditioning for her High School senior play. The arm waving and emoting was rather annoying. In all, this miniseries was a "Face Plant", which would teach the average viewer very little of the depth of George Washington's character. But, in an age of truncated verbiage and superficiality, this thin presentation would be considered as epic. LOL!
For Lovers of History, Freedom, and Independence
othersidebar22 February 2020
I am certainly glad this was not a Netflix production. While being skeptical going in, I will say the History Channel handled this documentary, which spans the life of George Washington, very well.
Interspersing dramatic recreations with segments from experts on the life of Washington and several other historical experts, the three part mini-series told the story of the life of the founder of our country in an historical, non-biased, fashion. The actor, Nicholas Rowe, who played the part of Washington was outstanding.
Each of the three episodes is approximately one hour and thirty minutes without commercials and, if you are a lover of history and liberty, your time will not be wasted.
An Excellent Snapshot of Washington and the American Revoluition
leftbanker-11 January 2021
I would recommend this to anyone interested in U.S. history, especially younger students unfamiliar with the birth of the nation. This three-part mini series could bring people from zero knowledge of the conflict with England, to a level worthy of an educated adult.
I wish they would have allowed Obama, Bush, and Trump to comment on the life of our first president, as I found Clinton's remarks to be erudite and illuminating, just what you would expect of a former Rhodes Scholar.
I wish they would have allowed Obama, Bush, and Trump to comment on the life of our first president, as I found Clinton's remarks to be erudite and illuminating, just what you would expect of a former Rhodes Scholar.
Fascinating documentary
jameslipski19 February 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Watched this show about America's first President. And another first. I am the first one to review it. This show looks at George Washington's life starting as a young officer at 22 serving the British King and moves all the way to his death. I love learning about the past and this show did not disappoint in teaching me many facets about Washington's life I did not know. Including him resigning his officer's commission three times. His wife Martha who was far wealthier than him. As commander of the Continental Army he had to be very strict in order to keep the army from falling apart. Plus he never wanted the job as the first elected President. Highly recommended.
Interesting and edifying
grantss23 July 2020
The life story of George Washington, the first President of the United States.
Interesting and edifying documentary. Shows well the life story of George Washington, from his not-perfect early military career, to his War of Independence heroics to his terms as President. More than just a story of Washington it is also the story of the birth and development of the United States.
Some illuminating interviews. Interviewees include the usual array of academics, historians, writers and other experts plus President Bill Clinton and Colin Powell, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State. Unfortunately, many of the interviewees fall into the modern day trap of trying to be cheerleaders rather than remaining objective. So we have a fair bit of hyperbole and soapboxing.
The narration of Jeff Daniels is also a bit off, coming across as smug.
Still, is very enlightening and never dull. Is well worth the watch, especially if you don't know much about George Washington.
Interesting and edifying documentary. Shows well the life story of George Washington, from his not-perfect early military career, to his War of Independence heroics to his terms as President. More than just a story of Washington it is also the story of the birth and development of the United States.
Some illuminating interviews. Interviewees include the usual array of academics, historians, writers and other experts plus President Bill Clinton and Colin Powell, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State. Unfortunately, many of the interviewees fall into the modern day trap of trying to be cheerleaders rather than remaining objective. So we have a fair bit of hyperbole and soapboxing.
The narration of Jeff Daniels is also a bit off, coming across as smug.
Still, is very enlightening and never dull. Is well worth the watch, especially if you don't know much about George Washington.
Loved this documentary and highly recommend
paulrc320 April 2022
Extremely engaging and a must as a supplement to anyone with a passion for the roots of our country and the revolutionary period and George Washington's role. The first episode and a half I was thoroughly engaged and the second half though my interest waned a bit I held on with eagerness to see everything play out. I only have minor gripes with the production (which i thought had amazing quality). First was as it goes on you can't help but feel you are being indoctrinated with "wokeness" by the filmmakers and producers. Surely enough I checked the "date" which it was created/aired. 2020. So i knew I was being propagandized. I kept asking why Bill Clinton was being interviewed, what was his connection to Washington? I mean why not throw a Republic politician in the mix? Especially after a lady had the audacity to mention Obama in the same sentence as George Washington over the simple fact they were raised by a single parent. What!? And of course the production turns sour on occasion as the "need" arose to bring up the fact Washington had slaves. Slavery was legal back then and everyone with means had acquired them (Washington via inheritance at age 11). The never mentioned the slaves were purchased from slaves traders of color for some reason. Hmmmm. Slavery still exists in over 37 countries as of today. It seems from what the documentary points out that Washington whipped and executed many white men but no slaves and that they lived quite well and actually stayed serving Martha even when given ghe option to be freed. Again why the wokeness? How about focusing on how far the country has become based on everything Washington did while laying the framework for it? The United States history has EVERYTHING to do with how great it has become. Hundreds of years from now we'll probably all be persecuted by "eating meat" by future "woke" scholars judging people in a time or place they never lived. Enough is enough. Would love to see this redistributed with a "non woke" edit.
Good show and head scratching casting
falklerpaul16 June 2023
Washington not looking like Washington is odd. He looks more like Jefferson. You would think they would have tried to cast someone that looks like the narrator. The strange casting is that of John Adams being played by a Dutch actor makes no sense at all. I mean he is a descent actor, but looks nothing like him and not sure he even speaks fluent English. Other than that an enjoyable documentary to watch, and excellent historians that I have seen before. Also, I had no issue with Clinton. I mean why doesn't it make sense to have a former president talk about the first president, my guess is the negative comments were more political.
dissapointing
cartahiena22 February 2020
After re-watching the incredible John Adams series on HBO, the Washington series was very disappointing. Firstly, the casting was horrible. The guy who played Washington looked more like Dana Carvey than .George Washington. Most of Washington's top officers looked like rejects from a boy band more than revolutionaries.
The history was superficial and geared to the lowest common denominater.
The historical commentaters ranged from poor to fair, each pushing their own particular niche. Clinton was distracting and insincere.
The history was superficial and geared to the lowest common denominater.
The historical commentaters ranged from poor to fair, each pushing their own particular niche. Clinton was distracting and insincere.
Cartoonish, cheap and shallow depiction of a great leader
prclark4614 July 2020
I was very disappointed with this miserable depiction of Washington and the War of Independence that fails both as a mini-series and a documentary. At times it gave the impression no one knew what they were making! Considering the vast amount of material available to the creators responsible many events were trivialized, truncated or just plain ignored. No effort was made to make the actor who plays Washington physically like the historical portraits but surprisingly Benedict Arnold was close to the mark. The action scenes appeared clumsy and largely inaccurate (much of the fighting at Trenton occurred in the streets of the town but the episode depicted some kind of artillery duel!). The early years were interesting and a reasonable guide to the makeup of Washington's drive and ambition, but the rest was just too Hollywood cartoonish to hold my interest.
A big swing and a big miss
greg-goremykin23 February 2020
I'm usually a fan of any historical series, if not completely overlooking the mistakes, myth, and misconceptions, allowing for, well, allowances. But this series was just so wildly inaccurate and clearly had an agenda to heighten Washington as an icon rather than imparting any historical information.
Other commenters have already pointed out the glaring historical fabrications and the incredibly important things that were inexplicably just left out, so I won't belabour those points e.g. where was any mention of both the French army and navy, such as them basically winning the Battle of Yorkton on behalf of America, not to take away from the valiant Continental Army's role in that battle as well, but leaving out the French is like leaving America out of the story of D-Day completely and only mentioning the British and Canadians, as a rough historical equivalence.
And even leaving aside the really terrible history, ironic for a series on the History Channel, but not alone as an allegedly historically accurate series, but that's a whole other discussion, but, yes, leaving all that aside, the acting seems wooden, the dialogue unrealistic, the commentators throughout being or feeling artificially excited and hyperbolic, which felt incredibly annoying. It felt like something more common back in the 70s in similar formats, but all the arm waving and strained vocal chords didn't add any drama, it just felt weird.
If you are a hardcore fan of the American Revolution or George Washington I supposed it might be of interest if you can get past the historical omissions and inaccuracies (the costume design was well done) and bad acting and dialogue, I guess there could be some enjoyment to be found, but just temper your expectations heavily going in. With a nice budget to work with I can't help but feel disappointed with the very big missed opportunity this series is.
And I was pretty shocked at the really high ratings here on IMDb. I can't help but thing those ratings are setting up folks for a lot of disappointment, and I expect over time those ratings are going to plummet.
Other commenters have already pointed out the glaring historical fabrications and the incredibly important things that were inexplicably just left out, so I won't belabour those points e.g. where was any mention of both the French army and navy, such as them basically winning the Battle of Yorkton on behalf of America, not to take away from the valiant Continental Army's role in that battle as well, but leaving out the French is like leaving America out of the story of D-Day completely and only mentioning the British and Canadians, as a rough historical equivalence.
And even leaving aside the really terrible history, ironic for a series on the History Channel, but not alone as an allegedly historically accurate series, but that's a whole other discussion, but, yes, leaving all that aside, the acting seems wooden, the dialogue unrealistic, the commentators throughout being or feeling artificially excited and hyperbolic, which felt incredibly annoying. It felt like something more common back in the 70s in similar formats, but all the arm waving and strained vocal chords didn't add any drama, it just felt weird.
If you are a hardcore fan of the American Revolution or George Washington I supposed it might be of interest if you can get past the historical omissions and inaccuracies (the costume design was well done) and bad acting and dialogue, I guess there could be some enjoyment to be found, but just temper your expectations heavily going in. With a nice budget to work with I can't help but feel disappointed with the very big missed opportunity this series is.
And I was pretty shocked at the really high ratings here on IMDb. I can't help but thing those ratings are setting up folks for a lot of disappointment, and I expect over time those ratings are going to plummet.
History Channel once again proves they are all about Entertainment, not History
Sandoz2 January 2021
Really, will someone SLAP already whomever it is that greenlights these shows about historical figures that insist on hiring actors and re-staging events? Either make a true documentary without the Hollywood embellishment, or go all-in and make a dramatic biography with actors and a story...but PLEASE stop trying to play on both sides of the fence. And this one in particular was 6 HOURS of annoyance! But I guess it's not surprising considering that the History Channel nowadays panders to the simpletons who boost the ratings tuning in for Pawn Jerks and the Trash Pickers and all the other low-brow dreck HC produces now.
Political/production historical revisionism?
delireweb7 June 2021
Warning: Spoilers
I've watched the first episode... What a surprise it was, during the episode of the attack near Fort Duquesne on July 9 1755, that the body of General Edward Braddock was evacuated to be brought back to Virginia... From what I've read about this period and in books written by historians (not politicians), the body of Edward Braddock was buried in the forest on the very site of the battle of Monongahela! I won't watch the other episodes.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
