Well done with great commentary with excellent experts.
73 Reviews
JUSTIN SALINGER nails the part and captures the complexity of the man
azanti002927 May 2020
This documentary was always going to stand or fall on the portrayal of Grant and credit must be given to the Casting Directors Suzanne Smith & Bonnie Rodini for casting the criminally underused JUSTIN SALINGER. While Salinger might not be the perfect lookalike, it was clearly far more important to cast an actor capable of playing the many subtle nuances and complexities of the man and Salinger does a superb job here with his performance of Grant and I felt he was closer to the man than anyone to have portrayed him previously. While praising the actors, I am also going to single out the young man who played the Union private in the first episodes excellent opening sequence, ARTHUR FALKO - Again, extremely good casting, it was as if this one individual was wearing the entire history of the war on his face in those opening moments. Anticipation, fear, dread and later bravery and valour. I expect to be seeing a great deal more of him on our screens in future.
The series format jumps from documentary commentary and anecdotes from various historians and it was nice to see dialogue offered from both a male and female black historian on the man and the conflict in which he fought. This was a war over which the issue of slavery was key, so it felt quite right too and made this aspect of the series, far more interesting to watch than just having the usual older generation historian faces chipping in their valulable, but rather well worn comments.
The most engrossing segments of the show however are the dramatic segments and it was these and Salingers performance that kept me engaged in the show.
While I would have perferred to see a straight up drama mini series about the man without any of the historical commentary, this never the less is an extremely well made piece covering the life and motivations of one of the most equally loved and hated Commanders of the Civil War. I found it both educational and enligtening. Despite the more restrictive budget for a peroid piece the drama scenes are extremely well handled and critism by armchair historians about drill and uniforms are poorly founded. The uniforms are authentic, the drill of the early Union army appropriately poor in the early episodes, as was the army's state at this time. People need to remember, just because you read something in a book, doesn't make it a verbatim mode of action for every individual. War is complex, conscripted soldiers are not veterans, nor at first a professional army. It would be some time before the Union became one.
It would be great to see more in the series in a similar fashion. This was very enjoyable and I hope will engage a younger audience in the subject. That is the most important thing of all. The youth are, after all, the best hope for keeping history alive in the future.
The series format jumps from documentary commentary and anecdotes from various historians and it was nice to see dialogue offered from both a male and female black historian on the man and the conflict in which he fought. This was a war over which the issue of slavery was key, so it felt quite right too and made this aspect of the series, far more interesting to watch than just having the usual older generation historian faces chipping in their valulable, but rather well worn comments.
The most engrossing segments of the show however are the dramatic segments and it was these and Salingers performance that kept me engaged in the show.
While I would have perferred to see a straight up drama mini series about the man without any of the historical commentary, this never the less is an extremely well made piece covering the life and motivations of one of the most equally loved and hated Commanders of the Civil War. I found it both educational and enligtening. Despite the more restrictive budget for a peroid piece the drama scenes are extremely well handled and critism by armchair historians about drill and uniforms are poorly founded. The uniforms are authentic, the drill of the early Union army appropriately poor in the early episodes, as was the army's state at this time. People need to remember, just because you read something in a book, doesn't make it a verbatim mode of action for every individual. War is complex, conscripted soldiers are not veterans, nor at first a professional army. It would be some time before the Union became one.
It would be great to see more in the series in a similar fashion. This was very enjoyable and I hope will engage a younger audience in the subject. That is the most important thing of all. The youth are, after all, the best hope for keeping history alive in the future.
How Spoiled is Everyone???
mattrice4726 May 2020
Sheesh, yes, there are commercials. If you liked Washington, you will like Grant. Unbelievable the amount of bad reviews solely because of commercials. Please review the content. Not the ads. If we negatively judged cable shows based on commercials breaks, I don't think there would be a single "good" show.
I love this
trudjoh27 May 2020
I am an amateur student of history but have always found any discussion of Grant and the western campaigns to be lacking. This has filled in so many gaps for me. I do agree with too many commercials but I record and fast forward so I can rewatch and learn. As for the rest of the reviews. I find most viewers to suffer from a terrible lack of imagination. I don't care to have exact likenesses if they are close enough to invoke the period. The visuals if the battles were excellent. The comments on uniforms were interesting since by this time most soldiers were battleworn. The point to this was to educate on US Grant and it did that. Bravo!! Grant's views on slavery and the value of men were refreshing. I think I would have liked him except for the smell of cigars!!
Great Historical Piece
CelticGrl226 May 2020
Excellent Story About the Greatest General of the 19th Century
bobzmcishl28 May 2020
The six hour miniseries is best taped, so one can zip past all of the commercials, and learn about Ulysses S. Grant and his role in American history and how he won the Civil War and presided over Reconstruction, an experiment in democracy that went badly wrong. It is not hard to imagine that had Lincoln not been assassinated, history might have turned out much differently with Grant playing a more winning hand than he was dealt. The series pulls no punches in dramatizing just what a horror the Civil War was and the tremendous losses on both sides. When Grant successfully participates in the Mexican American War of 1848, alongside other officers who would soon work for him and against hime, his career seems on an upward trajectory, but he get sidelined into an obscure post in Fort Humboldt California with nothing to do, and he becomes melancholy, and turns to drinking, which forces his commanding officer to force Grant to resign. He returns to civilian life and does poorly, until the Civil War breaks out and he is given a commission once again to lead a regiment as a brigadier general. From there it is mostly one successful battle at a time, until he is promoted to major general and given command of all of the western army. From there he successfully launched a successful attack in the heart of the south at Vicksburg, with some of the most brilliant strategic maneuvers in the history of armed warfare. For that he gets promoted to three star general and put in command of the entire Union Army. Aside from a couple of notable failures, one a major defeat at Cold Water Virginia, Grant eventually corner's Lee's Army of Northern Virginia while General Sherman takes Atlanta, thus forcing a surrender at Appomatic. A major triumph is followed one week later by the assassination of Lincoln and history makes a major course correction. Andrew Johnson is a southern sympathizer and thwarts every attempt by Grant to take control over southern whites who are slaughtering freed slaves. Not until Grant becomes president, can he put a stop to this and put down the KKK. Grant as president though, because of his lack of guile, is undermined by subordinates who are corrupt, and America is by now tired of the reconstruction efforts in the south. When Grant leaves office, the KKK is on the rise again and reconstruction is basically a failure which has lasting repercussions to this day. Grant's image is later tarnished by southern historians who attempt to rewrite the history of the Civil War by painting it as a states rights issue and not about slavery. Grant comes accross as a villain. This miniseries tries to put this story right and to a large extent it succeeds. Grant is one of those great leaders who is about as straightforward as they come. His only apparent weakness is in sticking with subordinates who didn't deserve his trust, and he made some political moves as president that were regretful like not stamping down the KKK once and for all. The comments from historians throughout the series were very helpful and insightful. The acting was accomplished and the war scenes were realistic. This was a very worthwhile effort to try and put the record straight about Grant.
Worth watching
boudica10-538-64442626 May 2020
I found the first night interesting enough to make me download Grant's autobiography. It covers a lot of ground but like many shows can't get real deep in a few hours (especially with commercials). Use your DVR to watch uninterrupted. I'm happy for these historical biographical shows- I doubt anyone is getting any of this in school much anymore, especially in any depth.
Ranks with the top Civil War films
Wuchakk29 May 2020
Released in 2020, "Grant" is a three-part miniseries based on historian Ron Chernow's 2017 book of the same name. Without commercials, this is a 4-hour film that's part dramatic reenactment featuring Justin Salinger in the lead role and part documentary with a diverse cast of erudite and interesting commentators.
Ulysses S. Grant has been descibed as "an inspired commander, an adequate president, a dull companion and a roaring drunk." I take issue with that last description. Grant might've had an issue with alcohol, but that doesn't make him a "roaring drunk." I know real-life drunkards and they waste their lives sitting around looking for their next drink, accomplishing very little. Drunks don't lead the biggest military force on Earth and win battle-after-battle, as well as the great war itself. Nor are they able to lead a country the size of the USA for eight years and have a successful marriage & family that overcome great challenges over & over.
This might be my favorite Civil War movie of all time, as good or better than the best you can cite, like "Ride with the Devil" (1999), "Glory" (1989), "Cold Mountain" (2003), "The Horse Soldiers" (1959) and "Gods and Generals" (2002). "Grant" is the best cinematic source to understand the big picture of The Civil War, especially as far as the Union's strategy to victory. For instance, what was the purpose of the Battle of Shiloh? If it was a Union victory, why did reporters lambaste Grant as an incompetent drunk and why was he demoted? After crossing the Mississippi, why did Grant go east to fight two battles and capture Jackson, Mississippi, BEFORE going to Vicksburg? What was the strategic value of the Battle of the Wilderness? Petersburg and Cold Harbor?
The reanactments are realistic with utterly savage battle scenes. This is what it was like, folks. War is hell. Thankfully, the film doesn't end with Lee's surrender at Appomattax, but goes on to address Grant's final 22 years of life as President during Reconstruction, his wide travels, tragedies and finishing his memoir 3 days before passing away.
GRADE: A
Ulysses S. Grant has been descibed as "an inspired commander, an adequate president, a dull companion and a roaring drunk." I take issue with that last description. Grant might've had an issue with alcohol, but that doesn't make him a "roaring drunk." I know real-life drunkards and they waste their lives sitting around looking for their next drink, accomplishing very little. Drunks don't lead the biggest military force on Earth and win battle-after-battle, as well as the great war itself. Nor are they able to lead a country the size of the USA for eight years and have a successful marriage & family that overcome great challenges over & over.
This might be my favorite Civil War movie of all time, as good or better than the best you can cite, like "Ride with the Devil" (1999), "Glory" (1989), "Cold Mountain" (2003), "The Horse Soldiers" (1959) and "Gods and Generals" (2002). "Grant" is the best cinematic source to understand the big picture of The Civil War, especially as far as the Union's strategy to victory. For instance, what was the purpose of the Battle of Shiloh? If it was a Union victory, why did reporters lambaste Grant as an incompetent drunk and why was he demoted? After crossing the Mississippi, why did Grant go east to fight two battles and capture Jackson, Mississippi, BEFORE going to Vicksburg? What was the strategic value of the Battle of the Wilderness? Petersburg and Cold Harbor?
The reanactments are realistic with utterly savage battle scenes. This is what it was like, folks. War is hell. Thankfully, the film doesn't end with Lee's surrender at Appomattax, but goes on to address Grant's final 22 years of life as President during Reconstruction, his wide travels, tragedies and finishing his memoir 3 days before passing away.
GRADE: A
Too many commercials
davemaxwell-5594026 May 2020
A MASTERPIECE!!
schwartzesquire28 May 2020
Justin Salinger is em remarkable. The acting and commentary is wonderful and I so enjoyed this miniseries!!
Can't wait for more! I also enjoyed immensely the George Washington miniseries. I really love the History channel!
Good documentary
grantss3 December 2020
A documentary series on the life of Ulysses S Grant, the General who ultimately commanded the Union forces during the American Civil War and the man most responsible for the Union victory. Later he would be 18th President of the United States.
Good documentary. Captures well the ups and downs of Grant's life and especially his ascendency to commanding all Union forces during the Civil War and ultimately to the highest office. Decent, gritty action scenes, though a bit overdone and overdramatised, feeling a bit cheap in a way.
Interviewers are okay and give us different perspectives on Grant's character. However, they do feel a bit like cheerleaders as everything Grant does is gushed over. A bit more balance and gravitas is needed.
It probably also helps if you know nothing about US Grant. I am quite knowledgeable, having read his memoirs and several other books on him plus have a very good knowledge of the Civil War. With all this knowledge you realise that certain key moments and details are missed.
Still, a good documentary, even for the well-informed. For the less knowledgeable, an excellent introduction to US Grant.
Good documentary. Captures well the ups and downs of Grant's life and especially his ascendency to commanding all Union forces during the Civil War and ultimately to the highest office. Decent, gritty action scenes, though a bit overdone and overdramatised, feeling a bit cheap in a way.
Interviewers are okay and give us different perspectives on Grant's character. However, they do feel a bit like cheerleaders as everything Grant does is gushed over. A bit more balance and gravitas is needed.
It probably also helps if you know nothing about US Grant. I am quite knowledgeable, having read his memoirs and several other books on him plus have a very good knowledge of the Civil War. With all this knowledge you realise that certain key moments and details are missed.
Still, a good documentary, even for the well-informed. For the less knowledgeable, an excellent introduction to US Grant.
informative story
soltyjr26 May 2020
use your DVR
denverlev26 May 2020
Well worth your time
ekontrovitz27 May 2020
I didn't have a lot of expectations going into this, but I hoped since the History Channel was showing it the content would be factual. It is, and much more, it is interesting, compelling, and uses both modern actors and period photos. I am do impressed I've ordered the Chernow biography of Grant. Grant seems to have been born for the task of saving the nation. He went to West Point with most of the other high ranking officers on both sides and had the ability to know what they would do and effectively counter it. He not only fought the war, he also fought the incompetence of his superior officers, and his erroneous reputation as being an alcoholic. This miniseries does an excellent job of dealing with all aspects of his life, in a very short 3 parts. It could easily have been double and I would have watched it. I highly recommend it.
Pretty good
drjgardner26 May 2020
The first episode in this series is pretty good. There are a few historical mistakes and a little more psychological input might have helped, but all-in-all it was entertaining and informative. Grant is the only reason we won the Civil War and it's time he got some attention.
I saw the other 2 parts of the series after I wrote the above. Parts 2 and 3 are even better. Definitely a must-see.
I saw the other 2 parts of the series after I wrote the above. Parts 2 and 3 are even better. Definitely a must-see.
If you think you knew Grant, you didn't!
cstephenson-196128 May 2020
AWESOME Miniseries!! Congrats to cast and crew! This show should be up for multiple awards. Watch on history if you missed it. It's SPECIAL and will change your perception of a Great Man, General and President!
The mix of historians and scenes was Excellent. It game the emotion and feelings of the man, his struggles and successes. This miniseries should be used by schools and universities. Incredibly well done!!
The mix of historians and scenes was Excellent. It game the emotion and feelings of the man, his struggles and successes. This miniseries should be used by schools and universities. Incredibly well done!!
The new standard for documentaries
jrob091431 May 2020
A Great Series on What The History Channel Should Be
harleykids8 June 2020
This is an excellent, historically accurate, series about one of America's greatest generals. It is what the History Channel was, and should be instead of the garbage they usually have been showing for the past several years. I highly recommend it. And, come to Clermont County Ohio and visit Grant's birth place and in Brown County visit his childhood home.
Disappointing Management
rgclosson-568-23200126 May 2020
During this time of the pandemic when many of us are streaming commercial-free content, it is a poor decision to load up this first of 3 episodes with commercial breaks. It makes me wonder, "is it worth it for me to watch tomorrow night?" The commercial breaks are that disrupting. Poor management decision for an otherwise good content.
More than a general
tomsview26 December 2020
This is the sort of series that validates the "History Channel".
There is a lot of filler on the old "History Channel", but every now and then something makes me glad I kept my subscription. "Grant" is one of those.
In telling Grant's story, no documentary about the Civil War has brought home the significance of the Western and Eastern theatres like this series. It's a combination of interviews with historians, effective use of maps and re-creations using actors. I'm wary of "History Channel" re-creations, especially of battles. Often they consist of a handful of extras milling around in close-up. Ken Burns created the benchmark Civil War series just using images from the time - plus some creative zooming.
Here the re-creations are effective, especially in well-acted scenes of Grant at various stages of his life.
For my money the best sequence is the surrender at Appomattox, where Lee and Grant face off for the last time. As historian Doug Douds comments. "It represented the changing character of war. Robert E. Lee commanding as though he were a 16th Century prince representing the last of the old wars, meanwhile you have Ulysses S. Grant representing the first of the new".
The series uses Grant's words in voiceover. At one point he acknowledged the enemy that had fought so valiantly "... for a cause that was one of the worst for which a people ever fought".
The re-creations of the battles in "Grant", although not as spectacular as those in "Gettysburg" or "Gods and Generals", do not glorify the war, instead they look horrific with nasty musket ball impacts. The American Civil War has been romanticised in art, literature and film almost since it ended. Just look at a painting by Don Troiani or the great Tom Lovell replete with streaming battle flags and bloodless corpses. Even Matthew Brady's posed historic photos of the dead look slightly unreal.
One statistic of the war that has always struck me is that of the 60,000 amputations. For decades, crutches and empty sleeves must have been a common sight in every town and city across America.
"Grant" presents a man of character and conviction. The series shows that only someone with those qualities could have performed as he did. Finally, the series traces Grant's presidency and explains why his legacy faded in comparison to Lincoln's; it shouldn't have.
This series arrives while at the same time there are interviews on YouTube with young Americans where few know much about the war or the century in which it had occurred. As someone who thinks history is important I find that rather sad.
There is a lot of filler on the old "History Channel", but every now and then something makes me glad I kept my subscription. "Grant" is one of those.
In telling Grant's story, no documentary about the Civil War has brought home the significance of the Western and Eastern theatres like this series. It's a combination of interviews with historians, effective use of maps and re-creations using actors. I'm wary of "History Channel" re-creations, especially of battles. Often they consist of a handful of extras milling around in close-up. Ken Burns created the benchmark Civil War series just using images from the time - plus some creative zooming.
Here the re-creations are effective, especially in well-acted scenes of Grant at various stages of his life.
For my money the best sequence is the surrender at Appomattox, where Lee and Grant face off for the last time. As historian Doug Douds comments. "It represented the changing character of war. Robert E. Lee commanding as though he were a 16th Century prince representing the last of the old wars, meanwhile you have Ulysses S. Grant representing the first of the new".
The series uses Grant's words in voiceover. At one point he acknowledged the enemy that had fought so valiantly "... for a cause that was one of the worst for which a people ever fought".
The re-creations of the battles in "Grant", although not as spectacular as those in "Gettysburg" or "Gods and Generals", do not glorify the war, instead they look horrific with nasty musket ball impacts. The American Civil War has been romanticised in art, literature and film almost since it ended. Just look at a painting by Don Troiani or the great Tom Lovell replete with streaming battle flags and bloodless corpses. Even Matthew Brady's posed historic photos of the dead look slightly unreal.
One statistic of the war that has always struck me is that of the 60,000 amputations. For decades, crutches and empty sleeves must have been a common sight in every town and city across America.
"Grant" presents a man of character and conviction. The series shows that only someone with those qualities could have performed as he did. Finally, the series traces Grant's presidency and explains why his legacy faded in comparison to Lincoln's; it shouldn't have.
This series arrives while at the same time there are interviews on YouTube with young Americans where few know much about the war or the century in which it had occurred. As someone who thinks history is important I find that rather sad.
Did not use Historical Verbatim
tdsharpe-8945329 May 2020
TNT's Grant had a wonderful opportunity to portray the character and strength of Grant as a true leader but the writers chose not to use the historical verbatim as recorded historically as to what was said and what was conveyed at their meeting at Appomattox Courthouse at the surrender. It was difficult for me to watch in how their meeting was portrayed. It diminished Grant and the Union Army into the political correctness of today's culture. It was my hope Grant would have followed an historical script, not one scripted by Hollywood....one again history has been rewritten. My encouragement is for students of history to go to history and read for themselves as to what was said and what was conveyed. General Grant was the consummated gentleman and gracious leader as he related to General Lee.
TOO MANY COMMERCIALS!!
davebrenn28 May 2020
Excellent series, too many whiners
msbensley-4452919 January 2021
I felt a need to review Grant because so many reviews focused on the HULU presentation, with apparently many commercials, and not actually on the series. That's like reviewing a car and complaining about the number of traffic lights on the road test.
This is based on seeing Grant on the History Channel.
The series is excellent, on a par with Ken Burns' Civil War, but with about 50% reenactment plus interviews and old photos and illustrations.
The reenactment appears to be educated conjecture for the most part, with a few actual quotations and without sensationalism. The acting is solid, but the only moderate depth of character is Grant himself, as well-done as possible when limited to brief vignettes.
I'd recommend this to anyone who wants an overview of Grant's life. TV is great for giving you a few inches below the surface. For more depth, read a book.
A slightly homorous aside: among the historians interviewed, there are a number who have the appearance of Southern grandees, with closely manicured mustaches and goatees.
(Based on episode 1)
The Union won.
The series is excellent, on a par with Ken Burns' Civil War, but with about 50% reenactment plus interviews and old photos and illustrations.
The reenactment appears to be educated conjecture for the most part, with a few actual quotations and without sensationalism. The acting is solid, but the only moderate depth of character is Grant himself, as well-done as possible when limited to brief vignettes.
I'd recommend this to anyone who wants an overview of Grant's life. TV is great for giving you a few inches below the surface. For more depth, read a book.
A slightly homorous aside: among the historians interviewed, there are a number who have the appearance of Southern grandees, with closely manicured mustaches and goatees.
(Based on episode 1)
The Union won.
Justin Salinger 10 star performance.
aragonleah1 September 2020
The actor Justin Salinger is U. S. Grant personified. He brought a dignity and rare insightfulness to this role that can not be duplicated. No actor could play him with such sensitivity and seriousness as JS. He even got the accent right, (how do the Brits do us so well when we come off sounding like idiots when we try to do English accents? lol) I could watch this series 100 times and never get tired of it. H
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
