The American West (2016) User Reviews

Fun to watch - Not very historically accurate

[tmdarby · 6/10 · 18 July 2016]

I don't usually judge these historically based old west shows until they get to the Lincoln County War. I'm not a historical expert by any means, but I have read and seen just about everything there is on the Lincoln County War. It's a bit of an obsession of mine.

I really like this mini-series, but was very disappointed in the historical accuracy of it. I could go into a lot of detail about it but I'll just mention a few things.

They presented John Tunstall as if he were some older ranch man. Tunstall died at the age of 24 and was British. Not showing that kind of surprised me because it left out a major point of the story. The house was more or less run by Murphy and Dolan (who they never even mentioned for some reason), and they were Irish. So there was a great deal of tension between the two sides just because one was Irish and one was British.

Also, there is literally more evidence that the Loch Ness Monster exists than there is that Billy the Kid met with Jesse James. Yet this show presents it as if it were fact.

Also the depiction of the Big Killing was very disappointing. It seems to me they tried to make it more like Young Guns rather than trying to make it historically accurate. The didn't show the house being put ablaze, and they made it look like it took place in an afternoon when in reality it spanned over 4 days and Billy and a few others escaped at night.

I also don't know how you talk about Earp and Dodge City and leave out Bat Masterson. Small detail, but I also noticed that when they were talking about Las Vegas, New Mexico they shoved a photo of the dead Dalton Gang from Coffeyville in there, like it happened in New Mexico?

Anyway I give this a 4 out of 10 for historical accuracy and an 8 for entertainment, so I met in the middle and gave it a 6. Fun to watch, but if you're looking for accuracy look for better documentaries.

A Solid Basic History Of American Expansionism In The Late 19th Century

[atlasmb · 7/10 · 28 June 2016]

"From the ashes of the Civil War", comes a period of rapid settlement of the American West. Much of the West was controlled by tribes of Indians, but it offered one solution to the festering resentment and conflicts that followed the war.

Also, there were some rebel soldiers who continued to fight against Northern supremacy and order. Jesse James and his gang began to terrorize and strike at Northern interests.

This is how "The American West"--an eight part series executive produced by Robert Redford--begins. With voice overs and reenactments, the show details the beginnings of what becomes a two-front war that General Grant wages from Washington.

The credentials of the historians who add their remarks are impressive. There certainly is a wealth of academic inquiry available to the makers of this show. Still, this is a true story that seems to be painted with a broad brush. And it does not answer some key questions about the motivations and actions of some of the actors in this vast drama.

It does, however, establish a basic framework that viewers can build upon with personal reading and further scholarship. As always, history is a complex matter, and the outline provided by this series leaves plenty of room for a more refined understanding.

View of a non- American

[rosspowell · 6/10 · 28 June 2017]

I am an Englishman interested in the history of the American West, and over the last 50 years have read numerous factual accounts of the period. I have just seen the first episode of this series, and while visually interesting, it does seem to play fast and loose with historical facts. There is no mention of native-American Sioux chief Red Cloud, who was the only tribal chief to defeat the American army, resulting in a peace treaty and the creation of the Great Sioux Reservation. However I can see that this series has been made for the benefit of the masses, and not for any true historian of the period.

Take me back in time to a bloody and violent time in America's history!

[blanbrn · 8/10 · 23 June 2016]

I for one have always been a history buff and passionate about dates and times and learning about people and figures that have shaped and transformed the history of America, well when this series on "AMC" came about called "The American West" it was right up my viewing pleasure! The series tells a story with montage and clips and acted footage of the wilderness and frontier times of the 40 years after the civil war. Plus in between the story and segments comments are provided by history professors and well known actors from films of westerns. The series features the journey and stories of Jesse James, Crazy Horse, Billy the Kid, General Custer, and many others during this blood soaked time in American history. Overall this is a real treat for any history and film buff as executive producer Robert Redford has struck series gold with this treasure as it's one historical watch!

History you probably were not taught in public school

[Docktronic · 10/10 · 15 August 2021]

I grew up in the American southwest and like most American children was taught that most "white" men in history books were heroes. They are not. They are just men - This series explains uncomfortable truths in an entertaining way. If you have a short attention span and closed mind, it's not for you.

Interesting but shallow

[grantss · 6/10 · 30 November 2016]

The story of the American West, from the US's expansion post the Civil War to the late 1800s. Told through the story lines of several famous central figures in that history: George Armstrong Custer, Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, Jesse James, Billy the Kid and Wyatt Earp.

A reasonably interesting telling of the settlement and taming of the American West. The lives of the famous figures are dramatized well, playing out like a docu-drama.

However, the documentary is fairly shallow. Because of the concentration on these main characters, you don't get to know about much else. There is some broader history but this is just to provide a context to the actions of these characters.

In addition, the jumping between the characters gets irritating. Rather than tell each of their stories in one go, giving each of them an episode, they jump back and forth, generally segued with "Meanwhile, x miles away..." (That sentence grew very irritating after a while).

Not entirely accurate either. Some of this is deliberate - changing history to suit the fragile sensitivities of today's youth - revisionist history, basically. Some of it is just sloppiness, e.g. Custer being shown as a 2-star general when he was actually now a Lt Colonel.

And then there's the interviews. Since when are Hollywood stars history experts? For example, just because Kiefer Sutherland played a cowboy in Young Guns doesn't make him an expert on the Wild West. The input by historians is about 5-10%, Hollywood stars the rest, and the stars don't have much informative to say.

Overall, reasonably entertaining but don't expect to get a decent knowledge of that portion of US history, or even an accurate one.

The Best Summary of the Wild West so far

[robotovictor · 9/10 · 5 August 2016]

This Series are the perfect introduction to the Old West for the young and not so well familiarized with it audience and good overall summary that will enjoy the vast mass of western lovers (like myself) that had already seen all those movie versions of the popular stories. All those Hollywood titles evolved trough the years towards better and more accurate depiction of characters and this documentary series of are the last and best so far to show it altogether, in a larger scale.

There are some new facts for everyone to discover in the series. For me the big revelations came in the Sioux story with the fact that the mass extinction of an animal kinds was actually masterminded. The photograph of four thousand skulls of killed animals represents what was deemed heroism in it's real light for first time like that. That is the new course to truthfulness in the depiction followed now in the 21st century. And doesn't steal any of the drama! As Isaac Asimov has written: ''The Truth is the most powerful Lie''. There is a new fact to everybody here or there, i guess..or not but the strong point is the big picture.

The big question is what it would have been if the authors have divided the story lines in separate episodes focusing at only one at a time instead of focusing of separate and uninterrupted development of the not linked characters. That would have given them the opportunity to include also the story of Geronimo that took place mainly after all of the rest story lines. I bet new facts would have appear that have not been covered even by the perfect 1993 Geronimo biopic.. But the timeline of that relentless Indian and his fate were different to be honest. Here we have another goal: the rapid loom of an epoch and its fatally bittersweet end.

The 8 episodes can't cover everything but focus on a somewhat of a quarter century period (1865-1890) in which the Wild West became Old West and gradually died. Perhaps that i why the four separate stories are presented not separately but part form the only flop: the alleged meeting between Jesse James and Billy The Kid in Arizona where its very doubtful the former has ever been. Good at least it is admitted it part of a LEGEND. Because of that it should not have been part of the otherwise accurate series.

It is not so important how many gangs and members Jesse James had or who shot who and where exactly in Tombstone. What does matter are many facts that seem to have been contradicted or set aside so far in the big cinema: like Pat Garett as former member of a gang. What we are being shown fully here is the formation of the certain stereotypes of the West instead of losing ourselves counting bullets and badges. We are the ones who unveil the facts missing from the known history while set in a overall situation where we are capable of accomplishing that task that we are doing anyway... Or Asking and answering to what extent exactly was Jesse James following a credo of defeated but not surrendering South.

The Big story in this large glimpse of the Wild West where ''people didn't live that long'' is of Wyatt Earp. IT the best known as facts and stands alone and most defining for the image of the era. And in the same time was never presented in such a full light, given history, reasons and ways of Wyatt that are both new and determining. i will not reveal it here of course. I will just comment how really struck do i feel that is possible the mass audience (at the time) to be so fond of the criminals, proclaiming them heroes while celebrating defeat of the law enforcement.

With grasping the historic era of the USA emerging as the one and only free country and promised land for settlers from around the globe while being born in tones of unlawfulness and mortal sins that are present not only in all of the characters (except the Native Americans) but mark with filthy stigma all layers of that society. I almost can not believe how bad was that Old West with real sheriffs unable to do justice and even being persecuted or hired to ''convert'' into man hunters by rival governor candidates. As one of the documentary specialists said it in the series: The Justice system was ... (totally corrupt)- probably cut in the editing as it sounds... not good - left after the editing.

Everyone has to see how the West was ''cultivated''. Because this is the foundation of the so-called Modern World we live in. There is good and bad mainly for everyone to find...

ENtertaining with good production values

[clydeboyd · 7/10 · 10 July 2016]

THe American West series is a entertaining look at various stories/myths of the American West. As you can imagine Hollywood takes some literary license with the facts but does present a compelling series of one hour shows. THe series does feature well known western historians such as Dr Paul Hutton as well as other familiar faces for commentary.

This is a good place to start exploring the fascinating history of the old west. Just don't take the contents of the shows for being gospel. After all, this is Hollywoods version of history.

The only real detraction in the series I found was the producers repeated insistence on having commentary by actors such as Robert Redford, Burt Reynolds and other actors who make their living memorizing lines written by others. Considering that most of these people barely have a high school education, let alone any expertise in American history, it is hard to believe that the producers seriously thought that these people, as well as politicians like John McCain, would add any significant insights or information to the series. Apparently the producers take the audience for being too stupid to recognize a washed up old actor as some type of subject matter expert because he starred in a movie about the West. Putting aside that only criticism The American West is an engaging look at one of the most exciting and historically important periods in American History. I recommend it.

Fascinating

[linda-frances · 10/10 · 31 May 2018]

I loved this series, of course all these legendary characters are well known names, but it was great to know more about them and how they fitted into early American history. The story of the Sioux was particularly heartbreaking and a hard watch. My previous knowledge of this era is I admit lacking, so I cannot judge it on how historically accurate it was, but an absorbing and interesting series.

compelling history 101

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 31 July 2016]

This mini-series produced by Robert Redford puts together some of the most iconic figures and events in the old American West highlighted by Jesse James, Billy the Kid, Wyatt Earp, George Armstrong Custer, Crazy Horse, and Sitting Bull starting from the end of the Civil War to the Oklahoma land rush some 25 years later. It ends with a surprising final connection between Wyatt Earp and John Wayne. The recreations are compelling enough and expertly made for a TV production. The actors portraying the historical figures are relative unknowns. In fact, the series use a mix of historians and much more famous actors as talking heads to explain the significance of the events. As for its history educational value, this show cherry-picks the most compelling stories of the most compelling characters. It lays it out in order which gives the widely known stories their proper place in the chronological order. This helps to give them context and a surprisingly effective flow. It is able to paint a vast epic picture of a changing world.

Love

[bubbel_delfinen · 10/10 · 10 April 2019]

Love it. It was a long time since I was glued like this in front of the TV...

What's appalling are many of the "reviewers" here

[ss-84598 · 6/10 · 11 November 2018]

I've rarely seen so much over-the-top bashing by a bunch of petty self-important internet no-it-alls, and that's saying something!

Where there are clear, provable and MEANINGFUL inaccuracies I would be interested to hear from the film makers why they portrayed something a given way. But in SO many instances above people are repeatedly using words like ashamed, appalling, embarrassing, laughable etc. over the most trivial and meaningless details. Not in a "ha, ha, I saw a flaw" way, but in vicious condemnation of the entire series. I don't get it, why the vitriol? And that's from a guy who generally passes on hollywood fiction passed off as "based on a true story", which this for the most part is not.

Entertaining but Bad History

[thirdsqurl · 5/10 · 26 June 2016]

I'm watching tonight's episode of the American West TV series Blood & Gold on AMC, and though it's entertaining, it's proving to be bad history.

The murder of Pinkerton agent Joseph Whicher (supposedly by Jesse James) was 1874, not 1876. Jesse James and his gang were not patriots continuing the fight for the Southern Cause, they were bank robbers who kept the money they stole. Pinkerton agents threw a smoke bomb into the James family house that unexpectedly exploded (possibly in the fireplace), not a fire bomb as the show asserts, and the house was damaged, not burned to the ground. President Grant's efforts to buy the Black Hill was 1875, not 1876. President's Grant's order to the Sioux to report to reservations was 1875, not 1876. Sitting Bull gathered about 2500 warriors in the spring of 1876, not 4000. The "tribe" of Arapahos at the Little Big Horn were five hunters previously held prisoner by the Sioux (Waterman, Sage, Left Hand, Yellow Eagle, and Little Bird). George Custer was not removed from 7th Cavalry command because he led the Black Hills Expedition of 1875, he was removed for calling President Grant's brother Orville Grant a crook. Custer's so-called presidential ambitions in 1876 are an old canard that has been disproved over and over again. The program even quotes historian Paul Hutton supporting this lie, when in fact Hutton has explicitly rejected it. The show's editors deliberately re-cut Hutton's interview to provide a false narrative. Custer did not "lead" one of three cavalry columns into Montana, General Alfred Terry was in command and Custer was his subordinate. It was not Custer's order to move out against the Sioux on June 22nd, it was General Terry's order, and they didn't know the Native tribes were on the Little Big Horn until days later. Custer took 650 men with him, not "less than 500." These are only a few errors, there are lots more, major and minor.

This program has good production values and some nice imagery. The narration is done well. However, its unfortunate that the people watching this program are being exposed to so much disinformation.

Re: The American West

[boblangridge-79889 · 13 October 2016]

Re: The American West. I normally enjoy programs like the American West and rarely challenge quoted 'facts'. However, I must take exception to one glaring error which the narrator (I believe to be Robert Redford) quotes about 20 minutes into the first program in the series. He states "from the Missouri River to the coast of California the frontier is almost 500 million square miles of wide open land". Whilst I appreciate that correct grammar is often sacrificed in order to provide the viewer with the basic facts, this statement is clearly wrong. The entire surface of the Earth is just under 197 million square miles which is well short of "almost 500 million square miles". Please keep the program factual. Bob Langridge

Well documented

[rpabstnm20 · 8/10 · 15 November 2020]

Well documented and interesting to watch. Sceneries are great.

Accurate history? Enough of it sure is!

[robog-82496 · 8/10 · 22 February 2024]

Many reviewers' comments dismiss this gem of a series in broadstroke as "inaccurate to the point of appalling" and "complete garbage". But without being specific, those comments are fallacious. The worst thing I could complain about is the lack of resemblance between the actors and their real life counterparts; the exception being Jesse James. What I AM impressed with, however, is how motives were juxtaposed in the timeline: President Grant's reasons for pushing West when the Civil War was close to starting up again; and later his very reluctantly changing policy abt the Lakota's land after the Panic of 1873 (great details there!); the pov of Chief Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull when they rejected the 6 million dollars offered them for the Black Hills; and Jesse James' obsession abt getting the "Northern invaders" out of Confederate territory after the war. Then there were the robber barons like, Thomas Durant. These overlapping upheavals that threatened the nation's fragile stability captured SO much crucial history! Parallels between the people of different regions defying perceived invaders. IMO, comments that criticise this series for inaccuracies are frivolous at best. On the whole, outside of occasional "glitches", I found it to be a profoundly absorbing viewing experience; I DID learn a couple of things I wasn't aware of before - having looked it up. (How many audiences knew abt the causes of the Panic of 1873 and its impact on the nation before they saw this series?) So, if we claim that the episodes make mistakes with the facts, we need to be specific. Otherwise, we're just blowing soap bubbles! Maybe some viewers feel that their long-cherished beliefs are being attacked; in which case, they aren't going to qualify their arguments. But these events did happen!

Hollywood's version of the West

[sja-awesome · 6/10 · 7 March 2024]

This show should have known that Americans take their history very seriously and even the average citizen is going to root out dates that aren't exactly right or information inserted that wasn't historical fact but based on rumors or hearsay or what people thought. As a Canadian I can give less of a F And I don't know any of this history anyways and so I found the show interesting,quite a high production value and entertaining. The only thing that really made me laugh was Hollywood's version of wild West outlaws are scruffy neck beard blond guys.. Lmao. In fact even a lot of outlaws back then would have been mostly clean shaven,or a mustache or facial hair groomed. I'm sure some of them let themselves go while they are on the run or hiding out but even that was back then had some sort of grooming standards lol. Billy the kid was not a short-haired blonde guy with a scruffy neck beard. He had somewhat long , curly brown hair and no facial hair. Jesse James had light brown or dark blonde hair fairly short. #bantheneckbeard! Also it's very maleist, there was lots of prominent women in the West that changed history and made impacts but they only talk about the men . Sigh.

SAVANNAH WAS SPARED

[jleightoncrawford · 6/10 · 6 June 2022]

It is inaccurate to portray General Sherman as burning Savannah. He burned everything in his infamous March to the Sea. However, Savannah was spared and given as a Christmas gift to President Lincoln. There were a few fires during the occupation, but Sherman was long gone by then.

Savannah is and was a major port and the union needed it.

Historically inaccurate to the point of being Appalling.

[CinemaZealot57 · 4/10 · 27 July 2016]

There are spoilers in this review if you haven't watched the latest episode. This review primarily concerns the next to the last episode, "Frontier Justice". Redford IS rewriting history. I don't really think he's doing it with a revisionist attitude but I just can't figure out his motivation. Between him, all his money and no telling how many researchers and interns that had to be working on this I have no doubt they could have made this show entertaining and historically accurate. In other reviews I saw mention of many mistakes. Things like using the pictures from other shootouts for the wrong event/locale. In this last show I watched it shows Earp investigating the wagon train robbery and murder of one or two teamsters. Earp picks up a double barrel shotgun, breaks it open and says, "he didn't even have time to get a shot off'. Really? What I saw was a shotgun breech showing a 12 gauge shell in place with the primer dimpled. Anyone who knows guns knows dimpled primers means the shot was fired (or rarely a misfire). What ever it was it was ridiculous. The trivia section on this episode mentions the very same thing. And would someone please explain the Earp/Clanton $3600 deal to me??? I've never heard of that in my life. Even if it were true it's no different than using any other informant. The stuff they showed about the arrest of Billy the Kid was so wrong it was embarrassing. Everything I've ever heard and read about that escape said that Billy the Kid shot the deputy with the shotgun as the deputy was returning to the jail. Billy shot him from the upper window of the jail. When Billy got killed they got that all wrong too. A lot of the info on Jesse James is not accurate or true. The info on Sitting Bull is very sketchy. The way they portrayed the killing of Crazy Horse WAS a PC Retell. Everything I've ever read said that Indian Security at the Fort killed Crazy Horse. Redford obviously THINKS otherwise. To bad he can't stick to history. I know that all the people that have been involved in this show are aware of these stupid mistakes. So the question is why? Why would they spend all that money to put out a half ass effort that is historically so inaccurate it is laughable? There is a lot more that is wrong with this show. And that really points out the fact that there was enough money and experience involved here that they could have easily made this show a premier example of historically accurate Western documentaries.

Makes Butch and Sundance look like a documentary

[jjcarr-49015 · 3/10 · 30 August 2017]

This review is based on the version shown in Europe under the title "Robert Redford's The West". I'm not aware of any differences apart from the title and I'd be surprised if there were given the skimpy production values of the series. The series of eight one-hour shows sets out to tell the tale of the West through six lives Custer, Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull, Jesse James, Billy the Kid and Wyatt Earp. We get a narrative over reenactments interspersed with to-camera pieces from lots of actors who appeared in Westerns and some actual historians. I found the series very disappointing. The recreation of the Little Big Horn would embarrass a troop of amateur re-enactors. More substantial is the myriad inaccuracies and omissions. In telling the tale of the James brothers I don't recall a mention of the Younger Brothers. We're shown a map of the Battle of the Little Big Horn that shows Reno's and Custer's advances but doesn't show Benteen's nor is he mentioned in the narrative. Billy the Kid's escape all happens on the ground floor. There's no Pete Maxwell in Pete Maxwell's bedroom when Billy is shot. The viewer is given no context as to why either man was in the room (the link being Maxwell). As presented Morgan and Virgil Earp are shot on the same night. Others more knowledgeably than myself have and could point out many more flaws in the series. Did I learn anything? Yes. A young John Wayne met an elderly Wyatt Earp.

Are all these reviews accurate?

[Jim Tritten · 3/10 · 12 August 2016]

I have to admit, when I watched this series, I was jarred by some of the inaccuracies I could see without being a specialist in the West. The costumer cut corners and used the same uniform for Custer over the entire series. Yes, he was a general at one point. But this rank ended after he was mustered out of the volunteers. When he came back into the regular Army is was as a Lieutenant Colonel. During this time, the time with the 7th Cavalry, he would not have worn a general officer's rank on his shoulders. The costumer obviously either was told to save money or paid insufficient attention to detail. Viewers will likely never find out. Then too there is the detail of John Tunstall being portrayed as an American when he was British by birth and presumably by speech. So when I read all of the other historical inaccuracies listed in these reviews, I wonder what else was wrong and if so much was wrong, then what was the point of The American West. Clearly not historical accuracy. In fairness, I did learn some new facts, only to have them disputed on these pages. With so much doubt cast about the facts, the viewer can only speculate about the slant and underlying purpose of The American West. When they could have known better, why did they produce something that is fraught with controversy? Good entertainment, but incorrectly classified if The American West is labeled as a documentary.

Terrible series

[ghatbkk · 1/10 · 23 February 2018]

Poorly researched, poorly presented, inaccurate and basically nonsense. It's just garbage.

The American West Fantasy

[aa56 · 1/10 · 8 October 2017]

I came across this dreck on SBS in Australia, and I stopped watching halfway through the first episode because of its historical fantasies. Like other reviewers, I'm staggered by what Redford's motivation was. Is he really that ignorant or does he enjoy portraying history the way he wants it to have occurred? I sincerely hope the Aussies don't believe this is the way the American West was.

Seriously flawed, inaccurate, shallow, and cheaply made

[WildBullWriter · 2/10 · 12 March 2018]

It's hard to believe Robert Redford released this piece of garbage on the world. I'd thought more highly of him (until now).

The series is cheaply made, recycling the same footage over and over and over again. The continuity is lousy. So is the dialogue. The narration is trivial and repetitive. The clichés are endless, the scripting shallow. Many of the "facts" are non-factual (inaccuracies abound, as other reviewers point out). So it's historically suspect. All in all, the storytelling is at the level of an adolescent comic book.

In the end, this mini-series offers up the same shallow romantic crap about the West that's been around for decades. And it's badly made. Very disappointing. Sorry to say it, but Redford's judgment must be gone to put put his name on this work.

If you want to learn about the American West between 1865-1890, find something else. Or just watch a western movie; at least you'll be entertained.

Ambitious failure

[drjgardner · 3/10 · 24 July 2016]

For me and for most Americans there is nothing more interesting than the story of the West. From the Civil War until World War 1, the West was full of adventure, opportunity, drama and tragedy. AMCs series "Hell on Wheels" was an excellent attempt to portray one aspect of this period, the building of the railroads. But their far more ambitious "The American West" is a big disappointment on a number of levels.

For a documentary, the use of "expert" opinion from movie stars is hardly a good idea. Have we stooped so low that we get our history from movie stars?

Perhaps the reliance on movie stars for the primary documentation is one of the reasons this 8 part series has so many errors (e.g., Jesse James and Billy the Kid met, Wyatt Earp went to Tombstone to be their Sheriff).

Another weakness of the series is that there is no real underlying theme. There are brief episodes about Jesse James (Missouri), Billy the Kid (New Mexico), Wyatt Earp (Kansa and Arizona), and Custer and Sitting Bull (the Dakotas). But there is no real glue that holds the episodes together (e.g., the demands of capitalism to obtain natural resources, the political post war climate, the economic problems and the challenges of currency, etc.)

Telling the story of the West is an important project, but this series fails to do it in a meaningful way. FWIW - I really like the TV series "Centennial" (1978-79) and "Hell on Wheels" (2011-16). They both gave a comprehensive history of the West and did so in a more entertaining manner. For sheer pleasure, "Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid" (1973) is my favorite telling of this story.