Reviews

Another good idea gets the sloppy "History Channel" treatment to end up passing along at least as much garbage as it does good information. Why the writers can't do some simple research using reliable sources (like the O.E.D. for example) is beyond me. Though there is SOME good information presented, it is mixed in with so much misrepresentation and so many folk etymologies which are simply wrong, that you can't tell what's real and what isn't. One glaring example is "The Whole Nine Yards," which they claim originated in WWII -- except that there is documentation showing the phrase in use four decades before that time. Scholars of "Word and Phrase Origins" have long acknowledged that we don't know for certain where that phrase came from, but they know many claims that are simply NOT true, including the one made on the program. Don't trust a thing you hear on this show unless you verify it yourself from a credible source. If only the show's staff did that themselves...

I was sorely disappointed with this highly touted History Channel offering. At first, I was disturbed mainly by reenactments which were too often grossly inaccurate, but as the series began to cover eras and events that I was more familiar with, it became apparent that the narrative was also misleading. (There are too many incidents to relate, but was Lincoln REALLY "best known," prior to his presidential election, for loosing two bids for the Senate? What a misrepresentation of his political life--including two years in Congress--let alone his reputation as a public speaker.) Some "talking heads" had an aura of authority to speak on the events being covered, but too many were simply "celebrities" with apparently no expertise, and sometimes, little relevance to the current topic. One has to wonder why certain events were chosen to depict an era or turning point in the Nation's history for any reason other than their sensationalist value.

This is History for those who can only tolerate short snippets and catchy graphics. Worse than being over simplified, too much is simply misleading in the way it is presented. Alas, this is pretty much what the "New" History Channel produces now. It is sensationalism over substance; entertainment over education. Such a shame...

This sensationalistic and lurid look into one of the oldest fraternal organizations is brought to us by the same production company that brought us "Sluts: The Documentary." Unfortunately, that does tell us something. Although much of what is ultimately revealed is accurate, the myth and innuendo presented along the way make this presentation very misleading. So much so, that when some of the real truth is finally revealed, a great many viewers simply take it to be "the cover story" rather than the mundane reality it really is. Since conspiracies and clandestine plots are usually more popular than reality, the producers of this documentary have played it for all they could while still including truth, thoroughly mixed with fallacies. This mixing, however, blurs the reality and makes it all a confused mess to those who don't already know the facts.

If you found Oliver Stone's films to be historically accurate, think that Michael Moore is an unbiased journalist, or believe that the moon landings were really staged on a Hollywood set,then you'll find this show to be very revealing. If, however, you really want to learn more about the Masons, you'll likely come away from this with a very poor and distorted understanding of the fraternity. Anti-masons and conspiracy theorists share their views with little challenge. Off-shoots and bogus masonic organizations are presented as though they are part of regular freemasonry. Many of the rituals that are revealed are not mainstream, nor what you would see in most lodges. It's like purporting that any religious group that calls itself a "Church" is part of mainstream Christianity and must also be, therefore, sanctioned by the Pope.

It is a shame that this didn't do a better job of clearly separating the fact and fiction, but if it did, how many people would bother watching...

Mission Impossible was a great series, and compared to the recent movie versions, it's still far superior. In it's day, it was landmark TV. Alas, it hasn't stood the test of time as well as some others. By today's standards, it's dated, but we really like the show from a nostalgic view point.

From today's view point, there are far too many plot holes to be believable (e.g. Martin Landau's voiced dubbing, the team apparently knowing how things would play out in advance, etc...) My wife and I enjoyed it more by playing a drinking game when Peter Lupus had a line. Still it was nice to see "the Coach" (Nicholas Colasanto), and other character actors, in another role!

An epic event told by rank armatures

As a Civil War buff I received this DVD as a gift. It is almost better to use it as a coaster. Though the film accurately tells the story of the battle, and includes some of the more interesting anecdotes, most of the acting is so very poor that it is barely watchable. The few who do a worthy job are not even credited for their performance, and most who are should wish to have their names removed from the listing. Many have criticized the Ron Maxwell film "Gettysburg" (1993) for bad acting on the part of many supporting players, but they should win rave reviews when compared to nearly everyone in this work. The only redeeming feature are some of the visuals. However, so much of the casting is also horribly annoying -- a portly R.E.Lee indeed -- that one can't even watch with the sound off just to see the worthy reenactment scenes. As much as I would like to say the film has usefulness as a historical documentary, it is just to painful to watch to serve in even that capacity.