Intense, gripping, stylish and poignant

It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

They should play this series from giant TVs on every street corner! "We all cherish our children's future, and we are all mortal" -JFKIf you've ever wanted to do something good for the world but had no idea how, watch this series. Know where you stand. Where we all stand. Know why the world is the way it is, how it got here, where it's heading if uninterrupted. We are all humans. We are all capable of understanding the world we live in and guiding it forward. The world is not as pretty and peaceful as the narrative we are fed. The leaders we have looked to are not as perfect as their PR campaigns claim. Everybody should know the truth of our history so they can do their part to make a better future. Also, not sure why this series is viewed as un-American. It is not. It's just an honest look at history. No fairy tale, no super human heroes, no pretty little narrative. Just honesty. The only thing it seems to be is anti-military. Which is something we should all be against. Watch the series, do some research, and understand why.

This is well made. As an avid documentary watcher I saw TONS of footage i'd never seen before. Some time lines i've had a hard time grasping over the years this series straightened out for me. Very good stuff in that regard and my judgment of the series as a technical work is very good.All that being said, Stone puts lots of opinion with no supporting proof. I understand that he's trying to show a different side of history. But if you just state your own fact over the current widely held facts without the smallest attempt at verifying it, it falls on its face.I love a conspiracy theory. Getting behind the scene information about a piece of history is fascinating to me. This series is just a presentation of a laundry list of Oliver Stone's grievances on history. I guess if you want to sit and listen to a made up history, this is the show for you.

I like some of what Stone is saying but he NEVER mentions Stalin or Mao killing millions of their own people. It's like these two were saints. There is an obvious deletion of these facts. I know from studying WWII that Russia was the main reason Germany lost... DUH!!!! Any idiot can realize that but he paints the USA as the real evil in world. Any government that makes laws that they aren't subject to is evil. That makes every government evil! My problem with this crap is that he never talks about the communist governments KILLED MILLIONS of their own! WTF? OMG I can't submit this until I have enough lines... Okay. My Aunt once held up a gas station in Texas on accident. It was a freaking cold ass night and she was bundled up in her winter coat. When she went in to pay for her gas she pulled her wallet out and pointed it at the cashier. The cashier whom she had known for many years FREAKED out thinking the black wallet was a gun, started emptying the register. My aunt didn't know what was going on and called out the cashiers name and said "It's me, and I want to pay for my gas. The cashier recognized her and grabbed all the cash she had laid out and apologized for her over reaction. They still laugh at the incident to this day. Now can I post my view?

For those aware of history, politics and culture, we need to step back and see what our world really is. You will have both sides praising and condemning this series. Conservatives are angered by an unpatriotic view. Revisionists are pleased by a view but claim it is told and unoriginal.Exactly what does untold mean? Some people scoff and say, well it has been told enough. But the definition of untold isn't "never told". Perhaps "Less So Stories" might come to mind. Less Told is the meaning in this case. If you were driving a car and met in an accident, of course, it's the other guy's fault. You don't tell the other driver's story. Thus, Stone offers instead an apologetic version of history.In the world view, however, this film isn't really leftist or liberal, but probably slightly left to the center. Most Americans are on the right. Just like Saudi Arabia is on the right economically and socially, the US is far right economically and slightly left socially. Left socially and left economically are, for example, Scandinavian countries. Australia is socially on the left. China is economically right (like US, very capitalistic). In the world view, this series is actually slightly left. Not much off the center, really. Most people in the world will see this as fairly accurate but it's hard for traditionalist Americans to swallow. But it's also has some small lumps that make it sometimes hard to swallow. For one, Oliver Stone comments on a traditional political leadership history, not a social or economic history. For the most part, this series is quite truthful although just like any version of history, it represent opinion and conjecture. Some historians like to view history as a series of movements or struggles. Stone views history as shaped by powerful individuals. But often, it isn't single figures but movements that shape the world. Another lump. Stone also uses his familiarity of movies as his comfort zone. Showing clips of films to depict history may not be the best way to suggest actual political course of events but how we interpret them. History and films, after all, are merely opinions and interpretations of events. Oliver, nice effects to show those clips, but they are movies. Give a few more facts to back up the argument.I wish Stone took this one step towards understanding movements. He makes the case at times for that. Celebrating Wallace or JFK as a hero for the common person and for world peace. But what drove Truman or Reagan the other way? As Stone mentions, it's often who one listens to. Advisors and those closest to power often help shape history as presidents cannot entirely shape policies on their own.Stone may well do one step better by focusing on the influence of movements. How the wealthy classes or hardliners/militarists shape American foreign policy. Noam Chomsky who was cited in this series, often depicts history as class struggles. At times, the common man seeks redress from oppressors and at other times, the wealthy classes dominate control. Historically, due to American capitalism and lack of upheaval, it has been the wealthy classes that control the nation's direction. The recent electoral victory of Trump over Clinton confirms the power of wealth. Stone's historical message is: those who are closest to power and wealth wield greater influence and will seek to protect their interest. Those who don't want change and stand to lose the most, will resist the changes sought by the middle and lower classes. Stone implies JFK made enough enemies and mysterious assassinations of the 1960s were instigated by those resisting change.But Stone brings up excellent points of what truly is important: the welfare of ordinary people around the world. Therefore, he vilifies Nixon for getting more Americans killed than Johnson in Vietnam. He points out that Johnson dropped more bombs on Vietnam than the US did on Germany in WW2. Some estimates as many as 1.5 to 3 million civilians died in Vietnam. The same is true for the US invasion of Iraq by G.W. Bush were again, nearly a million were killed.Do American presidents have their priorities wrong killing people in a third world country that cannot hurt the most powerful country? Is it really for the protection and security of America?In summary: a brilliant, provocative, slightly flawed series worth seeing with an open mind.