ManiakJiggy This is How Movies Should Be Made

GazerRise Fantastic!

ChampDavSlim The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

TarkovskyFanGirl First of all, The Untold History of the United States is somewhat of a misnomer as a title because most of this is common knowledge or already taught in standard U.S. history courses--only remotely novel aspect to this is Kuznick and Stone's conjecture, opinion, Wallace/FDR worship, and what ifs about the political climate during WWII and the subsequent Cold War.What if FDR didn't conform to outside pressures and went with Wallace instead of Truman? What if we didn't drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? What if we conciliated our differences with communist ideologues? What if...? And on, and on. Plenty of what is said is true but subterfuge is common, wherein they present a positive spin on many figures and sort of hand wave away their faults or never admit it at all. Quite a number of communist ideologues who slaughtered and oppressed their people are often seen in a rather benign light, and, in contrast, it's not uncommon to feel as if U.S. figures are unfairly demonized in comparison. Oh, hey Joseph McCarthy, let me call you a venomous snake and play ominous music whenever you appear, and I'll play weepy violin music for when Stalin dies--and let us make sure to portray Stalin with the old "papa joe" image! Both of these were juxtaposed together in practically the same breath.There is still a lot of speculation by historians concerning the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan. Both bombs were dropped 3 days apart and Stalin invaded Manchuria around the same time. It's hard to say what made Japan surrender because everything was so close together. Maybe they would have surrendered without Russia's involvement or without the bombs. Maybe one or the other would have been needed (definitely should have waited longer to drop the second bomb, if it was necessary at all, in HINDSIGHT). There are a lot of maybes and it's much easier to speculate in hindsight and play armchair philosopher. Here is another what if: what if we didn't drop the bombs and the war lingered on and Russia invaded mainland Japan and the country was partitioned similar to what happened in Berlin? Bad things can happen from what ifs, not just Stone's Kumbaya vision quests.While I agree that we often picked a regime that wasn't really any better than what they were competing against or the preexisting status quo, and the U.S. world policing has often done more harm than good, I found it rather funny that Stone paints Allende in such a positive light, who was a Marxist and had absolutely horrendous policies with starving citizens on par with 2018-level Venezuela, and the country was about to collapse. A coup was inevitable. Yes, Pinochet did bad things but Chile prospered in comparison to what preceded him, and he didn't kill nearly as many people compared to Castro's regime, who Stone never says a bad word about (because we sided with Batista and a lot of leftist figures seem quite fond of Castro for some reason). If we would have sided with Allende (WHAT IF???), then we'd probably be blamed for that too.As for the cold war, Stone tends to present the U.S. as being mostly to blame, even though it was both sides contributing to the problem rather than the Soviets responding to U.S. aggression. Also, while I generally agree with Truman's sentiment about the red scare and blacklisting, as highlighted in one of his quotes about how the U.S. should not be an entity on a witch hunt for dissenters, I wouldn't say that the condemnation of the communists in the U.S. was without reason. It's a destructive ideology and that was during the Cold War, against the Soviets, who were spreading the ideology and were the enemy of the United States. If you're actively fighting against communist ideologues, then it seems strange to allow them to proliferate and maintain roles in hollywood, politics, the education system, etc, where they have a pulpit to spread an ideology that is deemed antithetical to the United States' ideology--and perhaps allowing them to take over from within (granted, it was also often used to slander political enemies with no ties to communist ideology). Even now you see a very biased perspective in the media and school system. These systems are far more liberal than they are conservative; could not the same happen with any ideologues that infiltrate and maintain power? One might argue that we never weeded out the communist ideologues and their ideas have been presented in the media and academia in a manner more palatable and accepted by the masses. "Like Nixon, Bush appealed to voters' racism and fears of crime." This is actually a verbatim quote. And he goes on to blame the "far right" for everything without ever slowing down to analyze the flaws of the "far left."Admittedly, it is pretty well-made and has a lot of good footage compiled together, if you can tolerate Stone's spin on history. It's often propagandistic (complete with very schmaltzy music) in a very effective manner, such as Reagan's quoted reevaluation of the Vietnam War, where he laments the scenario but goes on to say that regardless of not winning the war and the many failings of the U.S., that it was for a noble cause--then immediately the scene cuts to a man blocking the camera and moving out of frame to reveal a dead child on the blood-spattered ground. It's excellent propaganda at times, not unlike Davis's Hearts and Minds.

jacksonpm-59718 As a history major, this is easily the worst hisdoc I've seen in my life. It's like Michael Moore and James Cameron screwed and had Oliver Stone as a baby, then got their historical facts from 1970s USSR libraries. I made it through 2 episodes on Netflix before having to just stop bothering. I probably should of started a counter or started tally marking off how many out-of-context events are covered. I don't think it got further than 2-3 minutes in before it started. I felt the need the write a review, because it's always such a pet peeve to see morons involve their delusional political views (right wing or left wing) in a HISTORICAL DOCUMENTARY. As a moderate, the leftist propaganda is absolutely laughable. If if fits your historically inaccurate views, I'd suggest watching it, you'd probably like it. However, if you're actually trying to learn anything, or save brain cells, I'd suggest finding something else in your browse for indie films on Netflix.

sirjohnarcher 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?

MisterWhiplash The whole thrust of this and much of the content reminds me of the line from Stone's own JFK when going over some initial pieces of potential evidence on Lee Harvey Oswald and the JFK assassination conspiracy: "There's a lot of smoke here, but where there's smoke, there's fire." This series, a major work for Oliver Stone, gets going through the premise that Henry Wallace, a true progressive in the early 1940's democratic party, could have been a true force for change but was shut out of the 1944 convention, leading to Harry S. Truman as FDR's newest vice president. The 'would-be' part of it is certainly intriguing, and the evidence seems to have credibility (Stone narrates it all), but even if it's phooey and the claims against Truman may be harsh, the fact still stands on who dropped the first nuclear Atomic bombs on a (at the time enemy) country, leading to a nuclear arms race and the Cold War for decades to come.There's so much here over the course of some ten or more hours that it may be hard to all take in at once. It may not be that kind of experience, perhaps better to not binge-watch but take in over a week or several nights. It's a full course meal of information which is certainly not something that is ra-ra pro-American (but you should hopefully know that, even coming from his quintessential film, Platoon, where the climax of that was the Americans losing to the Vietnamese in a brutal battle). There's much that you also won't possibly expect that isn't necessarily *all* about the United States which is the fascinating part; just how much Russia was crucial in World War 2 and how their casualties were so catastrophic, but yet eclipsed in the pages of history by other countries losses. Or the details surrounding just how damn close the US did come to war with Russia over the Cuban missile crisis. Or so many other, nasty things.I think Stone is coming from a hopeful place here, and his damnations and critique aren't from a complete crank and blow-hard. He may have that in him, but his intentions are pure and with an intent of consciousness expansion: get you thinking about things, maybe you go find information for yourself, and don't always tow the line on everything you're told (not just Americans, around the world is the key point I think, though especially Americans). It's an overview of the past 70 years as only Oliver Stone can do it, and it's exhilarating, befuddling, infuriating, perplexing, terrifying, sad and perhaps questionable stuff. But that's better than something you can easily digest with your stick-in-the-mud grandpa, right?