The Men Who Built America (2012)

A big disclaimer missing from this film, that is "Based on true events". It gives wrong impression to audiences who are familiar with the history of the underlying intent for inserting erroneous info. Is it just bad info? Or is there an alternate motive to feed wrong info to audiences not intimate with history judging from the remarks made by the modern influential men?Since this film was distributed via History Channel, the inaccurate info take away 5 points. If it was simply someone's attempt to make drama based on true events, this score would have been higher.This film cannot even be regarded as historical documentary. At best, a recount of PERSONAL perspectives, understanding and ideals of some history. It would probably be more enjoyable if it tried to learn from Elon Musk version of MARS TV show.However, if the intent is to spread personal view, belief and agenda into audiences who don't care much about history, this may be the piece to create alternate reality for them.

I enjoyed watching "The Men Who Built America" and do strongly recommend it. The show is engaging and interesting--no doubt about that. However, I did have a few minor objections which seemed to come up more and more when the shows progressed. First, the show would normally only be seen by people who love history and yet, time and again, the show tried to create cliffhanger moments even though nearly every viewer KNOWS that Rockefeller went on to become rich and Carnegie took a few gambles but became mega-rich! No surprises yet the show sure made it seem like it was. Second, sometimes the show was just a bit over-the-top when it came to the drama and music. Tone it down just a bit please. And third, a few times the history just wasn't quite accurate--especially in episode 4.So what we have is a rare show because it talks about the men who made America the economic power of the world--Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan and Ford. This is important history and generally is quite watchable but just could have scored a 10 had they roughed out a few aspects of the show.

Historically accurate, astute and shows the entrepreneurial spirit! By mixing it with drama, history and interviews this mini-series brought this exciting time to life! Reading about the exploits of these greats does not have the same effect as seeing them come to life! The only problem is the series should have been longer. There are many facets of the lives of these great men that could have been shown. Not only their successes, but also their failures. I know that it covers a certain time in history, but some more of Ford and the changing of the guard, as it was, would have been nice. One request to History Chanel: Bring more historic events/ times to life as this! Superb!

History that in no way challenges any of the accepted conceits of 2012. Which really is a shame. Decent popular history should show us that those ideas we always took for granted as to how and why thing happened in the past are very likely quite wrong. And what if the conventional wisdom is correct? Well, it really never is- conventional wisdom is the result of popular misconceptions and other filters, real history is always more nuanced and complicated than even well written history, let alone popular convention.Good popular history challenges our preconceptions. Instead, in the case of "The Men who Built America" we get a one dimensional reality; The story of the men who, while helping to build the country, created a series of evil empires that were finally brought down once and for all, and for the good of the common man, by the efforts of certain politicians. Fair enough. A good start. But when you are given a couple hours for each of five American icons, it would be better if the producers could have shown us how much of the reality went against the narrative presented here.Instead of presenting the public opprobrium against Standard Oil as springing solely from Rockefeller's sins against the working people, it would have been more accurate to show that the victims were seen as the small, independent businessman, not the worker who was treated as badly under them as under Rockefeller. In fact, I may have missed it, but how can one show the story of Rockefeller without a mention of Ida Tarbell? The story of Morgan seemed to be more than a bit off in the attempt by the writers to neatly shoehorn JP Morgan into the rest of the narrative. I am sure that his life was intertwined with the industrialists in many ways, but I think that Morgan and his ilk stood somewhat apart from the industrialists, keeping his people on their boards only to safeguard the investments that were made. Morgan and how he made money, was nearly entirely separate from the industrialists and is interesting in its own right.All in all, its a pretty fair show, given the typical History channel fare. At least its not Ancient Aliens. And accurate enough, I guess, except for the section on Morgan which I think badly distorted how he really was important to our history. But in giving us the most bland, vanilla version of the events it was another wasted opportunity by the History Channel.