Centennial (1978)

Top comments

1. 

   xianjiro

   This isn't an easy work to comment on. It is very much a product of its time - coming hot on heals of the runaway success of Roots - the big American networks were all eager to capitalize on the hype of the new format: the TV miniseries. Centennial was offered a famously grand budget for TV in the era and we're able to see the result.
   
   Yes, a veritable compendium of TV 'talent' of the era in the lavish small screen adaptation of Michener's attempt to retell and recast American history - this adaptation strains to bridge the gap between the old view of history (Manifest Destiny and all that) with what we today might call a more politically correct interpretation. If one views it through the lens of the time, one's view will be different than viewing it from our current stand on issues like colonizing the American plains and destruction of First Peoples culture though I think it's still easy to view first contacting more romantically.
   
   My biggest complaint is, at 1256 minutes, it is over long by half and especially nearing the end seems unable to fill the allotted screen time with actual content, thus resorting to the much dreaded 'clip show' format, even managing to replay the same clips twice during a single segment! UGH!
   
   Other than that, overall the acting seems on par with the era (especially TV, though one might attempt to argue the acting was much better than much seen on TV during the late 70s - alas, fortunately, a distant memory for me). It's hard not to be frustrated with the casting of so many EuroAmerican actors as Native Americans, but again, product of its time and all that.
   
   Production values are quite high, again, especially when compared to TV of the era. There isn't the constant backlot feel nor the Bakersfield plays Colorado Plains air, but that said, I think our expectations are higher in this era than they were back then.
   
   Writing, as alluded to, is uneven and characters, while attempting to break new ground, do rather rely on the stereotypes American audiences expected. (Don't expect so-called 'well-rounded' characters.) Additionally, the use of a single actor to play a character ranging in age from 16 to 60 (this is epic storytelling after all) relied very heavily on theatrical-style makeup, so all young actors playing aged characters are pretty painful to look at.
   
   In closing, I find it hard to believe this is one of the 50 best TV miniseries, and with under 2100 votes on IMDb as I write this - and after looking at the breakdown, and considering IMDb's higher end bias - one wonders if some (many?) IMDb voters are 'remembering' this too nostalgically. I judge it to be just a tick better than average and not quite what I'd consider a best of the TV miniseries.
   
   Bottom line, unless you really want this check, you've probably got a lot better use of 1256 minutes of your life. I, clearly, do not - especially when I admit this is the second time I've seen this since Y2K - I'm glad I rewatched it or I too might have rated it higher than it deserves. 8 years 6 months ago
2. 

   Gary OldMan

   Bloated crapfest in every sense. A who's who of 60s and 70s American TV stars walking through their roles with terrible accents and makeup, wooden dialogue, foreshadowing with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer, saintly good guys and cartoonish bad ones. This one has it all! 8 years 7 months ago

See all comments

Friends

Login to see which of your friends have seen this movie!