User reviews

There has been a tendency lately to "upgrade" works set in historical times be they fictional or true. Operas and plays written 100 and more years ago which take place in Europe during centuries past are being put into places like Las Vegas and California. Even Shakespeare has not been immune from updated versions of his plays, such as the film Richard III in which the medieval king is portrayed as a high-ranking British fascist of the 1930's! The trend is now infiltrating film productions which are supposed to take place in historical settings. One of the worst such productions was the recent HBO "The Tudors". The present History Channel offering of "The Sons of Liberty" is another such offering. At the same there are some good things in the series.

While there is much to be praised about this production, including wonderful sets and effects, the dialog and mannerisms of the characters are so 21st century I kept being reminded that the production was from the 2000's. A good period piece allows the audience to be transported, albeit temporarily, to another time where manners and culture were quite distinct from today. In 18th century Britain and America, class distinctions were highly pronounced and obvious. Working class adults would refer to any of the aristocracy as "sir" or "madam". There would even be the occasional bow from working class males and curtsies engaged by working class women to members of the aristocracy. Working class children would refer to any adult male as "sir", and more than likely, children were told to do things, not asked.

The present production, trying too desperately to appeal to 21st century American sensibilities, throws much of the formalities and mannerisms of 18th century life out the window in favor of more casual interactions. A young boy among the Sons of Liberty is often "asked" to do things, much like they are today, but children were ordered around. And working class children in this production don't use the formal "sir" enough. If an adult wished a child to engage in a task, it was expected to be done, not "would you please..." The expected interaction would be "Do this" with the response "right away, sir." Now, we can debate about whether this kind of treatment was unfair, but that's how it was in the 18th century. Also, working class members would be very formal towards superiors except in private conference.

In an interesting scene, John Hancock throws a party for the birthday of King George III, which was common for colonists and other subjects of Britain. (The custom still occurs today in Britain.) During the party, John Hancock walks and chats with then Lieutenant Governor Hutchinson who ranked just below the governor of Massachusetts and New Jersey who ruled at the behest of Britain and the King. (In a sense, the governor was the voice of the king.) In this context, Hutchinson would definitely be Hancock's superior although both were part of the aristocracy of the colonies. Several times, Hancock turns his back on the lieutenant governor to say hello to other arrivals. This would have been considered a gross faux pas by 18th century standards. You would never turn your back on a ranking official, even a lieutenant governor, in a social occasion to speak to others. You would ask permission to do so, and others would not interrupt if you were in conference with a superior. In other scenes, I heard people saying the epithet "bs", which I don't think existed at that time. People did swear, but never to those of higher rank and certainly not in mixed company.

The most interesting aspect of the series has to do with the behind-the-scenes business deals. These are what the Sons of Liberty did to avoid taxation. Still worth watching but I would have liked the filmmakers to consult with some historians concerning the correct manners and culture of the time. The HBO Series "John Adams" is much more accurate in this regard. This is after all supposed to be a presentation from the History Channel. Why not be as accurate possible, unless executive are worried that younger viewers won't "identify with it? Better than "The Tudors" but not as a good as "John Adams".

I just rewatched this mini-series and think I enjoyed it more the 2nd time.

This time I had the op to do some reading regarding his historical accuracy. For a series on the network it originally aired, I would believe that it should have been far more accurate. There are not nearly enough goofs for all the inaccuracies.

I have to ignore the inaccuracies because otherwise I would be very unhappy.

What the show did do is I hope give some people, the vast majority of people, a little understanding for the origins of our country. One can see the rationale for the majority of the Bill of Rights including the 2nd Amendment. So many people believe that the 2nd Amendment is primarily for self-protection where it really was for self-protection against the government. Other things include freedom of speech, stopping the govt from just taking property, freedom of press, etc.

I would have loved for there to be a follow-up that covered the Rev War although the recent GW miniseries may have (haven't watched it yet).

We truly need to remember all the founders of this country. Did they have some faults (slavery, womanizing, etc), but they were also very brave men that risked everything without which we would never have had the United States.

To many historical inaccuracies, and too much use of modern idioms for my taste. John Adams was a much better miniseries.

All of the reviews by my fellow history buffs that are critical of the show are missing the point. First, the History Channel freely admits that the show is historical fiction. Second, you are not the intended audience.

History Channel is trying to reach a younger audience--I'm guessing 40 and younger. To the extent that these people have been taught American history at all, what they've heard is at best boring and, more likely, downright anti-American. So what if they make Sam Adams a hunky, charismatic, hipster instead of a middle-aged father of two with a history of failed careers? They're still watching--which they would not have been had the show be historically precise.

One of my biggest complaints about my own formal education in American history was how it robbed the founding fathers of their personalities and complexities. In this series, George Washington isn't portrayed accurately, but he's portrayed as a vital, dominating, brave, and forceful man instead of a two-dimensional caricature that no one could relate to. Maybe John Hancock didn't go through the precise passage that he did in Sons of Liberty, but he still did progress from solid businessman to revolutionary. If you have to simplify that process to make it understandable, I'm all for it.

I get misty-eyed every time I hear the phrase "our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor" because I know how literal a pledge it was to the men who made it. Maybe Sons of Liberty can help the uninitiated feel a little of that awe and respect.

Reading a lot of these reviews, people need to get a grip. Please show me where the History Channel said this was a documentary or that it was an accurate story about American history. The History Channel is a company trying to obtain viewers and to make money. They are in the entertainment business. Why else would they cast someone like Dean Norris as Benjamin Franklin? The truth is, this was a very good mini-series. Loved the acting, loved the drama and the action intensity. Almost at the edge of my seat. If anything, it re-sparked my interest in American history and I bet the same will happen for you. I've been reading up on our American history and our founding fathers and noticed some information I didn't know before and that alone was well worth watching Sons Of Liberty.

So relax, take a deep breath and let's all get a grip. If you cannot handle a show like this, perhaps you need to turn the channel back to The Big Bang Theory or go watch PBS.

Lots of people have written negative reviews but I found the series to be refreshing and a reminder of who we are and how we got here. Historically and culturally incorrect? A story needs to be told in a way that current culture can understand. It made me feel proud to be a citizen of the United States! What these men did was beyond courageous and I would have fought with them given the opportunity. I do worry that I may actually get that opportunity; like so many I'm fed up with taxation and the best government money can buy. The Founding Fathers would undoubtedly be calling to arms if they were here today. As with any historical series it's a story that needs to be told and this particular story should be told over and over again. I loved it! Best Wishes

The dramatization of the events to the start of the American Revolution, following Sam Adams.

This is a let down to what the history channel could have done. It's very historical inaccurate. I mean, come on, to not even get Sam Adams' life right just seems a little far-fetched. At least "History Channel" if you are going to tell history you should get it right. I understand that our history books can be a little off, and that you can do some updating to certain historical facts but to make Sam Adams, a young hot guy who runs a tavern. Rather than a middle-aged man who helps the family business of the malt house, which isn't a tavern. Poorly done, "History Channel" poorly done. Don't watch this miniseries. www.what-to-watch.com

This miniseries is entertaining as a drama if you can set aside its various gross historical inaccuracies. So, pretend that it portrays the American Revolution in an alternate dimension, perhaps even pretend that it's a prequel to "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter," and you'll do much better that way. But, if instead you insist on expecting that its writers were objective wherever possible, keeping away from bias when none was required, then crawl back underneath your rock, please, because that has never been the History Channel's dealing. And this time, take a moment while you're down there to appreciate what a great name for a propaganda mill, "The History Channel" really is; it almost may as well call itself "The Ministry of Truth." What is most obvious and transparent about this miniseries' disinterest in truth is its disinterest in history.

for everyone who says this show is fictitious how do you know the type of dialect that was used in colonial times in Boston for sure,or even the extent of details as to how events truly went down.Not one of you who writes these reviews was around then and most of you base your so called knowledge of how events went down in our countries history on school text books filled with misinterpreted information and fictitious history as well even propagandist at times.Which so many of you have been repetitively been taught to believe.Stop being so naive,This show is just another interpretation of how events might have gone down,with it's own little twist to it.You cant completely fit every event that shaped our history into a mini series hence (mini).It's going to be fast pace and yes this version is written and directed towards the younger crowd.I found it different and interesting as well as entertaining.History channel is still one of the best channels we have. Don't knock it for trying to educate a younger generation that has very little interest in our founding fathers.For those of you read this remember for every bad review there are as many good ones.Watch and be your own judge

I love how many of the people leaving positive reviews are telling the rest of us to calm down, as if we are wrong to feel the way we do. The American Revolution is a fascinating, incredibly compelling story, filled with complex and nuanced characters. Sons of Liberty prompts a certain amount of rage from me because it deprives people of that compelling story, presenting viewers instead with waste-of-time romance sequences, cheap dialogue, and Hank Schrader wearing a Ben Franklin costume while describing the thought of 13 United Colonies as, and I quote, "a crazy idea".

To be fair, I knew what I was in store for within the first five minutes of the first episode, when Samuel Adams singlehandedly knocks two or three redcoats down a staircase, escapes onto the rooftops, and the show turns into Assassin's Creed.

This show was clearly written by people who have no idea who the Founding Fathers really were, and who clearly never even bothered to do any research beyond glancing quickly at wikipedia.

Part of why Washington wore his old militia uniform to the Continental Congress is because he was ambitious enough to desire command of the Continental Army, but unwilling to directly ask for it, because one of his greatest strengths was his ability to mask his ambition with a cloak of humility. But in Sons of Liberty, Washington is willing to foam at the mouth, scream at Congress, announce that he is leading an army north, and storm out of the room.

Benjamin Franklin is shown womanizing, which is spot on, but why does he have to be so serious in his other scenes? Ben Franklin was known for having a light touch, a detached playful attitude towards life, and a love of indulging in the world's pleasures. Instead, Sons of Liberty delivers us Hank Schrader wearing a wig, acting like Hank Schrader wearing a wig. It's not Dean Norris's fault. Couldn't they have at least given Dean some halfway intelligent lines? Ben Franklin was smart. Shouldn't he at least sound smart? Nah. That would be a "batshit crazy idea."

John Adams, in this show, exists only to lick Sam Adams's balls.

Why does General Gage have to be depicted as a sadistic sociopath? Does the show think we are so simple-minded that we need to completely demonize the British to still root for the underdog? The American Revolution was a civil war. Americans fought Americans. Families were torn apart. There were no good guys and no bad guys, there were neighbors murdering each other. Sons of Liberty seems to think we are incapable of comprehending the truth, and that instead we need watered down black-and-white scenarios, which is probably also why the issue of slavery almost never surfaced in the dialogue.

Why did Joseph Warren need to have an affair with Gage's wife? I already know the answer to this one: the tryst existed in the storyline solely to add sex to the show, and to add unnecessary weight to Warren's death, because apparently getting shot in the head, bayoneted, stripped, and mutilated isn't enough. It only matters if someone was in love with him and loses him. Basic.

This show angered me greatly. And yet, I kept watching, and continued all the way to the end, where I smirked at the Betsy Ross flag which someone must have time traveled forward to 1777 to retrieve.

It wasn't all bad. I am giving it 2 stars instead of the 0 stars it deserves, because despite the awful writing and characterization, at least the world LOOKED realistic. Characters were grubby. The costumes looked genuine. The cinematography and editing were decent. The sets were very well done.

Visually, the show is very appealing, but without the support of writers who know how to write, without writers who care about history, Sons of Liberty's finished product is a shiny object with a hollow, misleading, unsatisfying interior.

I consider myself a fan of historical pieces. I understand that this mini series may take some liberties with minor events, but overall it was excellent. When my 12 year old wants to sit and watch it with me. Then he spends a few hours later looking up the actual historical facts, I say the show is a success. You can laugh at some of the dialog. You can question some of the minor inconsistencies. But, the show condensed many years of history into a 6 hour fun show. The whole purpose of these shows (In my opinion), is to spark some interest in history. Shows like this do exactly that. The ignite interest. You have to add some additional fight scenes in order to maintain the excitement. There was enough fact to keep the story line true.

This story of the American Revolution that was produced by the A&E cable network might lead you to reassess what you learned in school. If you think George Washington was the founder of the country, guess again. It was a guy named Sam Adams played here by Ben Barnes. A hard drinking tavern habitue, Adams led the Sons Of Liberty in their agitation against the King's taxes.

First civilian governor Hutchinson and then when Boston goes under military occupation by General Thomas Gage the Sons of Liberty keep up the agitation. Pretty soon the other colonies who have their agitators in less degree admittedly than Massachusetts start listening. It all ends with the Second Continental Congress and the Declaration of Independence.

You could write a history of the American Revolution from the point of view of all the colonies though Massachusetts probably would be the liveliest.

I wonder what happened to James Otis in this Massachusetts story. A major error on the part of A&E.

Still this is a good primer on how the USA came to be.

What do we really know about the characters of this amazing time in American history. All we have is the reports from bias people who could of really disliked or adored these men and everything in between. I found this mini series to be stimulating and it captivated my attention to consider these historical men in a very real and human way. I found this to be a very thought provocative series. Though not all the 'fact' are depicted as we have them recorded in historical chronicles, could it be that these men, being men, may well of padded or skimped on what actually happened? This series puts meat on the bones of men long dead. But, men who lived and died in order that we can live to express our thoughts and opinions and make a place where our freedom is more than just an ideal that has no weight or reality in our life. So, I enjoyed and appreciated the effort put forth in this series. So, lets stop nit picking and enjoy the humanity this show put into these magnanimous men of historical significance.

Not an arresting first episode, but bear with, as the plot threads, character development & cinematography (though, too much 'artificial light streaming thru into interior set' going on) improves with every episode. I'm not sure why Barnes isn't allowed to really shine in this; he's good, but his Adams is kept a cipher, when Barnes is usually compelling & scene-stealing. Csokas is wicked fun, O'Mara gives a magnetic Washington, but this is worth watching for Spall, whose foppish Hancock is initially hilarious, before really going on an excellent character arc.

The History Channel has taken it upon itself to create some good entertainment based on historical circumstances with the Sons Of Liberty miniseries. Though there are some areas in this series where Hollywood takes creative license to make this historical event flashier than it read in the books, taken for what it is, the show was interesting and managed to keep a good portion of the factual stuff. I read some complaints about the casting for the character of Samuel Adams, due to the fact that Ben Barnes is not as doughy as some of the portraits of the original Adams was but Barnes does a great job in his portrayal of the intense Boston rebel. Rafe Spall is also well cast as the mercenary John Hancock who reluctantly joins the growing rebellion after his financial situation takes a hit. He manages to play smarmy and sympathetic all at once, which is tricky. Good action scenes (The History Channel excels at those) and again, some creative liberties are taken with the story line but overall, an interesting series that touches on an important part of the birth of the United States in a turbulent time.

I understand many of the previous reviewers opinion on this. As someone who watches History regularly, and many documentaries, I find much of this to be factually correct, but polished. I have seen these subjects covered in documentaries, and the series does match much of this, i.e. it has been shown Ben Franklin was a notorious womanizer...etc. It is stylized and maybe too modern, especially with language, but is none the less enjoyable to watch for the living room history buff. I'd like to think the filmmakers made it in this "style" to attract the younger viewer;maybe it will be interesting to the younger generation and give incentive to learn more. And maybe, just maybe, live up to what these great men sacrificed for... What these men had the courage to do.

I saw a commercial of this mini series while watching something else, and being a lover of history and noting some humor in the commercial I thought it could have potential. But most times mini series are over dramatic and slow. Sons of Liberty was a blast! Total fun from the first scene. Rafe Spall was brilliant as John Hancock. I have no idea if that is how Hancock conducted himself, but Spall breathed fresh air into an American legend. All the leads were excellent. Everyone brought something special to their characters. Some actors like Ben Barnes and Henry Thomas I recognized from past works, but everyone made me want to see what else these actors were in. I have no idea how historically accurate the mini series was, but heck - it was entertaining! If they were going for accuracy The History Channel would've made a documentary. I also have to comment on the director and the DP. There were some AWESOME shots. Particularly the swinging lantern with the action in the background and the gun smoke that slowly blows away to reveal the shooter. The whole series was well directed and beautifully shot and felt authentic. And now I really really want that damn trench coat Sam Adams was wearing the whole time. And a beer.