John Adams : Season 1

  • Network: HBO
  • Series Premiere Date: Mar 16, 2008
User Score
8.5

Universal acclaim- based on 115 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 96 out of 115
  2. Negative: 8 out of 115

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On

Review this tv show

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

  1. RaysaJ.
    Mar 16, 2008
    0
    Are you kidding.. is this a comedy? What a mess. The casting seems to be a fatal mistake.
  2. MikeG
    Apr 10, 2008
    2
    This boring show is made unwatchable by its awful cinematography. For some reason, the director thought it would be artistic to tilt the camera, do a lot of hand held camera work, and show lousy composition. The sound mix is terrible, and there are many passages of dialog that are completely unintelligible. I never knew American History could be so off putting!
  3. SusanR.
    Apr 3, 2008
    2
    Horribly cast, this is a mockery of history. Important points are glazed over or omitted entirely. Did the producers actually read David McCullough's biography?? Paul Giamatti is abominable as John Adams, a sloppy schlumpy mess. An Italian-American guy plays an English-American. Giamatti looks nothing like Adams' portraits. David Morse is also horribly mis-cast. Just all around Horribly cast, this is a mockery of history. Important points are glazed over or omitted entirely. Did the producers actually read David McCullough's biography?? Paul Giamatti is abominable as John Adams, a sloppy schlumpy mess. An Italian-American guy plays an English-American. Giamatti looks nothing like Adams' portraits. David Morse is also horribly mis-cast. Just all around garbage, except for the sets. Expand
  4. JS
    Jul 5, 2008
    3
    Acting is excellent but what is the purpose of a historical film if there are numerous inaccuracies. Even a low budget film could have easily been historically accurate. I am disappointed in that this could have been a wonderful movie to enjoy as a family but full frontal nudity especially within the first hour of the first episode. Seems there is more than early American history politics Acting is excellent but what is the purpose of a historical film if there are numerous inaccuracies. Even a low budget film could have easily been historically accurate. I am disappointed in that this could have been a wonderful movie to enjoy as a family but full frontal nudity especially within the first hour of the first episode. Seems there is more than early American history politics being sold in this film. Expand
  5. KK.
    Mar 17, 2008
    0
    Hard to watch.
  6. JaredH.
    Mar 23, 2008
    1
    Obviously I'm in the minority here, but I think this is, so far, an unmitigated disaster. Ordinary, expositional, non-dramatic, poorly cast and like a much less interesting Biography Channel profile. I suppose many people like this kind of stately poop that lacks any real spark of imagination, but I'm not one them. It gets "1" for Laura Linney, though she is not cast well here.
Metascore
78

Generally favorable reviews - based on 27 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 23 out of 27
  2. Negative: 0 out of 27
  1. Who says TV doesn't make history thought-provokingly exciting?
  2. We’re in excellent company, from the Boston Massacre to the Declaration of Independence to Adams’s plenipotentiary missions to Versailles and the Court of St. James to his unsought but extremely gratifying vice-presidency in the first Washington administration.
  3. 70
    At its best, the storytelling itself manages to accommodate a sense of historical contingency.