SummaryAs young men, Sam Adams (Ben Barnes), John Adams (Henry Thomas), Paul Revere (Michael Raymond-Jame), John Hancock (Rafe Spall), and Dr. Joseph Warren (Ryan Eggold) join forces to as the Sons of Liberty to try to start a revolution in this three-part miniseries.
SummaryAs young men, Sam Adams (Ben Barnes), John Adams (Henry Thomas), Paul Revere (Michael Raymond-Jame), John Hancock (Rafe Spall), and Dr. Joseph Warren (Ryan Eggold) join forces to as the Sons of Liberty to try to start a revolution in this three-part miniseries.
Viewers will get a kick out of how each character is portrayed from what we know today about them from history texts and biographies. Samuel Adams likes his beer, Benjamin Franklin his women and John Hancock his money.
I really liked it, I recorded it on dvr and had a marathon, couldn't head off to bed until I'd watched it all. Yes some parts didn't ring true to what some were taught in school as children, but I enjoyed it non the less.
This is a very good series indeed! Very nice filmeffects and acting. Im hoping for more seasons of this! Though all of the details may not be correct, it tells of a time when ordinary men oppose the tyranni of a foreign king.
Although this miniseries stages large-scale action reasonably well (with the occasional lapse into visual clichés, such as the silent/slow-motion Boston Massacre) and has a marvelous atmospheric quality, it seems more generic and un-special the more conventionally "exciting" it's trying to be.
At its best, The Sons of Liberty captures in admirable detail the cleverness of the rebels, in their smuggling efforts and ability to amass and hide guns and ammunition, their personal bravery and astonishing commitment to a long-odds pursuit. If only their intelligence and ideology had been given the same, or indeed any, attention.
So many strong ingredients could have gone into this brew, but, no matter how obviously the casting tries to turn up the heat, it's still a half-empty glass of weak tea.
Ok first off. Do not bash this for its historical content. As if anyone that is really concerned with actual real historical facts watches the History channel for accurate retelling of history anyway. If so that is a personal problem of yours. Go to the Library and read a book. It was entertaining. That is what television is all about. Of course they made stuff up. Its tv. Good visual effects. Awesome musical score. I know my American History. I was amused at this programs retelling of the battle of Bunker Hill. We all know that it was Breeds Hill. They left out the important events such as the Tax Act and the Sugar Act. They knew those were not as entertaining as the Boston Tea Party and the Boston Massacre. Face it, American History as important and interesting as it is, does not always make the best TV. Someone needs to check Samuel Adams Brewery stock for this month because they were pumping out the beer ads.
Amerika Birleşik Devletlerinin İngilizlerden bağımsızlaşmasını anlatan ve bu süreçteki kurucu babalar diye de bilinen isimlerin üzerinden bunu aktaran bir dizi. Çok başarılı bir çalışma değilse de tarihe meraklı olanlar için kısa bir özet denilebilir. Kimin kim olduğu kısaca aktarılmış...
I gave it a 2 because the story gave a sense of the feelings during that period. It gets a F for historical accuracy. And the thing is, it did not have to be. They could have gotten many things right and still had a great story. The most glaring of many mistakes was the failure to show why Gage left Boston. Washington with the help of John Knox put a cannonade on Dorchester Heights threatening the fleet. He left to preserve the fleet. Otherwise he would have not of left. It is a great story. Really disappointing for those, unlike the critics, who know the history.