BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

Mjeteconer Just perfect...

Stoutor It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

cristo111 I'm pleased that someone has finally captured the character of Sam Adams, as the "Assassin's Creed" style ninja and impoverished pub-keeper he truly was - not the rich middle-aged brewer I mis-remembered from supposed history books. And John Adams, his wise, established older cousin. I was so surprised to hear that John was older after having read the fictional account in David McCullough's novel "John Adams". Silly David. Though I must confess, I love your voice-overs on Ken Burns' fictional movies about America! Imagine the chilling frisson of historical recognition as you hear Benjamin Franklin deliver his historical and immortal line to our intrepid trio of freedom-seeking Bostonians: "Come on in, just don't ransack the place". Wow. History comes alive. Totally believable. This is so believable you don't need to ever believe anything else. Bravo.

Simply-Red Spoiler alert! If you are trying to get a history lesson with period accurate props, script and language...move on, this is not for you.This is a History Channel production...that channel is run by Progressives and wouldn't dare provide real history in a program like this because it would fly in the face of the false narrative Progressives strive to teach our children about American History.With that said, it portrays the Americans in a surprisingly good light.The American Colonist's "American accents" and manner of speaking is "slight grin" type of funny if you take this little series for what it is..."entertainment". It's a fun, fast moving loose synopsis of the beginning of the American Revolution. It ends as the war just gets underway.This is not to be taken very seriously. It's a loose take on history, but not a historical drag like many serious history flicks can be.This is History Channel, people...it has about as much historically correct credence these days as the Weather Channel's regurgitating the "man made global warming" farce. Only a fool would believe it in total.

Robert J. Maxwell I haven't seen the whole series so maybe my judgment is compromised.Yet I did watch the episode dealing with the Boston Tea Party and it struck me as terrible. It's not so much the narrative that was bothersome, as the writing and the directorial technique.Of course, much of the dialog must be fabricated, since there were no TV cameras recording the event. Yet, the actors have voices that originated in the San Fernando Valley, and they speak lines that sound as if they were copied directly from the action movies we've seen recently. "That's rich," laughs one character. "I'm the damned governor and whatever I do is permitted and legal."As they go about heaving the boxes of tea overboard, they make wisecracks, just as Steven Segal might. An American hero is outlined like Dirty Harry at the amusement park, daring the British soldiers to shoot him."Do not fire!" shouts the British commander. "That's what he wants. You'll just make a martyr out of him." Really. Here's what the Journal of the American Revolution has to say about it: "The takeaway from this is that the Sons of Liberty program is highly entertaining historical fiction. We hope it energizes more people to study the Revolution and discover the truth behind these events. In many cases, the real story is better than fiction."There's something far more disturbing than the historical inaccuracies and the extreme slow motion of firing muskets. It's revealed, I think, in the series' tag line:"There's the revolution you know. And the one that's about to begin."The government is the enemy, and shown to be brutal in the use of military force to suppress yearnings for freedom and independence. The British officers look mean. They torture and kill prisoners. The Americans are handsome, resolute, proud, and don't like the treatment they receive from an alien government they feel is invalid and is overreaching its authority. The colonials react the only way real men would -- with violence.Is it possible that this series is designed deliberately to tap into the current unfocused anger that seems so common in the US today? Is the intended audience to include those of us who feel the current government should somehow be dismantled, that it's invalid? You know, the Americans who look forward to the revolution "that's about to begin"? If it's all like this, no six year old should miss it.

lra33 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