Sons of Liberty (2015)

Great Film overall

Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

I have a love of history. I have no objection to liberties being taken with characters not involved with the real story. I do not expect Mel Gibson historical lessons.Seemingly the masses of the unemployed also mass in the darkened streets. Made this feel like Hells kitchen from Gangs of New York. The PADDY POWER here surely not believable. The Independence from BRUTAL Britain was begun by the heroes of Organised Crime a form of Mafia and bootleggers. Has much changed in the USA. Here the leading lights of that revolution had vested interests. The main instigators of this rebellion wanted to break treaty's made by Britain. The Irish were surely mostly Presbyterian type. And why the accents unless they were RECENT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. No Trump back then. I will admit that this does not look cheaply done but feel that we will often be in the street where it all opened. When creating a myth much has to be discarded. If the American does believe the story as it has developed it is no wonder that a literal belief in the Bible as written is so strong.Yes it was all down to a very large self interested criminal minded percentage of the population this partition happened. Would that there was no quibble with any of the Empire or the age old enemies then our relationship might have flourished.I am watching TURN and feel it is a lot better in content without the boom boom drama.

I've been on the fence about how to rate this work; as a dramatic series, or a historical piece? As a dramatic work it's pretty good, well acted, well written and has a strong flow to it. The series mostly introduces the audience to some of the principal drivers of the American revolution. Though as a historical work, it is rife with inaccuracies about timelines, events and even the roles that certain individuals played in these very historic events.While the series contains many flaws, the single most unfortunate problem I observed lies within the character of Dr Joseph Warren. While Ryan Eggold is very talented actor, and does a great job within the bounds of this production, the historical record shows that the real life Dr Warren played a far more influential and galvanizing role among the patriots for liberty than what was portrayed. To the extent that the real life General Gage reportedly equated Dr Warren's death to that of 500 men, this production severely under exposed his influence and dedication to the cause.It must be very difficult to organize a production of this sort when there are so many intricate details that are interconnected, and have been so well documented. The balance of maintaining an interesting production while staying true to the details appears to have been such a challenge that instead of providing a factual record, we're offered a fictional story based on facts. The unfortunate part is that because the History Channel broadcast the series, it provides a sense of credence that leads us to believe this is a factual story. I just hope the younger audience, and those less knowledgeable on the topic choose to become more educated about American history than what is presented within this production.

Many other reviewers have posted the obvious and willful disregard of history in the series. Sam Adams is an anachronistic, stubbly Ninja (most men in the 18th century with any pretensions of gentility shaved regularly); Paul Revere is channeling Neo from _The Matrix_; Crispus Attucks gets shot in the head when the autopsy reported two chest wounds, etc.Just as disappointing is the omission of exciting scenes from actual history. The Battle of Concord and the retreat back to Boston of the Royal Marines were high drama in actuality, but perhaps the producers and directors didn't want to, ahem, "detract" from their terrible portrayal of the Battle of Bunker (Breed's) Hill. There some of the real details, such as Howe leading his troops up the hillside followed by a servant carrying a bottle of wine to toast his victory, only to be left the only unwounded man in the first rank of the assault, would have been nice. Of course, the series never differentiates between Gage and Howe, so that was perhaps too much to ask of a production that has so many, many things wrong with it.

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