Sons of Liberty

Very few movies or shows about this period of history so if you're interested it's worth watching. But if you are a history buff you'll be more irritated as the lack of historical accuracy and detail in a show produced by the history channel... almost like then didn't actually bother to learn it before making.

Casting is poor, many of the actors are inaccurately cast for the age of the person

Uniforms, formations, mannerisms, field commands, etc for the redcoats are pure fiction other than their red jackets. At one point general gage (who was 55 at the time yet played by a much younger actor) use the command "rapid fire" to describe the artillery bombardment of bunker hill. Rapid fire 🙄

Much of action is too stylized and martial arts style and does not resemble combat of the era.

The battle of Lexington and concord are a joke at best. Basically no display of the action at concord bridge and nothing of the patriots constant harassment of the British march back to Boston.

No details or depiction of the setting or scale or layout of the combat in the show.

General Washington is depicted as a war mongering tough guy who volunteers himself for commander in chief position when in reality he was nominated for the position and reluctantly accepted.

John Hancock is depicted as a faggy dandy with little to no backbone when in reality he was a savvy rich merchant and respected in the community.

No historical basis of general gages wife sleeping with dr warren. Totally made up bs that doesn't add anything to the story and appears to only be added so a female character could be included.

Any true American Revolutionary War fans or history nuts may wanna skip this mildly entertaining but historically lazy and irritating slap in the face to a great American story.

The history channel should be embarrassed of this. Embarrassed.

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

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.

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.

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.