Sons of Liberty

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.

for everyone who says this show is fictitious how do you know the type of dialect that was used in colonial times in Boston for sure,or even the extent of details as to how events truly went down.Not one of you who writes these reviews was around then and most of you base your so called knowledge of how events went down in our countries history on school text books filled with misinterpreted information and fictitious history as well even propagandist at times.Which so many of you have been repetitively been taught to believe.Stop being so naive,This show is just another interpretation of how events might have gone down,with it's own little twist to it.You cant completely fit every event that shaped our history into a mini series hence (mini).It's going to be fast pace and yes this version is written and directed towards the younger crowd.I found it different and interesting as well as entertaining.History channel is still one of the best channels we have. Don't knock it for trying to educate a younger generation that has very little interest in our founding fathers.For those of you read this remember for every bad review there are as many good ones.Watch and be your own judge

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.

My word, this stuff is some kind of Batman, Spiderman, etc version of the revolutionary days in Massachusetts. As a Bostonian who knows more than a bit about Sam Adams, John Adams, John Hancock, and even more about Paul Revere, I hardly recognized them, or even many of the events depicted. At first, I thought maybe I was getting senile, but the manure just kept piling higher til I realized that is what much of it is.

Sam Adams was deeply religious and had little (none) of the comedian about him. That is exactly why he doesn't get the recognition he DESERVES among the Founding Fathers. He was boring and RELIGIOUS. This series gets NONE of that right.

What in the universe does General Gage's WIFE have to do with anything? I'll tell you. Absolutely nothing. More completely fictional plot threads to ... what ... make sure some women keep watching and to make sure we understand how evil Gage was? Oh boy.

The Boston Tea Party!!!!! It seems the British soldiers were invited and they stood around and watched!!! LMAO!!! People, listen, most of this stuff in the first 1.5 episodes isn't really true. But still, thanks for watching, and now go learn about the REAL SAM ADAMS.

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.