Sons of Liberty

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.

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.

I just rewatched this mini-series and think I enjoyed it more the 2nd time.

This time I had the op to do some reading regarding his historical accuracy. For a series on the network it originally aired, I would believe that it should have been far more accurate. There are not nearly enough goofs for all the inaccuracies.

I have to ignore the inaccuracies because otherwise I would be very unhappy.

What the show did do is I hope give some people, the vast majority of people, a little understanding for the origins of our country. One can see the rationale for the majority of the Bill of Rights including the 2nd Amendment. So many people believe that the 2nd Amendment is primarily for self-protection where it really was for self-protection against the government. Other things include freedom of speech, stopping the govt from just taking property, freedom of press, etc.

I would have loved for there to be a follow-up that covered the Rev War although the recent GW miniseries may have (haven't watched it yet).

We truly need to remember all the founders of this country. Did they have some faults (slavery, womanizing, etc), but they were also very brave men that risked everything without which we would never have had the United States.

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