rekoch-64214 Hear ye! Hear ye! I have never seen a more absurd presentation of the birth of our nation in my life! It was 99.9% fiction! The only part of this series that was historical was the names . . . and I'm pretty certain our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves at the abuses to their stories as was expressed in this tripe! Walt Disney gave a more accurate account. The musical 1776 gave a more accurate account. And even if you call it fiction, it was still pathetic. There was no attention to detail or character development. The story went from event to event with little fluidity. All the characters were unlikeable. This movie should come with the warning: All resemblance to the truth is . . . and of a right ought to be . . . TOTALLY dissolved!!!

Venge "Sons of Liberty" pretends to be a dramatization of the first stages of America's War of Independence. The story chooses to revolve around an actual historical figure, Samuel Adams, as it follows his actions in stirring up a rebellion. The show is fraught with problems, however, not the least of which, as so many have pointed out, its complete lack of any sort of historical accuracy. The writers make fast and loose with the facts, until we feel more like we are watching an episode of 24, with Ben Barnes playing the lead role of Jack "Sam Adams" Bauer ... only set in 1770 rather then the present day. The awarded the show 4 stars mostly because of the elaborate sets and costume design. The musical score is also well done, and carries the show along nicely. The show misses on all other fronts, including writing, acting, directing, casting, and most of all, any sense of historical credibility. I believe it was a huge mistake to centre the show on a figure like Samuel Adams, when anyone with access to a computer or smart phone can look him up on Google and find that he was absolutely nothing like the character portrayed. Immediately, the audiences sympathy for the main character evaporates, as we find we are watching a complete sham. Better to have chosen an unknown character who viewed events from perhaps an inner circle, but who's name is not known today. Samuel Adams, and all the rest of the characters for that matter, could then have been portrayed more realistically. Another major gaff on the part of the writers was to portray the British as such unsavoury villains. The British, in truth, did none of the things the the show has them doing, other then the contrived version of the Boston Massacre, which loses all credibility when it has Sam Adams clubbing a British soldier into submission at its conclusion. The reasons for revolution are demeaned by this type of sensationalism, and the real heart of the matter, the lack of freedom to govern their own lives and land, and the pillaging of the colony for profits for England, get lost behind the mythical house raids and fictitious mass arrests.The acting is some of the worst that I have seen in some time, I think because of the horrible miscasting of so many characters. Ben Barnes is a bit of a Keanu Reeves look-alike, with acting skills on about the same level. He says his lines, goes through the motions, makes stern or happy faces, but none of it is terribly believable. John Hancock plays an astute New World businessman like an effeminate hair dresser. Ben Franklin as the most miscast character of the lot, and a total waste of the tremendous talent of Dean Norris. This show had so much potential, and it is a shame that so much time and money were wasted on this travesty. If you are wise, you will avoid it.

redinnevada I know, I know...it took "liberties" with historical accuracy. What book, movie or TV show hasn't though? This one was engaging, entertaining and thought provoking. But the biggest bang was the last 30 minutes. It was worth watching everything just for the signing of the Declaration of Independence and George Washington reciting parts of it to the troops before battle.For those who want to strictly adhere to history, watch a documentary. Because this presentation does dramatize and show some things that were only conjecture in the books we've read. But it weaves a core of truth through it all that makes you FEEL how powerful the choices these men made were.What this show will do (should do) is compel people to want to know more. Want to understand more. Sure, Wikipedia will be a fantastic resource to have open during the watching, but hopefully it will instill a thirst for knowledge of where "we" started, how far we've come and how far we still have to go in so many ways.Personally, I'm going to get a copy to watch with my older grandkids before the next 4th of July. It's a great way to introduce them to the fantastic heritage they have. Something they can't get out of a school book.

gearheadpatriot Recognizing the historical significance of the Sons of Liberty, I started the series with high expectations. While I understand literary license, this mini-series absolutely misrepresents the events and personalities it claims to represent. Dramatizing key events with romantic affairs, and comic book heroics cheapens the sacrifices of the men and women who founded our nation. If you want the real story of Lexington and Concord visit battle road, the National Park Service has an exceptional program at each of the critical junctures of the battle. Failing a trip to Boston, go to an Appleseed or Libertyseed clinic, you'll get the most accurate account of the battle you can find anywhere.