steve0557
I consider the true history of the American Revolution, and the establishment of our present Constitution, as lost forever; and nothing but misrepresentations, or partial accounts of it, will ever be recovered. (John Adams) Never was that quote so true as with this pathetic, over reaching example of the American revolution in film. I missed it on Television so I purchased the set on Amazon. I watched part 1 and some of part 2. I was literally cringing and screaming at my TV. So as not to have debris spread all over my living room for taking a hammer to it I calmed myself long enough to toss the garbage into the trash. In case my views are not clear. The makers should be tarred and feathered. At least then they could claim that they have some knowledge of what it was actually like to live during that time. As it stands now, its clear the producers haven't a single clue.
jayne-75330
"Sons of Liberty" may not be comprised of historical facts that are 100% accurate. Oh well! Get over it. Observe how many films exist in our society that are based on history, but are not entirely accurate. We still watch them and find these movies entertaining and we as professional historians have the ability to research materials and find the truth and observe where these films are inaccurate. It's usually not a big deal! Therefore, my inquiry is: what is the real problem with "Sons of Liberty" that some of you have? My honest opinion is the negative comments in these reviews written for "Sons of Liberty" actually has nothing to do with historical accuracy, but political allegiance. If you watch this film with the hopes of acquiring a Marxist or Socialist perspective of the American Revolution and no other opinion suits you, I'm sorry to say that you will be disappointed. For those of you who are not open to the opinions of others, just keep in mind what Thomas Jefferson said:"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."In other words, Thomas Jefferson is not simply referring to questioning the existence of a higher power. He is claiming that a person must question themselves and their own beliefs to have a strong stance on their position. Do you question yours, or do you merely have the references which confirm your view? In conclusion, what this film strives to do more than anything is portray why the Founding Fathers started a Revolution against Britain and why they wrote the Constitution. I happen to find the History channel did this very well! Happy 4th of July everyone!
sapphire_dragon-1
I get that it is fictionalised but you are dealing with real people and some responsibility and respect should have been taken. The dehumanisation of the British and particularly the psychopathic portrayal of Thomas Gage was especially sickening. Gage avoided violence when ever he could. He was a firm believer of the law (to a fault according to officer complaints) and he would have never committed most of the illegal acts he is portrayed as executing. As for his marriage, recollections of public displays of affection between the couple and eleven children (before, during and after Boston) suggest their marriage was generally happy. While Gage was not the perfect husband he was not abusive as depicted. Margaret was known to be intelligent, independent and outspoken, not the guarded, protected, intimidated mouse shown in the series. Overall I think the writers took the fiction too far and have crossed some morally dubious lines. If I wanted to get people interested in the American Revolution I would not use this series.
gsumnr
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.
AD
