Sons of Liberty (2015)

Very Cool!!!

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

"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.

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.

I haven't seen the whole series so maybe my judgment is compromised.Yet I did watch the episode dealing with the Boston Tea Party and it struck me as terrible. It's not so much the narrative that was bothersome, as the writing and the directorial technique.Of course, much of the dialog must be fabricated, since there were no TV cameras recording the event. Yet, the actors have voices that originated in the San Fernando Valley, and they speak lines that sound as if they were copied directly from the action movies we've seen recently. "That's rich," laughs one character. "I'm the damned governor and whatever I do is permitted and legal."As they go about heaving the boxes of tea overboard, they make wisecracks, just as Steven Segal might. An American hero is outlined like Dirty Harry at the amusement park, daring the British soldiers to shoot him."Do not fire!" shouts the British commander. "That's what he wants. You'll just make a martyr out of him." Really. Here's what the Journal of the American Revolution has to say about it: "The takeaway from this is that the Sons of Liberty program is highly entertaining historical fiction. We hope it energizes more people to study the Revolution and discover the truth behind these events. In many cases, the real story is better than fiction."There's something far more disturbing than the historical inaccuracies and the extreme slow motion of firing muskets. It's revealed, I think, in the series' tag line:"There's the revolution you know. And the one that's about to begin."The government is the enemy, and shown to be brutal in the use of military force to suppress yearnings for freedom and independence. The British officers look mean. They torture and kill prisoners. The Americans are handsome, resolute, proud, and don't like the treatment they receive from an alien government they feel is invalid and is overreaching its authority. The colonials react the only way real men would -- with violence.Is it possible that this series is designed deliberately to tap into the current unfocused anger that seems so common in the US today? Is the intended audience to include those of us who feel the current government should somehow be dismantled, that it's invalid? You know, the Americans who look forward to the revolution "that's about to begin"? If it's all like this, no six year old should miss it.

Many other reviewers have posted the obvious and willful disregard of history in the series. Sam Adams is an anachronistic, stubbly Ninja (most men in the 18th century with any pretensions of gentility shaved regularly); Paul Revere is channeling Neo from _The Matrix_; Crispus Attucks gets shot in the head when the autopsy reported two chest wounds, etc.Just as disappointing is the omission of exciting scenes from actual history. The Battle of Concord and the retreat back to Boston of the Royal Marines were high drama in actuality, but perhaps the producers and directors didn't want to, ahem, "detract" from their terrible portrayal of the Battle of Bunker (Breed's) Hill. There some of the real details, such as Howe leading his troops up the hillside followed by a servant carrying a bottle of wine to toast his victory, only to be left the only unwounded man in the first rank of the assault, would have been nice. Of course, the series never differentiates between Gage and Howe, so that was perhaps too much to ask of a production that has so many, many things wrong with it.