Sons Of Liberty movie full length review - Apparently the Historical Fiction Channel didn't find the real American Revolution interesting enough
I can't list all the mistakes, inaccuracies, conjured-up events, and key omissions in this mini-series. First, I don't know what they all are.
My wife found a web site that lists dozens that they found (in the first episode alone), and I finally stopped her in disgust before she was ready to move on to episode 2. And secondly, to list them would require me to mark the entire review as a spoiler.
Frankly, this whole mini-series is a spoiler: it spoils our nation's history at perhaps the most interesting period: the decade leading up to our declaration of independence from England. But apparently the founding fathers didn't have enough of a sense of the dramatic and didn't forge our country in a way that suited the so-called History Channel, which I think should now be required to rename itself the Historical Fiction Channel.
I recommend you not waste 6 hours of your time watching this mini-series, which is somewhat engaging, but strays so much from what really happened that it will leave you with many unnecessary wrong impressions of what happened, how it happened, and when it happened. The 2008 mini- series "John Adams" was better, although with many of its own mistakes as well. At least that show was much better written, directed, and acted.
Yet, in fairness, "John Adams" lacked the excitement of this one, such as Samuel Adams' Jason Bourne/James Bond-like opening roof-jumping chase sequence. I wondered if he was going to morph into Matt Damon or Daniel Craig. I expected a hot babe in a BMW convertible to whiz by at the last minute and see Sam Adams leap from the roof into the passenger seat to escape the Redcoats. Although that didn't happen, this kind of ridiculous scene set the tone for the next 5-3/4 hours.
Honestly, when it comes to the American Revolution, I just don't understand why everyone associated with the production wouldn't be driven to get every detail right. It's your country, people! There were more than enough interesting things that happened during the years leading up to 1776 to fill up a 60-hour mini-series, let alone a 6-hour one. And they don't need to be "fixed!" The way they happened was just fine.
Anyone who has studied that period at all knows how much turmoil there was, and not just between England and the colonies. There was just as much conflict here between those favoring resistance and ultimately independence, and those who remained loyal to England. Public opinion differed widely between the 13 colonies and among the citizens of each colony. That deserves to be explored more.
I think History Channel made a big mistake by trying to make a hip version of history instead of an accurate one. I would have been much happier if they'd taken the slice of space/time that they did and made it accurate, and then layered successive seasons of mini-series that took different perspectives. For example, this one focused on Boston, and I certainly have no issue with that choice as a start. But I think it would be fascinating to see the same period portrayed (accurately, of course) in future shows from the perspectives of Philadelphia, Virginia, Maryland, New York, London!, and certainly of the deep south, which we never seem to hear anything about, other than that they were generally fine with the way things were and didn't want the boat rocked (the slaves might have had a different view of that!). An epic project like that could generate interest we haven't seen since "Roots" back in the 70s.
Oh well. The show kept us watching for all six hours (thankfully shorter due to the DVR), so I guess the producers succeeded in sucking us in. I just wish I could recommend it to others, but I can't.