jahermes-84845 Glad I didn't read the reviews before I watched this. Perhaps you can put you expert knowledge of history (which is recollections from others since I assume you did not live during this period to personally witness these events) aside and remember that these men are true American heroes and the major events actually did happen. Who knows how and what was specifically spoken 250 years ago.This series was great for anyone that forgets why we are free to even have these debates in this type of medium. A lot of our youth are not pursuing this information and certainly not reading about it on paper or online unless its a requirement. Perhaps this is what is needed to get them engaged beyond the classroom.Bet you didn't like the movie Lincoln either because Daniel Day Lewis is 2 inches shorter than Lincoln.

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.

cristo111 I'm pleased that someone has finally captured the character of Sam Adams, as the "Assassin's Creed" style ninja and impoverished pub-keeper he truly was - not the rich middle-aged brewer I mis-remembered from supposed history books. And John Adams, his wise, established older cousin. I was so surprised to hear that John was older after having read the fictional account in David McCullough's novel "John Adams". Silly David. Though I must confess, I love your voice-overs on Ken Burns' fictional movies about America! Imagine the chilling frisson of historical recognition as you hear Benjamin Franklin deliver his historical and immortal line to our intrepid trio of freedom-seeking Bostonians: "Come on in, just don't ransack the place". Wow. History comes alive. Totally believable. This is so believable you don't need to ever believe anything else. Bravo.

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.