MiketheWhistle First this is a historical drama that certainly takes liberties with many aspects to carry the story line, but regardless also shows a facet of the American Revolution that was unknown for decades that without the bravery of those involved we may never have won our freedom.The dramatic license therefore needs to be forgiven.I'm a history nut and have read many historical works and it's nice to sometimes have someone "read" to me.Some people dislike the soap opera aspects of the show, but the fact is real life is a soap opera so there was soap opera aspects to the true story so the question is how far off the writers are.Regardless if left-field well worth the entertainment and education.

keelhaul-80856 While this show may have historical inaccuracies(as mentioned by many), on an entertainment level, it really delivers, especially in a realm that few dare to trod. I loved reading about the Revolution and colonial period as a kid, but you rarely see a show about it on TV. I honestly thought this show would be boring, when I saw ads revealing it to be focused on spies instead of soldiers. Well, I decided to check it out anyway. After a slow start, it began to grow on me, and I thought it did an excellent job of building a slow-burning tension, and tying up ends that many other shows don't have the writing to solve. There is, indeed, some following of the army and military exploits, battles, etc. and definitely plenty of executions, ambushes, and sinister subterfuge. The British officers are cool characters, because, while Simcoe is a devilish brute, he still has moments of caring, and the Major comes across as truly realistic and charming. This isn't like many shows, where all enemy soldiers and diplomats are just cardboard cutouts of evil. Rogers is interesting too, and has good motivations, and I have always liked the actor playing him. Abraham and his father are interesting to watch as well, and the reasoning behind men like Benedict Arnold is great to explore, even if the show isn't always accurate.If you want absolute realism and historical truth, watch a documentary(which I love doing as well). If you want a spy thriller with (still informative and basically on point) action and intrigue, watch TURN. Basically, this show is like Braveheart or Gladiator on many levels. It is historical fiction and fantasy at times, but some of the best film-making and writing you can find. Well-worth a watch.

mm-39 I did not know what to expect for Turn to be like but I had low expectations. Turn would either be very bad or good! What I did like with Turn: There is no P C nonsense with Turn. I hate historical revision. The characters, times, and events represent Turn's time frame would be like. The characters are not 1 dimensional. Well developed full characters which are not all bad or all good. More human. There is drama, heels, cowards, and noblemen. Well acted where one has pathos with the characters. The costumes, sets, and budgets are believable. The script follows the historical events closely. The director leaves no soap opera/drama dead time with the acting/script. The pace and sequences segue perfectly. Surprisingly good! Nine out of ten stars.

tauld I just watched Episode 1, Season 1. There is a reference to Washington burning New York City to the ground. Everything that I read about American History says that our side never controlled New York City. It remained a Tory stronghold throughout the war. Washington "withdrew" to White Plains and never regained the city until his return - after the war had been over for some time - in 1783. To imply that Washington was anything other than on the run after the battle of Long Island seems to me a re-writing of history. And I feel that filmmakers have an obligation if they are purporting to relay history, to stick to the facts. And Washington burning NYC to the ground is not one of them. Washington lost far more battles than he won. Without looking it up I really can only think of one win.