Excellent adaptation.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

I can forgive the historical embellishments and inaccuracies but I can't overlook the poor casting. With a series loaded with iconic historical characters, it is a shame that the portrayal of most of them is so lame. Very lackluster performances. Speeches meant to be moving fall short. Ben Barnes as Sam Adams is ridiculous. Sam Adams was past 50 at that time, older than many others there including George Washington. His portrayal falls terribly short. Totally lacks the compelling attributes that made him such a significant leader during that period. The players who portrayed George Washington and Benjamin Franklin betrays the greatness of the historical personalities. One would expect to see them portrayed almost larger than life. I was expecting compelling performances that would leave me in some bit of awe and respect for their monumental roles and even feel patriotic, but t didn't. I am not one who makes it a habit to criticize acting in programs, but I find the acting and casting so poor that it really robs from my enjoying this program.

History class for me was so removed and sterile. Mostly because I hated to read so engagement was doomed from the start. Im sure im not the only one holding that sentiment. But I think this type of entertainment could enhance history class by setting the "stage" so to speak. I hope it inspires creativity in pedagogical development. What to include: Please note there is a 1,000 word limit on reviews. The recommended length is 200 to 500 words. The minimum length for reviews is 10 lines of text. Reviews which are too short or have been padded with junk text will be discarded. You may only post a single review per title.

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.

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.