Who payed the critics

Amateur movie with Big budget

There is just so much movie here. For some it may be too much. But in the same secretly sarcastic way most telemarketers say the phrase, the title of this one is particularly apt.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

"Sons of Liberty" may not be comprised of historical facts that are 100% accurate. Oh well! Get over it. Observe how many films exist in our society that are based on history, but are not entirely accurate. We still watch them and find these movies entertaining and we as professional historians have the ability to research materials and find the truth and observe where these films are inaccurate. It's usually not a big deal! Therefore, my inquiry is: what is the real problem with "Sons of Liberty" that some of you have? My honest opinion is the negative comments in these reviews written for "Sons of Liberty" actually has nothing to do with historical accuracy, but political allegiance. If you watch this film with the hopes of acquiring a Marxist or Socialist perspective of the American Revolution and no other opinion suits you, I'm sorry to say that you will be disappointed. For those of you who are not open to the opinions of others, just keep in mind what Thomas Jefferson said:"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."In other words, Thomas Jefferson is not simply referring to questioning the existence of a higher power. He is claiming that a person must question themselves and their own beliefs to have a strong stance on their position. Do you question yours, or do you merely have the references which confirm your view? In conclusion, what this film strives to do more than anything is portray why the Founding Fathers started a Revolution against Britain and why they wrote the Constitution. I happen to find the History channel did this very well! Happy 4th of July everyone!

I am 24 years old, and this is one young viewer who is so disappointed. You would think based on the fact it's a history channel production, we would get the utmost accurate depiction (with all its resources) of how our Founding Father's lived and sacrificed for our independence. WRONG. It looked like a College kid on shrooms wrote and directed this movie. The previews got me pumped for what I thought would be a rebirth of the HBO Series John Adam's, but with the evil cousin's side of historical events. Like the John Adam's Series, I was hoping to be transported into history as if I were in a time Machine; looking into a window of the our countries past. I didn't get transported, it felt like a Soap Opera. It seemed like the sets were recycled from Pirates of the Caribbean, or even Pirates (Yes the porno). What truly got me was the fact the actors who were suppose to portray our founding fathers, was so inaccurately casted, such as Sam Adams he is suppose to be 45 years old and we end up with a younger version that, I half expected him to break into a musical, because they made him look like he should be in The Backstreet Boys "Vintage Style." It's like the casting crew was also on shrooms the day they hired the actors, because I don't see any other excuse for the horrible job. I later found out that it was a historical fiction story, but don't get me started on that one. If we compare this to the patriot also a historical fiction, you would be better off re-watching that instead. Don't buy this on demand you will get ripped off. I only watched the whole thing, because I paid for it, and the whole time I was looking forward to the credits. Cried when I finished the John Adams Series, because I wanted more. I was hoping that this series would help feel that void, but no Banana :(

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.

As an British person I would like to know if Americans actually believe the myths associated with their independence? The fictional writing on the "Sons of Liberty" would be almost laughable if they were not such a misrepresentation of the facts.From a British viewpoint our General Gage and his soldiers (known to Americans only as "Redcoats") are portrayed as though they were an occupying Nazi SS Division subjugating most of liberty loving Europe in WWII.Lets face it America's time had come and it was always going to be a painful exit. But remember that many colonists voted with their feet and moved to Canada or back to Britain. Also, without the help of our old enemy France, who ever seeking an opportunity to strike at Britain, came to the "Traitor" George Washington's aid then Yorktown may never have happened.As for Paul Revere – his part in the story, as depicted, only serves to further embellish the myth and legend of this pathetic man. We have our own hero here called Robin Hood. The myths about him are as strong as those about Revere, that is mainly BS.When you consider that the British Empire in the rest of the planet has been largely judged to be a force for good, why was it that only the American colonies wanted out? Do Americans ever consider that today there are 54 member countries of the British Commonwealth including some that were never in the Empire. Perhaps the US should apply to be re admitted to the Commonwealth? One more thing. The US lost the War of 1812. The US invaded Canada and was repulsed by a small British Army contingent, Canadians and importantly ex-pat Americans. The aim was to annex Canada and they failed. What came afterward was a sideshow for the British who were at the time engaged in a world war with a certain Napoleon. The US just tried to be sneaky and take advantage.