I have a love of history. I have no objection to liberties being taken with characters not involved with the real story. I do not expect Mel Gibson historical lessons.Seemingly the masses of the unemployed also mass in the darkened streets. Made this feel like Hells kitchen from Gangs of New York. The PADDY POWER here surely not believable. The Independence from BRUTAL Britain was begun by the heroes of Organised Crime a form of Mafia and bootleggers. Has much changed in the USA. Here the leading lights of that revolution had vested interests. The main instigators of this rebellion wanted to break treaty's made by Britain. The Irish were surely mostly Presbyterian type. And why the accents unless they were RECENT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. No Trump back then. I will admit that this does not look cheaply done but feel that we will often be in the street where it all opened. When creating a myth much has to be discarded. If the American does believe the story as it has developed it is no wonder that a literal belief in the Bible as written is so strong.Yes it was all down to a very large self interested criminal minded percentage of the population this partition happened. Would that there was no quibble with any of the Empire or the age old enemies then our relationship might have flourished.I am watching TURN and feel it is a lot better in content without the boom boom drama.

"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.

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.

The dramatization of the events to the start of the American Revolution, following Sam Adams.This is a let down to what the history channel could have done. It's very historical inaccurate. I mean, come on, to not even get Sam Adams' life right just seems a little far-fetched. At least "History Channel" if you are going to tell history you should get it right. I understand that our history books can be a little off, and that you can do some updating to certain historical facts but to make Sam Adams, a young hot guy who runs a tavern. Rather than a middle-aged man who helps the family business of the malt house, which isn't a tavern. Poorly done, "History Channel" poorly done. Don't watch this miniseries. www.what-to-watch.com