FirstWitch
A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.
Zlatica
One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.
Scarlet
The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.
james-seaford
Actually, it was the first five minutes, but I persevered. I guess I had an expectation that there would be some actual history in it. This is like that Japanese Restaurant where no Japanese would set foot in the place, much less work there. Not an authentic experience. Characters are all one-dimensional, lead actor is putting on a rather strong American actor for the period (which is very odd because the actor is British). The dialogue is even odder, and reminds me of something you would find in Buffy the Vampire rather than a TV series on a subject matter Americans all take rather seriously - when done right, the results are amazing i.e. John Adams. Use a long stick to avoid this hazard.
indejason
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 :(
gsumnr
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.
lra33
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
