Sons of Liberty Review: Fails to Satisfy Our Historical Hunger

The A&E mini-series Sons of Liberty lacks a historical punch, taking too many liberties on the greatest story ever told.

Review by Matt Cummings

Historical Fiction has returned to television in a big way: with Vikings and Black Sails doing very well for their respective networks, it's clear that audiences have a thirst that at this point cannot be quenched. The problem with all of them is historical accuracy: for the A&E mini-series Sons of Liberty, it seems like someone forgot to tell them that such standards exist.

Led by colonial radical Samuel Adams (Ben Barnes) and businessman John Hancock (Rafe Spall), a group of Bostonian agitators begin to fight back against a variety of taxes and harsh treatment by Governor Thomas Hutchinson (Sean Gilder). As Britain responds to the Boston Massacre by sending General Thomas Gage (Marton Csokas) to subdue the rebels, Bostonians respond by organizing and preparing for a full-blown conflict. This three-night, six-hour event traces the American Revolution from its earliest beginnings, as people like Benjamin Franklin (Dean Norris), John Adams (Henry Thomas), and George Washington (Jason O'Mara) join the growing resistance which soon becomes a world-wide conflict.

There's some things to like here, from the realistic sets and CGI British war ships to the costumes and generally dirty nature of Boston. But if you're looking for a Docu-drama, look elsewhere. It's clear that Director Kari Skogland cares more about the drama behind the Sons of Liberty - which would be labeled a terrorist organization by modern FBI standards - than simply letting history do the telling. In fact, there's lots that Skogland and her writing team get flat-out wrong. A meeting/alliance between Hancock and Samuel Adams? Yes, but not in any way how A&E imagines it. In reality, the two joined to defeat the Stamp Act, not to smuggle Hancock's goods onto land. There's no evidence that John or Samuel Adams were at The Boston Massacre (although John did represent the soldiers at their trial), or that Samuel - who never went by Sam as depicted in the mini-series - attacked British soldiers soon after the Massacre. It's not all a loss, but by the time we get to some real history we've seen too many inaccuracies to care.

Performances range from good to decent, with Skogland failing to capture the look of many characters sans Spall and Csokas. It's clear that she's going for performances over appearance, but I'd refer you to the excellent HBO production John Adams, which found great looking actors who could actually act. I'm not saying Norris, Thomas, or Barnes aren't up to the task, but they look nothing like our Founding Fathers. But the stakes are a little higher than mere appearances. In a time when even the story of The Revolution is replacing many of its voices for one - George Washington - it's important that these 'cogs' in the machine of rebellion get their due time. It doesn't seem Sons is going down that path, a fact you'll have to weigh before committing to it.

Why does Hollywood think events so interesting as The American Revolution need dressing up? The story of our nation's past is interesting enough, filled with words and deeds that need no 'dramatic interpretation' as A&E has stated. Such a path does make for good theater, but in the end it's inaccurate. If blissful ignorance if your thing, then Sons of Liberty will quell the craving but not satisfy it.

Sons of Liberty premieres January 25th at 9/8C on A&E.

Discuss this review with fellow SJF fans on Facebook. On Twitter, follow us at @SandwichJohnFilms, and follow author Matt Cummings at @mfc90125.