John Adams (2008) User Reviews (150)

Magnificent work from HBO

[Schmiggy_JK23 · 9/10 · 16 March 2008]

The first two episodes of this mini series have captivated me like very few things have. It is interesting to see a detailed look at the foundation of this great nation come to life instead of merely being read on page.

The cast is stellar. Giamatti is a great actor and he brings John Adams to life. Wilkinson as Benjamin Franklin is one of the highlights. The realism of the time frame is brought to life like few movies have done; accuracy in costumes, to architecture, and locational shots.

This is a truly moving piece, and a must watch for fans of history, and those with a appreciation of great cinema regardless.

Slow at times, a few inaccuracies, but definitely worth watching

[mhlong · 8/10 · 7 April 2008]

This has been so much better than monstrous fictions like The Patriot. Before this series, my image of John Adams was William Daniels in 1776 and those pictures of a dumpy, white wigged aging gentleman we usually see in Adam's portrait. It was quite difficult to imagine them as one and the same. And how did he ever get to be President? Finally, here is Paul Giamatti giving depth, emotion, doubt, pride, and more and doing it as a human. And his is just one of several outstanding performances. Laura Linney is absolutely fabulous as Abigail Adams. Her every look, movement, action conveys a thousand words. (and I enjoyed that Tom Wilkenson is Ben Franklin here and Lord Cornwallis in The Patriot) And I cannot say enough about the most attention to detail I've ever seen in an historical piece - the clothes, the surroundings, the living conditions, like the small pox vaccinations. It shows a real care and concern on the part of all involved to present what they are portraying as accurate as it is.

Of course, there are problems. The opening moments of Episode 1 should have drawn you in immediately. Unfortunately, I suspect it turned people off. It wasn't until late in 1 and into 2 that if one stuck it out that long, you would start to be drawn in by the characterizations. I wasn't sure I wanted to sit through all 7 episodes, but I'm now going to miss it dearly when it's over in 2 or so weeks.

And there are inaccuracies. Adams came and went several times to Europe, and more of his family accompanied him at times, and I think he was part of a larger delegation. That little bit of disagreement between him and one of his sons who accused him of being a neglectful parent - that is so late 20th century. Especially considering as others have pointed out, a lot of the Continental army regulars were gone from home for years.

But this series puts the most human element I've ever seen into a period when people of that time are viewed larger than life, people we've almost made out to be super-human. Someone wrote that the series was boring. Show me any one's life at the minutiae required to show that person as human, and you'll see boring. Our lives are not a series of highlights and sound bites with fade outs between - there are ups, downs, and a lot of just living, but it's real. And John Adams, thank all those involved, shows it.

Step back into history ..

[godlymanjesus · 9/10 · 26 September 2020]

I feel that the John Adams mini-series is the best drama that HBO has ever produced. The realism of life in the American colonies bursts forth in the first episode of the series, and much attention was given to even the smallest detail. The costumes are superb, and technical crew did a fine job with s studio scenery. The outdoor camera work is excellent, and the storyline stays true to its historical relevance. However, I feel that the best thing about this production is the casting. Each actor is perfect for their perspective roles. David Morse brings General George Washington to life in a most impressive manner and Paul Giamatti's performance in the lead role is absolutely impeccable. Kudos to Tom Hooper for his direction and dramatic effect, as this is film at its very finest. Another noteworthy performance is Laura Linney in the role of Abigail Adams. I have purchased the mini-series and will watch it again and again .. to remind myself of the obstacles that our forefathers had to overcome in order to successfully form the only nation ever founded upon the principles of God-given rights and individual liberty, not as a true democracy, but as a constitutional representative republic (assisted by Divine Providence).

Magnificent in every detail

[bobwen · 10/10 · 29 March 2008]

The attention to detail in this mini-series only caps off the brilliant writing and acting, top to bottom. So refreshing to see this attention in simple things like seeing the cannons fire in the distance, THEN hearing the blasts several seconds later, as it is in real life... ditto thunder and lightning... brilliant. Even more importantly, seeing how our founding fathers (and mothers!) laid it all out on the line, risking life and property for ideas and ideals. This series should be mandatory watching in high school history classes from now on. It should also be mandatory viewing for our Congress, if only to remind them of what guts, personal conviction, and personal sacrifice in service to your COUNTRY is. Maybe today's leaders wouldn't be so quick to dismantle the Constitution if they see accurately what our ancestors went through to secure it in the first place. HBO, Tom Hanks, et al ... you are to be genuinely congratulated! And special thanks to David McCullough for the book, and the writers for their screenplays.

Historical Drama at Its Finest!

[lavatch · 10/10 · 16 March 2008]

Although the miniseries title and episodes focus on the life of John Adams, the strength of the film lies in the exceptional ensemble cast. It was impressive to see such giants as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, as well as the lesser known individuals, truly inhabited by the actors.

The challenge of the series was to breathe life into those stories and lives we know so well. The filmmakers worked closely to David McCullough's outstanding book for the details, along with the human side of the story captured in the voluminous correspondence of John and Abigail Adams. The political, military, and personal issues were all thoughtfully brought to life. The design values of the film were also superb. Nothing looked stagy or stilted in the sets and costumes, which provided an unusual authenticity of period style for television drama. With each appearance of George Washington (David Morse), it was hard not to gasp due to the believability of his character.

The drama of America's breaking from England for independence was an improbable story and one dependent on the courage and idealism of the individuals portrayed in this film. The personalities of these great figures make this program an accessible and rewarding experience for the entire family. For the patient viewer, what emerges from the John Adams miniseries is not merely a history lesson, but a drama with great relevance today. Simply put, we need more people in our country right now just like John and Abigail Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, Knox, and, above all, the ordinary human beings heroically portrayed in this fine film!

Exceptional Performances

[irg · 10/10 · 20 April 2008]

In the film industry we have seen many exceptional productions, made so by incredible special effects, animation processes, Computer-Generated Imagery (CGI) and the like.

Seldom we find this same quality in the performance from the individual actors. More often we do recognize the difficulty, uniqueness and the gift that theater performances bring to their audiences. The gift of the individual performer is bared to the audience, where the audience feels the essence of the character transported by its performer.

The John Adams production has accomplished this by giving these performers the opportunity to display the essence of their talents. It is evident they gave their all.

The professionalism and talent of the entire production is of the highest quality, the realism and fidelity to the times is very impressive.

The attention to details, the very talented cast and the unique ability of Tom Hooper to capture what words cannot describe, has made this production a true work of art.

Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney professional eclectic careers are and will continue to define them as great actors. Both have reached for the best performance have not only achieved it but have surpassed it.

Paul and Laura do not only deserve the Oscar but they should be recognized has to have given their all, in an effort to help the audience better understand the complex multi-dimensional and existential realities of two historical individuals that have truly shaped the genesis and future the United States of America.

Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney have with their performance added the unique and the exceptional to an already fine production.

A truly multi-dimensional performance. Thank you Paul - thank you Laura for a rare gift.

I'm so confused

[tommull · 10/10 · 1 April 2008]

So many of the comments posted here regarding this series are baffling. BORING? Because they aren't showing us the revolutionary war? Perhaps the title John Adams would be the first clue. This is the story of the man in the times not the times through the man.

Giamatti and Linney are giving the performances of their careers - the Emmys and Golden Globes are already in the bag. I find their relationship to each other and their playing of the reality of late 18th century life astonishing.

I think that Giamatti, Linney, Wilkinson, Dillane, Morse et al are turning these people (whom we tend to think of as stiff, formal oil-paintings or faces on currency) into fleshed-out, three dimensional human beings. In the fourth episode alone we had Giamatti's heart-breaking reaction to the news of Britain's defeat; the reunion scene between John and Abigail when they have no idea how to approach each other after so many years apart; Giamatti's first scene in the English court which captured both the magnitude and the discomfort of a moment that had never occurred before in history; and the moment between Adams and Washington after the oath of office where we realize that only THEN, in that moment, had the goal really been achieved.

This series is full of small, intensely honest moments – moments of real people caught up in a storm of their own creation but one that they have no way of being prepared for - and these moments, for me, are adding up to a very satisfying whole. In fact, it's made me rethink the whole Revolutionary era – but then, so did David McCullough's book.

Poignant and gritty!

[cbaker03 · 10/10 · 18 March 2008]

As fine a political documentary as I have ever seen! Understated, yet amazing in its depth. Even the exhilarating music portends the events to come. A must see for those interested in how the nation they live in came to be. This film may upset some with its frankness of the times in which the characters lived, that said, I applaud that very frankness that allows us to see the people that supported and opposed our becoming a nation. A very "well done" to all those involved with the making of this ode to a time long gone. May we as a nation once more learn the lessons that came to be so well known by the majority of our "Founding Fathers"... AND Mothers.

Everyone should watch

[jmdstern · 10/10 · 20 March 2008]

Given the current state of affairs, everyone should make time to watch this mini-series. It's refreshing to know that people though imperfect truly cared about the true nature of freedom. The actors do an outstanding job of portraying the flavor of the times, and the souls of their characters. For most of us the Declaration of Independence is taken for granted. It's wonderful to see how many struggled to unify this country and by no means was the thinking unanimous. I love Jefferson and his quiet nature, resorting to words on paper more comfortably than speaking in public.

For as much as I thought I knew about John Adams I'm finding I didn't know him at all. Pay close attention to the courtroom scenes and thank the stars that court room behavior has evolved since then. I'd hate to have to testify in an environment like that.

Watch this series and hope that some of our politicians today are watching too. I would hope that it might spark something inside them that has been buried in todays hypocrites

A disappointment

[TexVanWinkle · 6/10 · 2 August 2008]

I'm clearly in the minority on this, but as much as I wanted to like this series, I just couldn't. It turned me off so much, in fact, I couldn't even finish it. The Adams in the HBO series just isn't the Adams I've come to know in McCullough's book, the Adams/Jefferson letters, and John/Abigail letters. Some of it is there, certainly, but Giamatti's performance is uniformly petulant, irritable, and whiny. I'm reminded of Dorothy Parker's criticism of Katherine Hepburn: "She ran the whole gamut of emotions from A to B." Adams certainly could be all three, but was clearly so much more—a more vital, gravitational personality—and you'll never see it—indeed, get even a glimpse of it—in HBO's John Adams. While in an obviously frothier vein, Bill Daniels' forceful portrayal of Adams in the film adaptation of the musical 1776 is far truer to the man described in the book and letters. He, at least, could convincingly be the Adams described by his peers and the match for Abigail, which was never the case for me with Giamatti's shrinking whiner. When he is supposed to be forceful, he merely comes off as a brat. At no point during the HBO series could I bring myself to believe that it was Giamatti's Adams that the other characters were talking about. He simply wasn't believable to me, to the extent that I simply couldn't watch him anymore. I had to retrieve the book and letters from my bookshelf to cleanse my palate and revisit the man of his words.

Which is a criticism I have of the writing itself. Such work in a supposedly epic telling, and yet again I find a much more understandable presentation of Adams in the film 1776 than in four hours (so far) of HBO's production. After four episodes I still couldn't perceive a coherent philosophy, and challenge anyone watching it cold to produce one. The production spent far too much time on the minutiae of moments at the expense of a clear depiction of the man himself. Ultimately it was all about emotions—and again, only a couple of them—rather than thoughts. But then this is modern Hollywood's obsession—excessive but ultimately superficial verisimilitude—which is why its characterizations pale in comparison to the best of the past.

The same problem extends to the production itself. There is a fanatical attention to detail, including superb visual and special effects, but once again at the expense of the story. Rather than simply putting a camera on an actor and letting him act, Adams' director Tom Hooper, like so many of his peers, feels he must "put us in the moment" with hand-held camera work and oblique camera angles, or create an interesting canvas through off-center compositions and muted colors. All he does instead is distract the viewer and draw attention to himself instead of the characters. Oh but for the chance to lock the present generation of directors in a room playing Ford, Huston, Hawks, and Wyler movies non-stop until they finally learn what they clearly never have about storytelling.

I am happy, actually, that so many have enjoyed this series so much, but it's more than disappointing—aggravating—that the John Adams they're given is such a feral dog compared to the force of nature and penetrating mind, vain, stubborn, and obnoxious as it is, that comes through his letters.

Brilliant

[alexmail-2 · 10/10 · 20 March 2008]

"John Adams", the HBO series is by far the best Colonial film or series I have ever seen.

Paul Giamatti captivates viewers with a super performance. He has really given me a new respect for John Adams. Laura Linney plays Abigail Adams beautifully. She is wise and kind, but also is franc and honest.

The first two episodes are so incredibly accurate and indulging, that I feel like I am in the center of the American Revolution.

The script is brilliant. People speak the way colonials spoke. Adams lines just get better as the show goes on. HBO has truly made a brilliant masterpiece. A must watch for any history buff.

gem

[Vincentiu · 2 April 2013]

what is its virtue ? accuracy ? brilliant performance of actors ? precise details ? charm of an American story about birth of a nation ? not ! only its spirit. because this film has rare and great chance to be not exactly a page of history but a parable or a lesson about axis of existence. a pledge for measure and for truth as base of a great construction. about sacrifice and taste of victory. Paul Giamatti does the role of his life. and this success is result of a delicate hard work because his John Adams is not only credible but his clothes becomes skin of interpreter. a profound admirable movie. and new demonstration of HBO science to give refined gems to his public.

Very good, but...

[buiger · 7/10 · 5 October 2009]

The critics all beg to differ with each other on this one. Me, I believe the truth is in the middle (as usual). I tend to agree with each critic on a single issue and then disagree on the rest...

One thing is certain: 'John Adams' is a well made, ambitious and detailed afresco depicting 50 years of American (and not only) history at the turn between the 18th and 19th centuries. The filmmakers go to great lengths trying to faithfully reconstruct this period, and mostly succeed in doing so wonderfully. I find this to be by far the biggest accomplishment of this mini series; You really feel the atmosphere of the times, the poor hygiene levels, the sicknesses, the dirt, the poverty. You can see how feeble human life itself was, how death was close at hand at all times. Medicine was almost non-existent, some scenes concerning medical interventions are so real they are both visually and intellectually so shocking I was moved by them. In other, you also have a wonderful portrayal of the decadence of 'old Europe' in starch comparison to for the times (very) modern American pragmatism portrayed through Adams himself.

The series is populated with many historical characters, most of which spring to life not only thanks to good acting, but also because of a good screenplay and excellent dialog. I enjoyed the fact that the language used was that of the times, and not a modern version of the same. There is however, one major problem, one that prevents this series from being great, and that is the casting of John Adams. Notwithstanding his trying hard, Paul Giamatti "just doesn't feel right" as John Adams. This is a major problem for this otherwise almost impeccable production, which I highly recommend watching in any case.

Sad Distortion of John Adams !

[guy-372 · 2/10 · 5 November 2015]

Now, after reading multiple biographies of the founding fathers and previously becoming an expert on human behavior, I'm sad at the distortions of history, biography, and human behavior perpetrated by this mini-series. This mini-series portrays John Adams as a melancholic, principled, angry man, which is entirely wrong on melancholic and angry, and only partially right on his principles, as these were distorted. It failed to show John Adams as the devoted follower of Samuel Adams and committed to the same cause as Samuel Adams from where the mini-series begins and places John Adams at the edge of all the action, instead of among Samuel Adams' fomenting puppet masters, who never appeared at the riots. This highly fictionalized portrayal highly ignores history's record of who John Adams was and the very deep religiously pious nature of both Samuel Adams and John Adams; portraying Samuel Adams as ostentatious, nobly garbed and an accumulator of wealth, when the opposite was true. John Adams was much more likely to be decked out in fine clothes than Samuel Adams, who despised pretension and ostentatious spending. Moreover, John Adams had by the beginning of this mini-series already been among Samuel Adams' secretive inner circle. Samuel Adams was known to hold unprovoked violence toward persons as reprehensible and unacceptable to his God, thus in Samuel Adams' piety, it was likely Samuel Adams who asked John Adams (the only lawyer among them) to represent the British soldiers after the Boston Massacre. Moreover, the alternating angry and melancholy natures of this portrayal is not only historically in accurate, as John's actual character was more like an enthusiastic irrepressible happy little dog, rather than the universally unlikable character of this angry melancholic portrayal, which never gets a person chosen or elected for anything. From that huge error and others on this mini-series, it this portrayal is doomed to be a highly inaccurate, highly fictionalized portrayal of John Adams, which only historians will recognize, because of the broad ignorance of the masses.

I can now name the 13 colonies

[Rogue-32 · 10/10 · 17 March 2008]

I have to preface this by saying I'm not (nor have I ever been) a big fan of history or social studies; these were my least favorite subjects in school, mainly because they were presented in such a boring, uninvolving manner. I've never been big on historical drama movies either, but if you read my reviews at all, you know I love Paul Giamatti, and yesterday night I was mentally thanking the man repeatedly because if it weren't for him I most likely would not have been watching the first two episodes of what is shaping up to be the TV mini series of the decade, John Adams.

Not since Iron Jawed Angels have I seen a show based on historical events that is this inspired, moving, and both emotionally and intellectually riveting - it felt like I was taking a trip through history in a time capsule, genuinely being there in those early colonial days, when the idea of independence from Great Britain was controversial, revolutionary and shrouded in fear. But the core of the series is not political - it's the story of John and Abigail (I'm on a first-name basis with them now) and how they stayed together, raised a family and survived during this most trying time in a young country's history.

Giamatti and Linney bring extraordinary passion and complete believability to their roles, but the whole cast is brilliant here, the stand outs (from the first two episodes, besides Linney and Giamatti) being David Morse as George Washington, Tom Wilkinson as Benjamin Franklin, Stephen Dillane as Tom Jefferson and Damages' Zeljko Ivanek - who for some reason is not mentioned in the credits! - as John Dickinson, Adams' staunchest congressional opponent on the subject of independence. The scenes in Philadelphia, where the reps from all 13 colonies meet to hash out the situation, are magnificently compelling - you feel like you're there with them, seeing from the inside how our country actually came to be.

There's a great scene where John and Ben are reading Thomas' first draft of The Declaration of Independence (which John begged Thomas to write, saying that he himself was "obnoxious, suspect and unpopular" while Thomas was far more eloquent with his pen); they're editing it, beginning with the first line. This scene really evokes the feeling of how our independence came to be - it was forged by necessity, by these men who were literally flying blind, by the seat of their pants.

4/21/08 ~ Part 7, Peacefield: poetic, devastating and profoundly sad, the finale, which aired last night. Brilliant how they kept the focus on John and Abigail's relationship through all the political turbulence that had taken place in their lifetimes. At the end I felt like I had lived their lives along with them. Paul Giamatti's and Laura Linney's performances - TOWERING. Cannot heap the superlatives on this show high enough. A brilliant concept, breath-takingly realized in every aspect.

A Joy And An Honour To Watch

[jazz_jeff · 10/10 · 25 April 2008]

Thank you to HBO for the making of this series. Its was a joy to watch. The last part (7th part) was perhaps the hardest to watch. More than once tears were brought to my eyes, in compassion for many of the characters and the conclusion of their life story. What can be said about the making of it? There are not enough words to praise all those involved. Paul Giamatti's and Laura Linney's performances were absolutely astonishing and by the end, had me in tears, I as a man, am not ashamed to say. They were brilliant, class and I will forever be a fan of them. The rest of the cast were like a collection of fine art. Whomever brought them all together, alone deserves an award. Great fine acting on their own and as a group. This series deserves every award possible and more. I agree totally with all the praise that has gone before and will come after. This is a TV series that does HBO and America proud. It should be shown in every class room in the states. Its a work of art...

Further comment: Such great men and equally great thinkers are lost today on many of the youth. The likes of them will perhaps be never seen again. May they rest easy within the soil of America, for the freedoms they brought to their country they loved so much.

They could teach today's politicians a lesson or two on truth, sticking to upholding true meaning of liberty and the rule of law. I fear however they would not be impressed by the actions of those that this day, April 25th 2008, that stand within the blocks of the White House. History will also be their judge and it will not treat our present day leaders so kindly and deservedly so. Those that have now gone before at the foundation of the country, were clearly better upstanding citizens.

What is now is Congress and the White House is just a bad shadow of once true and honest men (and women) that passed away with the founding of America.

May they, the founding fathers (and mothers) rest in peace.

A wonderful, wonderful series!

[operamartyc · 10/10 · 19 March 2008]

The production values are extremely high with excellent acting, design and costumes and I've only seen the first two episodes. The writing is wonderful! The series inspires me to read the book. The "making of" information was fascinating and the visual effects technology amazing! I've always loved your original movies with "My House in Umbria" my favorite until now - John Adams is your best offering yet! Thanks so much HBO and to all the cast and crew of the movie!!! The Los Angeles' Times review was wrong in its assessment of the series. I find every aspect of the series interesting and moving and of the highest quality! Looking forward to the DVD!!

Worthy of Golden Globe, Emmy

[helmuthwilliam · 10/10 · 7 April 2008]

The only t.v. dramas (historical or otherwise) that I would watch was Masterpiece Theatre because they were mostly British made and classy. Now we have something to rival anything that Masterpiece Theatre put out: John Adams. First, the theme music is first rate slowing building up to a quiet crescendo. Second, the photography is of a theatrical release quality. The set and production values are first rate: you feel as if you are in the scenery and living at that time of our history. The makeup and costumes are historically correct or close to it. Finally, what superb acting by Giamatti and the great Laura Linney and the supporting actors are fine. In fact, I can not find a fault with this mini-series so far.I look forward to watching every Sunday on HBO. I agree with others who say this will win Golden Globe and Emmy Awards. For anyone who says this is boring or lacking bloodshed and violence, I say: "Your ignorance is beneath my contempt" - John Adams, 1777( to Samuel Furlong who told Adams that the 'Declaration of Independency would be the death warrant of the colonies."

Simply amazing

[TheLittleSongbird · 10/10 · 4 October 2011]

I have seen many exceptional series, but few lately have been as so as this, John Adams. There is so much attention to detail here, the whole of John Adams is exquisitely photographed and is advantaged further by authentic period recreation and costuming. John Adams also has realistic atmosphere, something that some of the best period drama series(such as North and South, Little Dorritt, Bleak House and The Crimson Petal and the White) excel at.

The music enhances the mood of each scene very well too, the writing is full of grit, poignancy and intelligence, and the story is both absorbing and interesting. The characters intrigue with enough depth to them to make them not fall into caricature. The acting is wonderful with no weak link. Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney are exceptional, and they are given top notch support from all particularly the always reliable Tom Wilkinson and David Morse.

All in all, simply amazing is really all I have to say about John Adams. 10/10 Bethany Cox

Putting a human face on history

[blanche-2 · 10/10 · 22 January 2013]

Very few of our nation's forefathers seem very human to us today. Important men, yes, but with the exception of maybe Benjamin Franklin, he of the smiling face and the twinkle in his eye, we don't connect with any of them.

The brilliant HBO miniseries "John Adams" gives heart, soul, ambition, foibles, and temperament to these men - Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Samuel Adams, and tells us about who they are, how they lived, their interpersonal relationships, and their goals for our country.

Meticulously cast, historically researched, and impeccably costumed, we are given a look at the personal and professional life of John Adams (Paul Giametti), his wife Abigail (Laura Linney), and his children. Because of his work for the country, the family was asked to make sacrifices as he had to travel and stay away for long periods of time. It fell to Abigail to take care of the farm and their family.

We get a good look at the hardships people endured in those days, including the crudeness of the medicine, the difficulty in communication - no Internet, no phone, only letters that had to travel great distances.

Giametti and Linney -- there isn't much to say because there aren't sufficient adjectives. Brilliant, mesmerizing, detailed, flawless, emotional performances - all those words are trite. The beauty of the casting is one of the things that makes this miniseries great, and these two actors are at the top. Stephen Dillane as Jefferson, David Morse as Washington, Tom Wilkinson as Franklin, Rufus Sewell as Alexander Hamilton, are all sheer perfection. But none are asked to do what Giametti and Linney did -- Giametti had two days off in six months, apparently -- Adams lived until he was 90, and we saw him do it! This is a breathtaking miniseries that vividly shows the language, the way of life, the hardships, and the political arguments of the era, and puts the experiences into breathing human beings. I am so glad that I saw this, and thrilled that the actors and series received so many awards and nominations. Painstakingly directed by Tom Hooper, and written by historian David McCullough and Kirk Ellis, "John Adams" is a landmark in television and not to be missed.

Humble look at a glorified part of US history

[paour · 7/10 · 23 January 2012]

The producers' self-evident intent with this series was to offer a nuanced look at a period of US history which has been so glorified as to occult anything controversial.

Here, the tug of war between Adams and Jefferson and their respective factions is well illustrated, complete with petty recriminations and back-stabbing (how quaint it now seems that the vice-president could have been the general election runner-up!).

Despite my appreciation for this more accurate rendition of history, I was frequently frustrated that the focus on the personal history of John Adams steered the series away of many of the important milestones of the revolutionary period; the Boston tea party is shown only as the tarring and feathering of the commissioner, none of the war of independence battles are more than alluded to, and the war of 1812 is not even mentioned.

The costumes are amazing and even more so the physical aging of the characters.

A few episodes resort to ridiculously crooked camera angles with annoying frequency, but for the most part the camera work is sedate and pleasing.

Thank You Mr. Adams

[beatsavior420 · 9/10 · 12 July 2020]

For this here 4th of July week I felt compelled to revisit the highly acclaimed HBO mini-series, John Adams. Few and far between are quality theatrical depictions of the American Revolutionary War era, and this is by far my favorite. Set between the years of 1770 & 1826, we follow the Massachusetts man of law turned founding father, John Adams (brilliantly portrayed by Paul Giamatti) as he swerves his way through politics and war, at home and abroad. The excellence of filmmaking here is noteworthy, as directed by Tom Hooper (a Brit might I add) who forgoes the sentimental romanticism of days-gone-by we Americans have become accustom to seeing in movies, and instead delivers a grittier, nuanced tale, of an imperfect time and an imperfect people for which our reverence still stands, deservedly so. And if you're looking for all the vintage hitters; the Jefferson, the Franklin, the Washington, they are each portrayed here with texture and competence, but its John and Abigail Adams that command our attention. For Adams was a firebrand human, stubborn, yet ingenious, essential in bringing together 13 disparate colonies as one union of states. Adams is a legend and fittingly so, for he like many brave Americans endeavored to set us on a path toward irrevocable freedom and independence in the face of ancient imperial subjugation, riding a wave of liberty once so precious and rare. And we are still riding that wave of liberty to this day. We are still endeavoring toward a freedom for all. 9/10

Tar and feather whoever invented 'shaky-cam'

[vandykeu · 7/10 · 17 July 2021]

John Adams is a wonderful, well-acted, well-written period series. It covers many important historical events and people, and does most of them pretty good justice. It is a bit slow and focused on dialogue, which I understand will not be everyone's favorite, but I quite like it.

My one complaint is the excessive use of handheld/shaky-cam. Especially in the first 2 episodes, it is extremely distracting. It makes sense to use shaky-cam... to an extent... in action scenes to help convey chaos- Saving Private Ryan is probably the best example of this. However, in literally anything else, it adds nothing to the story. Its use as an art is I think totally aggravating and annoying. From a storytelling perspective, I can see how it would make sense if trying to portray how a protagonist sees/experiences the world if they had Parkinson's disease or the like. Here, it is so overused as to drag the viewer out of the scene, if they are at all susceptible to it. For me, I just can't help but notice it, and in my view it ruins the viewing experience of what should be an engrossing drama. I recall watching this series when it first came out, and am now revisiting it 13 years later wondering why I hadn't done so earlier. Ah. Now I remember why.

How can you make the Revolution so boring?

[marymsch · 3/10 · 25 March 2008]

I am a professor of early American history, and I love the Revolutionary period. I had high hopes for this production. Certainly the cast is remarkably well-chosen. Paul Giametti IS John Adams - what a brilliant stroke. Laura Linney equally brilliant as Abigail, David Morse eerie in his portrayal of George Washington (and that is a very difficult personality to try to flesh out - it's not just the physical resemblance), and who could complain with Tom Wilkinson as Franklin? The attention to detail is correct and a marvel to watch.

But. The script is boring. How could they make such an exciting time in our history so boring? I can't figure it out - although taking the point of view of one of the crankiest of the so-called "founding fathers" might be one reason.

I blushed for the memory of Abigail Adams when the screenwriter had her moaning because John had to leave her yet again - for heavens' sake - the war lasted seven long years for Massachusetts militiamen, most of that time spent very far from home. They were paid in worthless currency, and when they finally came home, the state government tried to take their farms away from them, leading to Shays' Rebellion and, eventually the Constitution (and, by the way, a new legislature the next year, who stopped the foreclosures).

Abigail Adams was smart, she was resourceful, and Laura Linney portrays her well - but she was definitely NOT alone in having to run a farm without a husband beside her. At least HERS wasn't killed or maimed.

I did love the scenes of the Adams couple watching the Battle of Bunker Hill, and the cannon being dragged from Fort Ticonderoga (over the White Mountains). (Too bad they didn't also include how furious the New York militia were when Massachusetts filched what they considered should be THEIR cannon - although it was Vermonters who actually stole them in the first place). But very little else resonated.

There was so much diversity between states, and within the large ones. So much interesting going on. So little included in this series.

It's not factually misleading as The Patriot was, but ... it's so godawfully BORING.

I fear we've lost the point of view of the colonists - who bottled the British up in their "safe zones," in cities, for the British dare not set foot in the countryside. Hmm. Maybe that's just too familiar. Maybe we can't understand any more what the fight for liberty was all about.

What a pity. Brilliant actors, a fantastic set, an enticing topic - and thus far some of the most boring hours I've spent watching TV. (My husband, who is definitely NOT a historical scholar, shared that point of view by falling asleep soon into every episode thus far. He did not fall asleep during Band of Brothers.) Next time have Ken Burns write your script. Or at least vet it.

Nearly spoiled by the camera-work

[wilsr · 8/10 · 31 December 2012]

I agonised about what star rating to give "John Adams".

I cannot comment on the historic authenticity. However, the sets, sound, makeup, CGI, storyline and dialogue are outstanding. All the actors are excellent and it's invidious to single any one out. But Giamatti and Linney stand out with incredible, intimate and emotional performances.

So why the "agonising"? Quite simply, although the cinematography and lighting are technically perfect, someone somewhere - presumably the director in consultation with the producers - thought that a hand-held camera and the odd tilted horizon would add something to the story.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

There are two valid excuses for a steadycam shot: if it's physically impossible to shoot it with a crane, and to give the impression of a grabbed shot in, say, a war zone.

Unfortunately, too many otherwise first class directors have followed a craze that emerged a few years back, and appear to think that unsteady shots add to the experience. They don't: all they do is make you think about the mechanics of the filming and look for the exit. And tilting the camera for no good reason is just plain effete.

So: eight out of ten. A shame, because without the trendy camera-work I would give John Adams ten.