John Adams (Repackage/DVD)

This is one of the best movie epics I've ever seen... A truly fabulous, movie with superb acting. It was completely engrossing from the moment it started until the final scene. It is a work of art! I truly recommend this movie... but extreme caution with allowing children to watch. There are a couple of extremely disturbing scenes which you may want to bypass for the sake of children.I was amazed at how well Paul did in his role... as did Linny. I had no idea he was this talented. He surprised me with his outstanding performance. Both were completely believable as if they were the original figures they portrayed and looked very close to the original couple as well. I almost did not recognize her without her blond hair.I also wanted to make note of the excellent musical score. Normally, I don't mention this but this was a unique sound combination of Irish flair violin and military cadence... very enjoyable. I was extremely impressed by the musical score.The movie also has a feature which brings up extensive historical notes throughout the entire film which you can opt to turn on. I recommend trying this on the second time you watch the film... it would ruin the movie if you do this on the first viewing.I enjoyed it so much, I intend to watch it more than once. It was that fantastic. I was quite astounded to find the movie so intriguing. It was a quality production on the scale of high dollar epics such as "Hawaii." I can't say enough great things about it. I'm glad I didn't read any of the reviews prior to watching the movie. I'm not sure what movie these negative nellies were watching... but it wasn't the same movie I saw. I was completely immersed in the movie from the moment I turned it on until the final scene.It was refreshing to see some of the historical events finally being shown in the spirit of how they really were instead of the sugar coated facades we have been fed most of our lives... such as the Boston Massacre. It was provoked by a huge mob of 200-400 throwing rocks and ice inside snowballs at the British sentries. The incident was used by the colonists as propaganda. Sam Adams was a true rabble rouser just as depicted in the film. He was the biggest ringleader in the break from Britain with his drunken mob, "The sons of Liberty" who pulled all kinds of nasty deeds to drive out the British and start the revolution with England. (Tarring and feathering were indeed some of their deeds). While they were indeed the main catalyst behind the break from Britain... they weren't the fine, respectable gentlemen history had shown them to be.This movie shows them more accurately for the tavern mobs and street gangs they truly were. But depicting them as they were realistically, does not diminish the fact that it often takes a mob mentality to find the gumption to fight improprieties and crimes against liberties. Those with no hope, often don't have the strength to fight back as we've seen in slavery. But to show history other than it was is a disservice to us all. This movie brings back that reality to our history.For John Adams to have defended the hated British sentries so successfully after the shootings, in front of a Boston jury of colonists, is a tribute to his skills as an attorney and evidence of how badly this mob of colonists behaved.However, the depiction of the unbridled display of public ranting in the courtroom was totally unnecessary and I doubt accurate. I don't think any court... especially one still under the rules of the British, would have tolerated a rowdy public exhibition of the colonists in a courtroom. It almost ruined the viewing experience. Reminded me of the Trial by Q on Star Trek TNG Farpoint. Very irritating.No court would not have allowed the witnesses or accused to have been pressed in on and their testimonies intimidated and threatened by ranting, nasty crowds. However, Sam Adams was indeed, every bit the hothead he was shown to be in this film.While it is true that 2 of the soldiers were actually found guilty of manslaughter (which was not depicted in the film)... their only punishment was to have their thumbs branded. Fortunately for the British sentries, one of the slain members of the mob provided a death bed statement as to the actual events which helped defend the actions of the guards. It wasn't the huge issue some reviewers made of the differences. You can read about this trial and incident online. [...]I was a little puzzled by the film first showing the Adam's to be living in town... and then showing them to be living on a farm outside of town. It is my understanding that they always lived on a farm but the massacre did take place within view of Mrs Adams. But the two houses were a bit confusing unless they had 2 homes at the same time?On the minor negatives, the one thing that was distracting to me was seeing Paul Giamatti's shaved bald head in the early scenes each time he came into the house and took off his wig. Colonial men did not shave their heads. They wore their hair long. So, every time they showed him pulling off his wig with the shaved head, it totally ruined those scenes for me because it broke the mood of the character and became an irritant. It was like having the actor take off their makeup during the scene. They need to keep the actor in character... not transpose 21st century hairstyles. Fortunately, they stopped doing this after the first DVD. Why go to the trouble to be historically accurate and then do something like this?The scene of cutting off his daughter's breast was totally unnecessary and uncalled for. There was no reason to subject the audience to that kind of thing... it is as bad as showing literal amputations. We don't need to see things like that. The film can make the issue known without showing us a gory graphic depiction of it. How would they like to see a graphic castration? This scene was mortifying and I would hate to think any child might be subjected to that. It was bad enough for adults. This was a VERY BAD lack of judgment on the directors part... and the producer who should have been keeping track of what the director was doing.Again, there was no need to horrify the audience. This film should have been a family docu-drama... and still can be with elimination of a couple of those unnecessary scenes.The other scene which was a negative issue was the tar & feather scene. Most people who watch a historical docu-drama are not expecting full frontal nudity for one with half exposure of the genitals... 97% nudity at least... especially if they are showing this to their family. It was also quite brutal, too literal and far too much time spent on it. It could have been depicted without forcing the audience to endure the full ordeal. While it may be authentic... it was not necessary.We also did not need to see the graphic depiction of the pox vaccinations and the daughter's ordeal. It is ok to include it but the level of graphic details were not needed. It was really quite disturbing. Accuracy does not always required graphic display. For instance, we do not need to see the contents of the bucket to know that someone has thrown up. The sound alone is more than enough to indicate the same.I also agree that they should have shown more about the political mudslinging with Jefferson and Hamilton and more about the animosity that was occurring at the time he lost his bid for re-election. It was a major issue of the rift between them. There were also too many do-nothing scenes of Adams sitting in the gutted white house and not enough of Adams interactions with politics and politicians. They really showed nothing of him being president.Having lived in France during the 66 Exodus of Americans, it was refreshing to finally see the behaviors and attitudes of the French being portrayed more true to life on a film and Adam's reaction to them. The reason this is important is because it helps to understand why there has always been such bitterness between the French and British and Americans. In fact, there were things a lot worse than was shown on the film... from hygiene, to attire and behaviors I have witnessed in person, which are so bad I cannot repeat them on here. I can only imagine what our diplomats encountered 200 years earlier. (Tourists don't see these things. If you haven't lived in the older, unmodernized sectors of the country... you don't know the these aspects).While Benjamin Franklin was amazing on a lot of things... there was a dark side to him which was not that pretty for history or public consumption. It was refreshing to see this other side of him for a change. I had read about Ben Franklin's lewd habits from many sources... especially his escapades in France. He spent nearly all of his life overseas and almost none in the colonies until after the Constitution. While he was quick of wit, funny and brilliant... he was also a shameless, lazy lothario who spent all of his time partying with ladies from the brothels and had no use or time for his wife or family. Fans of Franklin's don't like to hear about his darker nature... but that's how he truly was by his own admission whether his fans like it or not. Celebrities are not perfect and some have very bad sides as was the case with Benjamin Franklin. He was admittedly a dirty old man, self indulgent who completely ignored his own family and children. He was lazy and irresponsible and admitted to spending most of his time fornicating with the lowest and nastiest of street women as depicted in this movie instead of doing the job he was sent there to do. His behavior was shameless and many lives were lost while he partied to satiate his own debaucheries.There is an excellent DVD of Franklin's life in the history channel set "The founding of America" showing a lot of Franklin's true behavior... but this Adam's miniseries did an excellent job showing Franklin's (rarely exhibited) caustic personality and reactions at having his shameless, x-rated cavorting disrupted. He used his popularity as a weapon of power and usually kept this dark side hidden from public. He reveled and garnered public adoration by using wit, humorous anecdotes and quips in his publications. He also enjoyed amazing the uneducated masses with sideshow tricks already known by scientists of that era... but which awestruck the commoners whom had never seen such things. Static generators had long since been developed before his kite experiment but his stunt made it appear to the masses he was the first to deal with such things. It was all presentation for the attention he so readily craved.He enjoyed having his ego stoked & fed with clamoring crowds of admirers. The people of France treated him like they did Jackie Kennedy... as a celebrity. They had his face printed on all kinds of souvenirs and gadgets. Franklin's face was on so many things that the King of France had a bedpan made with Franklin's face... which should give you an idea how Franklin's personal pursuit of celebrity attention for his own pleasure had actually damaged the King's impression of the colonists and caused him to look down upon us. Thus, Franklin was not doing the job so desperately needed by our soldiers and Gen Washington... but the colonial congress was full of egocentric dandies who weren't any better than Franklin... and weren't any more interested in holding up their promises to the troops either. They all thought Franklin was great fun, thus Franklin was never reprimanded. He had free reign to indulge his indiscretions without oversight.To get even more attention, Franklin even took to wearing coonskin hats... something he never did anywhere other than France. The ladies even designed their hairstyles over his hats. He liked being the center of attention to bring him endless ladies and parties.Adams wanted to get down to business and talk details of supplies and support for the colonial troops. But Franklin didn't want Adams to screw up his own egomaniacal celebrity status in France which brought him endless droves of ladies, parties and personal attention to stroke his ego. Franklin spent years in France partying with the ladies instead of doing his job to get funding, weapons and military support for our troops. Sure, he finally got it... After we won a decisive battle and they did turn the tide at the end... but how many soldiers died in the interim so that Franklin could enjoy his years of brothel lifestyle?He didn't want Adam's rocking the boat for his personal entertainment. The depiction of the animosity on this film was excellent and the best rendition I have seen of the "real" Benjamin Franklin which the colonists never got to see. Franklin spent the first 70 years of his life in England and nearly a decade in France. Only the final years after the Constitution did he live in the US... after his wife died while he was cavorting in France.While some reviewers made a big deal out of Adam's relationship with his son Charles... Franklin had the same with his own son and didn't speak to him. But the portrayal on this film was accurate to the historical info available from many other reference sources. However, Charles was one of those kids who never listened and was constantly getting into trouble. There are just some kids who are like this regardless of the parent. John Adams also raised a son who became President... so he had a son at each end of the spectrum... so that doesn't indicate the parent was bad. Often, the younger sons act out toward older brothers who they perceive as the parent's pet. You see this with royal families all the time. A lot of families with multiple boys usually has two opposite boys. Just look at Princes William and Harry. So for a reviewer to blame the father seems more like a personal issue. A broader view will show this is a common thing in larger families and especially in families of notoriety. But can also be due to parental or position related favoritism as well.Congress sent Adams abroad to get rid of him. As a lawyer and an honest man, he was particular to details and honor and making good on promises. The Colonial Congress didn't support Washington's troops with the supplies, food, money and munitions they so desperately needed. As Adams stated... they just liked hearing themselves talk and thinking of themselves as important men. They were only interested in their own social standings and notoriety... much like Franklin, although in a different manner.One other scene which was poorly done was the scene with King George. Very badly written and even worse portrayed by the actor. The way he stood there by the chair, you were questioning whether or not he was the King at all or whether he was a footman. This scene should have been completely redone. It was one of the few badly written, badly acted scenes in the entire movie.Adams wasn't a "good ole boy" or one of the "social elite" so he didn't play along when the rest of the representatives who didn't keep their words or do their duty. He believed in being forthright, honest and responsible. Adams would have rocked the boat in the congress rather than let our troops suffer the way they did... so they sent Adam's to Europe to get rid of him. Unfortunately, being a man of integrity and honor bound to duty... he did what he was told. He should have just gotten on a boat and come back or refused. But being duty-bound, he allowed them to run him around without disputing it. The only way Congress would have done their jobs would have been by tossing it back in their laps. This movie did an excellent job showing the egotism, selfishness and petty bickering of our representatives of that era. Not so different from today. Unfortunately, Adam's didn't have the fortitude to speak out and stand up against them. He was a "loyal patriot" who did whatever they assigned him to.However, it was also refreshing to see that realism of the petty bickering in Congress and the impotent group they truly were instead of the sugar coated facade we have been shown in school most of our lives. Like Adams said about the painting at the end... the image was a fraudulent depiction from how it truly was and our politicians have made sure history was redesigned to make them all look like gallant saviors. Adams & Jefferson did most of the work while the rest bickered and whined.The behavior of the colonists depicted by this movie is indeed authentic... as was the behavior of John's hothead, rabble rousing, political agitator cousin, Sam Adams. The colonists did behave like lawless mobs. This movie did show a realistic depiction of how they really behaved at that time. In fact, most of them would get liquored up and stirred into a frenzy then go out into the streets looking for someone or something to transfer their rage against. Sam's "Sons of Liberty" were made up of the hotheaded drunkards who spent most of their time in the taverns. This is a historical fact whether or not people like it. It is unfortunate that some immature people create idyllic images in their minds which have no bearing on actual events whatsoever. Even worse are those efforts history has made to glorify or demonize various events in a manner which has no comparison with the truth... and then teach those falsehoods in our history lessons.It was about time that someone did a realistic rendition of the true events and circumstances of our history. We need to see history as it truly was... not as we would like it to be.An excellent film. I highly recommend it but I would advise extreme caution on the two or three scenes if you intend to allow your children to watch. You should locate and preview those scenes before you allow your children to watch... then you can skip past them when permitting your children to view the film so they won't be subjected to it.

As a student, my sum total of knowledge about our second President was just that--he was our second President, and, oh yeah, he signed the Declaration of Independence. Now along comes this ground-breaking HBO project to rectify that injustice and hopefully ensure that future generations of American history students will learn more about this fascinating and sadly-underrated founder of our nation. What I find more interesting than the thousands of laudatory reviews is the vocal minority of those who hated this project. They have some valid points, from a production standpoint, but the underlying worthiness of this project cannot be marginalized by stylistic quibbles. Let's be completely honest--despite the many excellent biographies in print about John Adams (my library alone has more than half a dozen), David McCollough's Pulitzer Prize winning entry upon which this series is based among them, how many Americans have actually read a John Adams biography, or are likely to in their lifetimes? For better or worse, we live in a cinematic age and millions have already watched this program in broadcast; millions more like myself saw it on DVD, and it is framed and edited in such a way as to make it ideal for showing in public schools as part of our woefully inadequate civics curriculum. I don't delude myself into thinking that the average American high school would devote a full seven hours of precious instructional time to `John Adams', but for those who are of a mind to, parts of this miniseries will engage even the most apathetic teenage student of history. Why? Because it's all fresh. We've had ad nauseum renderings of Washington crossing the Delaware; students know all about the Boston Tea Party and the ride of Paul Revere . . .but here is a patch of revolutionary American history the spotlight has not shone on before. The first disc in particular has scenes that absolutely thrill one to be an American. Later episodes do tend to suffer from a lack of dramatic tension and I don't deny that large chunks of Adams' life are skipped over, including what must have been many happy events, in favor of focusing on Adams' political disappointments and personal tragedies. There is no way a seven-hour series could hope to do justice to a life that spanned 91 years, but the filmmakers give it a fair shot. As is fitting, greater detail is paid to Adams' contributions as a statesman and architect of the Revolution than is given to later years when personal sorrow, vocational disillusionment and infirmity came to Adams as they do to us all.Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney as John and Abigail Adams seem to both inspire a `love `em or hate `em' sentiment among viewers. Most agree that Giamatti and Linney inhabit and give life to this long-gone power couple as though they were born to play them. The cranky minority dimisses both performances as stilted, ridiculous and unconvincing. For me, Linney disappeared more easily into the role of Abigail; I had a longer job of it to forget Miles from `Sideways' (the role I feel Giamatti was REALLY born to play) and see him as John Adams, though I have to say that all the actors received incomparable support for their performances from the outstanding costume and makeup design. Giamatti at 41 is the exact age Adams was during the First Continental Congress, and he is aged believably throughout the production. Giamatti may not have Adams' Yankee features or diction, but he does suggest Adams in stature, who was a short, physically unimpressive man, derided in the Senate over which he presided as `His Rotundity'. I learned that men shaved their heads under those fancy wigs until a certain mature age, after which time they were content to grow in their own scraggly natural hair and wear it long instead. And I give daily thanks for the state of dental care in 2008 when seeing the ravages of a lifetime without dental hygiene in the 18th century could do to a mouth. The supporting cast is all breathtakingly good, though most of the roles other than the Adamses are regrettably brief. David Morse, wearing what looks to be uncomfortable dental prostheses that make his chin look funny is the very picture of the older George Washington. Tom Wilkinson gets to have arguably the most fun of anyone as the elderly yet randy curmudgeon Ben Franklin, and he looks fantastic as well. Stephen Dillane has a tricky role as Thomas Jefferson, Adams' lifelong friend and political rival. At 52, he is nearly 20 years older than Jefferson was when he penned the Declaration, and cannot pass for a natural redhead in any light, making his characterization rather awkward in the early scenes. However, as Jefferson ages, Dillane grows into the performance, presenting the urbane Jefferson in a rather unflattering light as a Machiavellian political schemer, the yang to Adams' yin. Interesting yet truncated turns by Danny Huston as John's cousin, Sam Adams (brewer and patriot) and Rufus Sewell as Alexander Hamilton made me lament that there was not enough time or budget to include more of their narratives. Otherwise an episode devoted to the Revolution through Sam Adams' eyes, or the famous duel between Hamilton and Aaron Burr would have been welcome.But the name of this series is `John Adams', and he rightly occupies center stage here. Adams' lone term as President was not a smashing success; he was a polarizing figure who was neither handsome, compelling in leadership nor possessing the aristocratic polish of Jefferson or Washington. He was, and was proud to be, a plain-spoken son of New England farmers. But this humble background put him out of step with many of his peers, and though bright and capable, he lacked the gifts of oratory, facility with foreign languages or ability to think in sweeping abstractions which were characteristic of many of his co-founders. His very pragmatic (and dogmatic) cast of mind made him a disaster as a diplomat in the heavily ritualized European courts, in which he spent years. At home he was destined to be sandwiched between and overshadowed throughout his career by two more charismatic and larger-than-life figures, one who preceeded him in the office of the Presidency and the other who succeeded him. And yet Adams is as every bit as deserving as Washington or Jefferson to be called the architect of our Republic. As the mini-series shows, it was Adams who persuaded Washington to helm the Continental Army; it was Adams who commissioned Jefferson to write the Declaration, realizing that his own pen was not up to the task; and it was Adams' zeal as the leader of the Massachusetts delegation which won over several larger and more influential Tory states in the bid for declaring war with England. Without John Adams, there most likely would not have been a successful Revolution. This mini-series, though not perfect, showed me that, and has done a service to Adams' memory and to every American. Highly recommended.

Paul Giamatti did an awesome job in this role, he portrayed the intellect and irritable personality of a man whose personal convictions provided us the groundwork to build the United States of America we have today.John Adams is a tough character to portray simply because he was a man well ahead of his time and stood out among the people of the time. He was a brilliant man living in a time where there were not a lot of brilliant people. That had to be tough. Luckily for him his wife was just as intelligent and many say she was just as much a part of laying the groundwork for America as he was. She just did it through him. I can't deny that if you boiled it down Abigail is likely the reason for many of Johns accomplishments. She kept him or tried to keep him calm and focused. Without her he would not have had the ability to accomplish what he did. This is a great little series and in my opinion as someone who loves historical movies and shows, this manages to be pretty realistic while not being boring. Yes if you prefer action movies, this may be a bit slow for you. But if you take pride in being American and you want to see the activities of and around one of our countries fathers, this is a great series.

It truly helps you to appreciate the sacrifices made by the early politicians in American history.Extremely well written, by David McCullough, and an extremely well made screen adaptation, by HBO.

An interesting seven part series about the diplomatic struggle and subsequent war between America and Great Britain starting in the late 18th century and stretching into the Napoleonic era of the early 1800's.Certainly most American school children will have this story imprinted in their minds at an early age.But for me this was a fascinating way to learn about the background of those times. My only complaint about this production is the lack of action throughout its 500 minutes for which I deduct one star--- there were no battle scenes to speak of either on land or sea and the only musket fired was by John Adams from a ship at another distant ship!Having said that, the acting was absorbing throughout especially by the superb Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney as Adams and his wife, Abigail. Their scenes together were sometimes funny and often very touching from start to finish.Also worth mentioning are the performances by the British acting pair Stephen Dillane and Tom Wilkinson as Tom Jefferson and Ben Franklin respectively.A solid telling of the pre united states of America as they tentatively boxed above their weight against the established might of Great Britain and France.My copy is the Region 1 version which has English subtitles which I hardly used as the diction of most of the actors was spot on.

HBO make some of the best TV drama's.  Band Of Brothers: Complete HBO Series (Commemorative 6-Disc Gift Set In Tin Box) [DVD ],  Rome - Season 1-2 - Complete [DVD] [2005 ],  Deadwood : Complete HBO Seasons 1-3 (12 Disc Box Set) [DVD] [2004 ], Boardwalk Empire, etc. For some reason John Adams sort of slipped through the net here (I believe it was shown on channel 4 in 2008), maybe due to the fact that it is American history & not so much ours. John Adams is a 7 part mini-series totalling around 8 hours which when released in America broke the record for most emmy wins in a mini-series (13 out of 23 nominations).Despite this not being as big or popular as Band of Brothers here in the UK this series is just as unmissable. Paul Giamatti puts in a phenomenal performance as the 2nd President of the United States of America. Starting in the years preceding the wars of independence as a Boston Lawyer, John Adams rises to become one of the leaders of the American revolution alongside General George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc. Also look out for Tom Wilkinson who is excellent as Ben Franklin.The story focuses mainly on Adams' part in the revolution so we don't see much of the wars going on as Adams was in France at the time. Throughout the series though we see Adams' viewpoint at the turning of a new era for America. From the years preceding the revolution to Washington's presidency (& Adamas vice-presidency), Adams' own presidency, Jefferson's presidency, & Adams's retirement. The series concludes with the 50th anniversary of the independence and a poignant moment for Adams as he comes to realise that he & Jefferson are the last of the revolutionaries alive & the two former rivals become friends.There are some touching moments along the way. Two of Adams' children die before him, so does his beloved wife Abigail (an equally excellent Laura Linney) in the final part. The main cast play the roles excellent & despite a large timescale (around 50+ years) it remains convincing as they are aged so well by the make up department!The production is top notch as expected with a HBO mini-series. Sets, costumes & characters all look exactly as they should. The blu-ray set (which is REGION-FREE) is almost demo quality. Detail is a massive upgrade from the DVD. Both the DVD & blu-ray also include an optional historical text ("facts are stubborn things") which helps to fill in gaps if you are not too clued up on your 18th century history!An excellent series that I implore you to take a look at! Also worth noting that the Director (Tom Hooper) is now the academy award winning director of  The King's Speech [DVD] [2010 ].5 Stars. Band Of Brothers: Complete HBO Series (Commemorative 6-Disc Gift Set In Tin Box) [DVDRome - Season 1-2 - Complete [DVD] [2005Deadwood : Complete HBO Seasons 1-3 (12 Disc Box Set) [DVD] [2004The King's Speech [DVD] [2010

I really enjoyed watching this series

Great movie

Brilliant.