3 episode mini series on History channel lady night. I thought it was really good. Focuses on the roots of rebellion in Boston. Last night focus was on Sam Adams and John Hancock. Next episode is tonight at 9pm
The story has a lot of potential, but I thought the acting was very weak, in particular John Hancock. Agree also that the choice of Dean Norris as Ben Franklin is an odd one.
Part of my problem with it may be the fact that I streamed it from DirecTV and virtually every break lead with a Sam Adams commercial. Given that fact and the fact it centered around Sam Adams, it felt to me a little like an extended commercial for Sam Adams than a story of the roots of the American revolution.
I thought the story ended strong so I am hoping that momentum continues through the rest of them.
still has not been given the big screen treatment it deserves. I can't believe that with all the great stories, there have been so few attempts to make movies about them...
was like that for a reason. Like that was his thing. being a stone-faced, plain, emotionless, soft-talker.
I didn't notice the Sam Adams commercials, I DVR'd it, but I liked the Sam Adams character.
and I agree CiP, revolutionary war as a genre seems like it would appeal to a variety of audiences - kind of like Braveheart meets Lincoln and if done with accuracy in mind could be an epic mega money maker in addition to filling a hole.
I thought it was good. The alliance of Sam Adams and John Hancock was interesting.
Agree with what was said earlier, there is no major "epic" film on the revolution. Surprising. Certainly a great story...rebels take on the world superpower and win (with the help of the French). Perhaps this will spur some interest in doing one.
The riotous early scenes struck me as pretty dead-on given what I've read of the period (kind of like the Sam Adams-led mob tarring the tax collector in "John Adams"). The movie as a whole was such a mess, though, and Pacino was really miscast.
RE: there was a kernal of a good movie in Revolution
The riotous early scenes struck me as pretty dead-on given what I've read of the period (kind of like the Sam Adams-led mob tarring the tax collector in "John Adams"). The movie as a whole was such a mess, though, and Pacino was really miscast.
Agreed. I am just dumbfounded that there haven't been more movies made. There are so many great stories could make really good movies...
still has not been given the big screen treatment it deserves. I can't believe that with all the great stories, there have been so few attempts to make movies about them...
still has not been given the big screen treatment it deserves. I can't believe that with all the great stories, there have been so few attempts to make movies about them...
I resent that comment.
-Mel Gibson, The Patriot (2000)
Allow me to rephrase: ...there have been so few attempts to make good movies about them...
Allow me to rephrase: ...there have been so few attempts to make good movies about them...
I still resent that comment. What's not to like about Heath Ledger getting sewn into a sack so he wouldn't make sex with a pretty young lady? That's historically accurate!!!
It didn't have many big battles. That's what made WWII so filmable, all those epic scale set-pieces. The few that there were are scattered over the course of seven years of war, making it a bit difficult to sustain a coherent narrative.
RE: One problem as far as the Revolutionary War goes for movies
It didn't have many big battles. That's what made WWII so filmable, all those epic scale set-pieces. The few that there were are scattered over the course of seven years of war, making it a bit difficult to sustain a coherent narrative.
And that's why the epic story of Mel Gibson's character waging an unconventional warfare on the Red Coats was so perfect! Those heartless Dragoons...epic, I tell you.
RE: One problem as far as the Revolutionary War goes for movies
It didn't have many big battles. That's what made WWII so filmable, all those epic scale set-pieces. The few that there were are scattered over the course of seven years of war, making it a bit difficult to sustain a coherent narrative.
True, but there's lots of intriguing stories that can be done and you don't necessarily need the big battle. Obviously not Revolutionary War, but I thought Michael Mann did a great job with Mohicans. It can be done.
How has there not been a big time movie about George freaking Washington? Or Ben Franklin? Benedict Arnold is an incredible story.
I did read that Affleck is working on a Bunker Hill movie.
He's America's secular saint. Making an honest movie about Washington that portrays his human foibles (his ferocious temper that he only mostly contained, his skills at political infighting, his ability to hold a grudge) will make a lot of people angry, for admittedly silly reasons.
there is almost no upside to portraying Washington, he is either a depthless figure with a dove perched on his finger backlit to create a halo who is not at all interesting, or you are going to piss off a whole lot of people.
Franklin, on the other hand, might be fertile ground
He's much more interesting than most of the founders, but he doesn't quite have the saintly image many of them carry. Most people know he was a rakish bon vivant, plus his life was not entirely consumed with American independence - he had a pretty fascinating life long before any Continental Congresses.
Actually, the one I'd love to see a biopic about is, sadly, one who would never get one because he's undeservedly obscure - Gouverneur Morris. A peg-legged womanizer who wrote much of the Constitution (and gets very little credit for it today), an outspoken voice against slavery, a close ally of Washington, a vigorous advocate of religious freedom, signatory to the Articles of Confederation when he was only 23, American ambassador to France during the Reign of Terror. A really interesting guy who most people have never even heard of.
Dean Norris as Ben Franklin seems like a stretch, but good to see him.
I liked it, do you know how supposedly "true" it is?
Part of my problem with it may be the fact that I streamed it from DirecTV and virtually every break lead with a Sam Adams commercial. Given that fact and the fact it centered around Sam Adams, it felt to me a little like an extended commercial for Sam Adams than a story of the roots of the American revolution.
I thought the story ended strong so I am hoping that momentum continues through the rest of them.
I didn't notice the Sam Adams commercials, I DVR'd it, but I liked the Sam Adams character.
and I agree CiP, revolutionary war as a genre seems like it would appeal to a variety of audiences - kind of like Braveheart meets Lincoln and if done with accuracy in mind could be an epic mega money maker in addition to filling a hole.
Agree with what was said earlier, there is no major "epic" film on the revolution. Surprising. Certainly a great story...rebels take on the world superpower and win (with the help of the French). Perhaps this will spur some interest in doing one.
I think the HBO "John Adams" series was much better.
As laughable as some of that is, there are some aspects that are pretty accurate.
I think the HBO "John Adams" series was much better.
I would guess Adams had about 10-20 times the budget. Hard to do period pieces on the cheap...
Agreed. I am just dumbfounded that there haven't been more movies made. There are so many great stories could make really good movies...
I resent that comment.
-Mel Gibson, The Patriot (2000)
Quote:
still has not been given the big screen treatment it deserves. I can't believe that with all the great stories, there have been so few attempts to make movies about them...
I resent that comment.
-Mel Gibson, The Patriot (2000)
Allow me to rephrase: ...there have been so few attempts to make good movies about them...
I still resent that comment. What's not to like about Heath Ledger getting sewn into a sack so he wouldn't make sex with a pretty young lady? That's historically accurate!!!
-Mel Gibson, The Patriot (2000)
I think that is part of the issue with movies and the Revolution - most of the characters have moved out of history and into legend.
I think that is part of the issue with movies and the Revolution - most of the characters have moved out of history and into legend.
The only ones who have any kind of success have all been made for TV. It's weird...
I think if an epic Revolutionary War film were made it would need to be true (to a great extent).
I think it was a Disney production. Swamp Fox Swamp Fox where do you roam was the song!
And that's why the epic story of Mel Gibson's character waging an unconventional warfare on the Red Coats was so perfect! Those heartless Dragoons...epic, I tell you.
True, but there's lots of intriguing stories that can be done and you don't necessarily need the big battle. Obviously not Revolutionary War, but I thought Michael Mann did a great job with Mohicans. It can be done.
How has there not been a big time movie about George freaking Washington? Or Ben Franklin? Benedict Arnold is an incredible story.
I did read that Affleck is working on a Bunker Hill movie.
Again, not sure how historically accurate it is but I believe they claim it's close.
Some didn't like it, I couldn't get enough of it.
Actually, the one I'd love to see a biopic about is, sadly, one who would never get one because he's undeservedly obscure - Gouverneur Morris. A peg-legged womanizer who wrote much of the Constitution (and gets very little credit for it today), an outspoken voice against slavery, a close ally of Washington, a vigorous advocate of religious freedom, signatory to the Articles of Confederation when he was only 23, American ambassador to France during the Reign of Terror. A really interesting guy who most people have never even heard of.
1:48pm wants its post back...