John Adams (TV Mini-Series 2008) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
98 Reviews
Sort by:
Magnificent in every detail
bobwen29 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.
88 out of 97 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Magnificent work from HBO
Schmiggy_JK2316 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.
106 out of 119 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Historical Drama at Its Finest!
lavatch16 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!
106 out of 120 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Exceptional Performances
irg20 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.
46 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Poignant and gritty!
cbaker0318 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.
78 out of 89 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I'm so confused
tommull1 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
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.
31 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I can now name the 13 colonies
Rogue-3217 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
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.
34 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Everyone should watch
jmdstern20 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
52 out of 60 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
alexmail-220 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.
58 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Worthy of Golden Globe, Emmy
helmuthwilliam7 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."
22 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A wonderful, wonderful series!
operamartyc19 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!!
45 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A Joy And An Honour To Watch
jazz_jeff25 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.
23 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Human beings instead of voyeurism
EloiseForever21 September 2012
I usually don't easily rate with 10 stars, but this series is absolutely worth it. I didn't know too too much about the beginnings of the history of the US, but this series taught me a lot.Thanks to a great cast who brought these honorable people back to live and very moving scenes it will stay in my mind and heart.I agree that this should be showed to school children and especially modern day politicians.

What especially positively impressed me was the nearly complete lack of violence compared to oh so many other (american!) productions.We all know how terrible things can be, so there is no need to show it over and over again and satisfy merely voyeuristic wishes.Voices, quotes, Face expressions,subtle gestures should be enough for any human being to understand the message of this movie.VERY WELL DONE!
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Superbly Exquisite Work of Art, This HBO Series Is Impeccable
denis88819 August 2012
I love the US history, and among my favorite topics is the American Revolution. Then, there is one man whose great deeds are somehow overshadowed by all-time greats such as Washington, Jefferson or Franklin. This man is John Adams. His fervent character, his single-minded vigor and pursuit of his goals made him a remarkable and controversial figure. His often fiery character and his inability of not keeping his mind, all of these made him enemies quite too often. The HBO series made a great, huge, impeccable job of depicting John Adams and his time. Everything is done here with an utmost accuracy and mesmerizing precision. The casting is another great win - Paul Giamatti as Adams, Laurs Linney as his beloved wife Abigail, David Morse as General Washington to name the few, are all excellent choices. All of the primary and secondary actors do their job well, and how can we forget great Tom Wilkinson as Mr. Franklin. The setting, the soundtrack, the costumes and the unbelievably precise details add it all to the utter pleasure of watching this awesome serial. Highly and undoubtedly recommended
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Paul Giamatti is Electrifying as the Rotund Little Man Who Became the Unlikeliest of America's Founding Fathers
classicalsteve2 May 2010
I doubt the likes of John Adams could ever win a senatorial seat today. The presidency would be absolutely out of the question. At best, he would be a behind-the-scenes intellectual, akin to a David Axelrod or a David Plouffe, guiding tough decisions but allowing a much more glamorous candidate to make the speeches and sign the autographs. In short, John Adams could not have been president in the late 20th and early 21st centuries because of his looks and temperament.

John Adams has been one of the most enigmatic of figures of the early days of the founding of the United States of America. Part of this ambiguity was cleared up with the book by David McCullough, "John Adams". This HBO miniseries, maybe the best made-for-cable production since "Band of Brothers", chronicles the legal and political career of one of the more complex of America's Founding Fathers; it follows much of McCullough's book. McCullough spent hundreds of hours of research, particularly at the Massachusetts Historical Society in Boston, pouring over the myriad of surviving primary sources from the mid-18th century. John Adams, unlike Thomas Jefferson, is one of the most well-documented of American historical figures. Much of what we know about the circumstances regarding the War of Independence, the Continental Congress, and other incidents is because of the preservation of these documents by the Adams family for the last two and one half centuries. (By contrast, Jefferson destroyed many of his own documents.) Much of the series comes from these primary sources sifted through by McCullough.

John Adams was nothing like a Jack Kennedy, a Ronald Reagan, a Bill Clinton or a Barack Obama. He was short, stocky, unattractive, and had a pug nose, although he had penetrating eyes. During congressional debates he was once referred to as "His Rotundity". He could be overbearing, argumentative, occasionally rude and often big-mouthed. He could not tolerate incompetence and stupidity, at least as he defined it, and he had a bad habit of tactlessly letting people know. And yet, he was one of the titans of legal and political intellectualism in the American Colonies and one of the key figures that enabled their secession from Great Britain. During the Enlightenment of the 18th century, intellectualism and scholarship was more highly valued among leaders in America than it is today, and John Adams made up for his other shortcomings in spades. (Alas, in modern times, American politicians are often elected because of charisma, charm and movie-star qualities rather than intellectualism.) Therefore, no other actor in the business could play him as well as Paul Giamatti. As Adams was no Kennedy, neither is Giamatti which made him perfect for the part. Only the finest actor lacking star power could handle such a role. His performance is one of the best of an American historical figure, on par with Denzel Washington who portrayed Malcolm X. High marks also for Laura Linney as Abigail Adams. Both won Emmys for their performances.

The series begins with the tides of animosity and distrust that began stirring between the American Colonists and their British rulers in the 1760's and early 1770's. Although the acts of the so-called Sons of Liberty were already escalating growing tensions, Adams was not the first to sign on to the idea of secession, although his cousin Samuel Adams already had. Few Americans know that Adams was involved with the case of the so-called "Boston Massacre" of 1770, in which soldiers fired upon an angry mob that resulted in the deaths of five colonists--not exactly a massacre but that's how it was portrayed. On principle, Adams accepted the case to defend the soldiers who were eventually acquitted. The acquittal did not endear Adams to many of his fellow colonists. It was only later, in part convinced by his cousin Sam Adams, that he agreed to join the cause for independence. The series chronicles his rise in leadership during the debates of the Continental Congress in which he and Ben Franklin advocated secession. He later became ambassador to France along with Franklin to negotiate the French supporting the colonial rebellion.

After the war, he was elected as the first Vice President. Apparently he was quite ambivalent to his office, wondering if having been given the role of Vice President was somewhat of insult, but he would later recognize the honor it was. After Washington retired from public life, Adams was elected for one term as the second President of the United States in 1796, in part because of his crucial role during the War of Independence and his high intellectualism. As President, Adams avoided a war with France that probably saved the American nation, particularly since the United States had almost no defense. Unfortunately, since they were largely ignorant of the state of the military, the citizenry was largely in favor of such a war, and he lost his office to Jefferson in 1800. Later, a correspondence between Adams and Jefferson helps to reconcile their differences. They both died on the same day, July 4, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the founding of the new nation.

John Adams may have been the "smartest man in the room", and he had the integrity to go with it. Even though many of his colleagues, particularly Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, thought him insufferable at times, they revered his high intellectualism, and honored him by electing him President of the United States after George Washington. But in some ways, Adams was his own worst enemy, not knowing how to negotiate and debate in a civilized manner without demeaning and degrading his opponents. Politics is the art of negotiation, not just making the best arguments. I liken Adams somewhat to Jimmy Carter who was also highly intelligent but could not always negotiate with his political colleagues. This docudrama helps to reveal the multiple sides of Adams, and hopefully, the importance of what he did, how he did it, and why.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A disappointment
C H2 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.
14 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Slow at times, a few inaccuracies, but definitely worth watching
mhlong7 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
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.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Putting a human face on history
blanche-222 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.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Is that all he was?
achenier26 March 2011
Watching books on film carries the danger of replacing a rich and complex experience by an overly simplified, bare-boned one.

My most recent experience was watching on tape the television series on John Adams, based on the the David McCullough biography which I had read a few years ago.

My general impression is that the two principal actors, Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney (as John Adams and his influential wife, Abigail) gave a different rendition of the personalities of the main characters from what I had imagined them to be as I read the book. They became much more one-dimensional, for example.

Their personal communication style, as rendered by the actors, became an irritant to me. Adams way of speaking made him appear as shifty, untrustworthy and visionless : an 18th Century Dick Cheney. Abigail, as a condescending know-it-all.

Now that I have seen the movie, I have find it hard to return to my previous impression of a complex man married to a very strong and intelligent woman.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Very good, but...
buiger5 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.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Nearly spoiled by the camera-work
wilsr31 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.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Simply amazing
TheLittleSongbird4 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
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
One of the best miniseries ever made
Maddyclassicfilms8 October 2009
Warning: Spoilers
John Adams is directed by Tom Hooper, produced by Tom Hanks and Gary Goetzman,is based on the book by David McCullough and stars Paul Giamatti, Laura Linney, Stephen Dillane, Danny Huston and Tom Wilkinson and tells the remarkable true story of the second President of the United States and how the USA gained independence from the British.

John Adams(Paul Giamatti)is a lawyer in America in the 1700's and we follow his struggle to help America gain independence from Britain and see how he eventually becomes America's second President.

The highlight of the series is the relationship between John and his loving wife Abigail(Laura Linney). Abigail is John's anchor,conscience and is his best friend as well.The scenes between these two are so raw,honest and heart breaking at times.

Abigail was left alone much of the time while John travelled on state business but the two wrote such beautiful letters to each other declaring their love for one another.

The series also stars Stephen Dillane as Thomas Jefferson the man behind the declaration of independence and a lifelong friend of John's, David Morse as the first man to lead America George Washington,Tom Wilkinson as the legendary Benjamin Franklin and Sarah Polley as Adam's ill fated daughter Abigail"Nabby". The entire cast give superb performances but this is Paul Giamatti's show for sure, he is absolutely outstanding giving one of his best performances.

This is more than just a biography of one man and his family, it's a fascinating look at that time period and shows the hardship of life back then and how people coped with not very much to live on.

This series deserves a great deal of attention and is a good look at the contributions to history of one man and the start of a way of life that many now take for granted.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Highest possible recommendation!
bernierb28 April 2009
Being Canadian and history buff i was intrigued by this series prospects of my southern cousins' history.

Upon seeing the series i would say that this series is superb on all aspects, from the visuals to the story. The series played out well and there was magic flow thru all of it because of the marvelous acting and casting and visuals. Somehow i wish this series would have been longer because you really grow attached to the characters just after a few shows...

The only caveat is that the end shows feel a little bit rushed on the time-line that these persons lived in and you are left filling the time-line voids and try to figure out what happened to some characters in the series but then again it is absolutely engrossing to watch this show.

A glorious effort at trying to show us history for the modern men and women of this generation.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Disappointing, poorly done, and wildly inaccurate.
john141121 October 2014
This mini-series is so blatantly inaccurate that to say that it was based on the book by David McCullough is akin to calling McCullough an inept historian -- which he certainly was not. The book was extraordinary. But the film makers took huge and gross liberties with history – much of the "history" portrayed in the film is just wrong. And, as well, they interjected a massive amount of political correctness, apparently to make the film more pleasing to a wider audience -- particularly targeting the Gen Y and non-white viewers. Indeed, it seems that the producers and director wanted to portray white men as foolish and dishonest half-wits that could not possibly get anything worthwhile done without the help of their brilliant and angelically honest slaves. And, yes, thanks to those very strong and supremely intelligent women who also helped the weak, timid, and immoral white men get through the day. I'm not at all saying that black people and women did not play any significant role in our history – they certainly did. But this film clearly demeans and disparages white males in a profoundly erroneous and shameful manner. If we made a film portraying black males in this way today, there would be rioting in the streets -- and rightfully so. I don't understand why David McCullough allowed them to butcher his work. And I don't see how any thinking person could watch this tripe of a film without being insulted.
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews