John Adams
List Price:
Our Price: $16.70
You Save: $23.28 (58%)
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Buy Used: from $10.00 (click here)
Category: DVD
See more DVD releases
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
DVD Cover Information
Actor: Laura Linney, Paul GiamattiBrand: HBO HOME VIDEO
DVD: Region Code 1
Audio: English (Unknown), Dolby Digital 5.1; English (Subtitled); Spanish (Subtitled); French (Subtitled); English (Original Language), Dolby Digital 5.1
Format: Box set, Closed-captioned, Color, Dolby, DVD, NTSC, Widescreen
Picture Format: 1.77:1
Running Time: 501 minutes
DVD Release Date: 2008-06-10
Audience Rating: NR (Not Rated)
Studio: HBO
Product features:
- Condition: New
- Format: DVD
- Box set; Closed-captioned; Color; Dolby; DVD; Widescreen; NTSC
Movie Reviews of John Adams
Movie Review: Excellent & truly engrossing... just a couple minor issues
Summary: 5 Stars
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.
Summary of John Adams
Studio: Hbo Home Video Release Date: 06/10/2008 Run time: 501 minutes Rating: PgSimilar DVD Movies
TrumanHBO Home Video; Release date: 2000-02-29; DVD
Best price: $4.52
Price in other shops:
Desperate Crossing: The Untold Story of the MayflowerA and E Home Video; Release date: 2007-01-30; DVD
Best price: $10.49
Price in other shops:
Alexander HamiltonPARAMOUNT PICTURES; Release date: 2007-05-15; DVD
Best price: $12.35
Price in other shops:
The PacificHBO HOME VIDEO; Release date: 2010-11-02; DVD
Best price: $22.45
Price in other shops:
The History Channel Presents Washington the WarriorA and E Home Video; Release date: 2006-08-29; DVD
Best price: $9.54
Price in other shops:
The CrossingA and E Home Video; Release date: 2003-02-11; Published: 2003-02-01; DVD
Best price: $10.39
Price in other shops:
Benjamin FranklinParamount; Release date: 2006-01-24; DVD
Best price: $12.26
Price in other shops:
Thomas Jefferson - A Film by Ken BurnsParamount; Release date: 2004-09-28; DVD
Best price: $11.46
Price in other shops:
The Adams ChroniclesAdams; Release date: 2008-04-15; DVD
Best price: $11.84
Price in other shops:
1776 (Restored Director's Cut)Sony; Release date: 2002-07-02; Published: 2002-07-02; DVD
Best price: $8.35
Price in other shops: