Review of John Adams

John Adams (2008)
7/10
Very good, but...
5 October 2009
The critics all beg to differ with each other on this one. Me, I believe the truth is in the middle (as usual). I tend to agree with each critic on a single issue and then disagree on the rest...

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

The series is populated with many historical characters, most of which spring to life not only thanks to good acting, but also because of a good screenplay and excellent dialog. I enjoyed the fact that the language used was that of the times, and not a modern version of the same. There is however, one major problem, one that prevents this series from being great, and that is the casting of John Adams. Notwithstanding his trying hard, Paul Giamatti "just doesn't feel right" as John Adams. This is a major problem for this otherwise almost impeccable production, which I highly recommend watching in any case.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed