comment #1

Geoff says ...

I saw the first episode. I really liked it, especially because I don't know that much about John Adams to begin with (he was skipped over in my classes). Laura Linney is superb. It feels authentic.

I guess many people could find it boring if they aren't into history or want an Emmerich film.

I'll be sure to follow it.

comment #2

rockne says ...

Wow...though engrossing...the "compositions" were mainly of the Battlefield Earth variety...it was one of the worst-directed films or mini-series I have ever seen.
The acting, while top-notch, was ruined, again, by the editing and the "cantered" Battlefield Earth compositions and the shaky-cam...(Why frame a chair more prominently than John Adams?)
I also felt "Who wants to watch twenty minutes of a small-pox vaccination?
I've seen better "compositions" on eighth-grade student films.
The easiest way to kill a series? Start with a one-hour trial.
The Congress scenes, however amazingly written, were directed and edited by a twelve year old with ADD.
I wanted this to be great, and I don't understand the rave reviews...or the agreeance of such.

comment #3

Geoff says ...

It's not Battlefield Earth tilted angle status.

It's noticeable, but I like the hand held feel. It keeps me on my toes. A Sydney Lumet approach would be fine...but very familiar.

comment #4

scooterzz says ...

i watched the first four eps of this a few weeks ago and can honestly say that they just get better and better..... this is not something i was looking forward to sitting through but am now looking forward to the whole series........
oh, and
SPOILER - SPOILER - SPOILER (LIKE YOU CAN HAVE A FUCKING AMERICAN HISTORY SPOILER!?)

tom wilkenson as a debauched ben franklin in paris is a shoe-in for award season......

comment #5

rockne says ...

He's beseeching Thomas Jefferson to write the Declaration. To write the declaration...one of the most amazing moments to feel we've witnessed. Films let us witness that.
How do they film it? Cantering the film????!!!!! Why? The man playing Thomas Jefferson was AMAZING! I didn't get half of it because we could barely see him and because I was waiting for John Travolta to walk out with that wig.

comment #6

Jeffrey Kunze says ...

That's an eye-sore of a production still.

Couldn't you have found a more appealing photo to promote this show with Jeff?

comment #7

alynch says ...

I had absolutely no problems with the way the film was shot. It's somewhat noticeable, but hardly distracting.

comment #8

Joe Leydon says ...

But is he as good as William Daniels in 1776?

comment #9

Geoff says ...

Tak Fujimoto shot this. I don't know why I wasn't paying attention to the credits. It's good stuff all around.

comment #10

scooterzz says ...

joe -- in my opinion, '1776' is one of the most unbearable musicals ever...i've seen it a few times (yeah, yeah, i know) and it never gets better (although we always love william daniels)......

that said (and speaking of musicals), i saw 'sweeney todd' at the ahmanson a few nights ago and it was absolutely brilliant....if you're in l.a. over the next few weeks, don't miss it..... i've seen lansbury and lapone....kaye is the best ever......
hmmmm.... i seem to have drifted off topic here....oh, nurse......

comment #11

Joe Leydon says ...

Scoot: Ah, but which version of 1776 did you see?

http://movingpictureblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/1776-redux.html

comment #12

scooterzz says ...

joe -- saw it in nyc in '71 and '97 (that was the worst!!!)....... saw the movie in '72...... again, for 'reprise! in l.a. 2001...... juat never liked this show....

comment #13

Mgmax says ...

I don't think it matters which you've seen, either you buy singing Founding Fathers or you don't. I love it, but I can understand thinking it's as bizarre as Springtime for Hitler.

On the whole, I prefer the shorter version, though my ideal would be in between the two-- the uncut version has a loooong first act with no songs in it, but Cool Considerate Men was a real loss when it was cut. Joe describes it well: "an intelligently yet playfully romanticized account of events leading to the signing of the Declaration of Independence."

Now back to my Franklin Pierce libretto...

comment #14

bertrand says ...

raves?

the NYTimes and LATimes both panned. i really wanted to love this thing, but, jeezus, just check out the rather mediocre credits of the director and writer.

especially the writer, who's churned out TV c-r-a-p, and i mean CRAP. no wonder.

comment #15

Kristopher Tapley says ...

I'll only forgive it's rather white-washed sense of the man so far if they get into his true atrocities, namely the Alien and Sedition Acts, the kind of thing that has Keith Olbermann losing his shit on a nightly basis and an ancestor of the Patriot Act.

comment #16

Kristopher Tapley says ...

Oh, and it's obvious from the outset that Tom Wilkinson will be the best part about this thing.

comment #17

jjgittes says ...

Meh.......I thought it was ok so far. Linney was fantastic, but then again, she always is.

I'm not sold on Giamatti here - he just seems to be bluffing his way through the part. I am not a big fan of his in general though - he's a good actor but not more than that..

HBO is acting like this is an event on a par with Angels in America or something.......it most certainly is freakin' not anywhere near that level based on last night.

comment #18

giantman says ...

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but I can't understand how someone could pan this mini-series. I can certainly see how someone might not "like" it, or it isn't their cup 'o tea, but to pan it outright? I don't get it. How many bland, boring, and self-important versions of this story have we had already? This one is anything but, it feels as real as it can be. The filming, the acting, all feel grounded in reality. It actually made me care about what was happening and that is a rare and wonderful thing.

Excellent.

comment #19

Mr B says ...

I agree giantman. I love it so far.

comment #20

Stephe96 says ...

I'm liking it so far, but I have to admit there were a few shots where John Adams was a dead-ringer for Dr. Evil!

comment #21

jasonvang says ...

In fact i am not interested in these things, however, i like dating girls.
months ago a friend told me a online dating site WealthyLoves.c o m where people can find their perfect matches or quality friendships. ....maybe we can keep in touch and make friends on this site.

comment #22

MikeSchaeferSF says ...

Wilkinson as Ben Franklin: Best. Casting. EVER.

comment #23

JapAdapters says ...

Jeez, it never occurred to me before but Giamatti looks a bit like Paul Revere.

comment #24

Mr. Buckles says ...

BERTRAND - take a look at metacritic.com. Most critics liked it - the LA Times and NY Times don't have a monopoly on taste.

That said, the fake honker on David Morse as Geo Washington is distracting.

comment #25

Richardson says ...

I tried watching it, but I realized that the deliberately shaky camerawork was going to keep going. Further, I just couldn't take Giamatti's voice for 7 hours.

Too bad, as I was looking forward to it somewhat.

comment #26

oakling says ...

*cackling at the spam*
"In fact i am not interested in these things, however, i like dating girls"? I always DID wonder if John Adams was gay, and now "jasonvang" has confirmed it!
Seriously though, a tip of the hat to Kristopher Tapley. I love to see well-done, compelling historical stuff, but much more so if it goes for the much-needed political jugular. I am glad to hear that Giamatti doesn't ruin the rest of the film... I am definitely no fan of his.

comment #27

CinemaPhreek says ...

Yeah, the director is lost in the woods on this.

It has great production design and gives you a real sense of what this world was like to actually live in (as opposed to being engraved on a plate), but it keeps being undercut by poor choices behind the camera.

If you want a prime example of how to do something and how NOT to do it, compare and contrast the "draw & quarter" scene from the Helen Mirren ELIZABETH I that HBO did with the tar & feathering one in JOHN ADAMS. Having read the book, I finally understood how truly cruel this was but you wouldn't know it from watching the show last night. It just looked like getting coated with warm fudge and made to ride naked on a rail was just embarrassing, and not horribly painful.

And as much as I like Giamatti, he is miscast here. It's a testament to his abilities that whenever the scene played long I would forget that it was him, but the illusion was shattered whenever there was another shot of him as Adams scurrying down a city street.

Look at those pictures of Adams - although he was short in stature there is a gravity to man that Giamatti does not possess.

comment #28

Richardson says ...

"Look at those pictures of Adams - although he was short in stature there is a gravity to man that Giamatti does not possess."

It doesn't help that his accent comes off worse than a sixth grader pretending to be British for a play about presidents.

comment #29

bertrand says ...

MR. BUCKLES

Yes, I looked at MetaCritic:

Variety: "...sparks to life only sporadically..."
USA Today: "...sadly, Adams... is outshone by his more famous peers but also by just about every minor character."
Slate: "...frequently merely decent and occasionally plain dull..."
New Yorker: "...the bigger problem is how far the writing has to go to make Adams more important than those around him..."
LA Times: "...unfortunately, so smitten are the creators of 'John Adams' that they seem to have forgotten how to tell a good story..."
NY Times: "John Adams is the weakest part of 'John Adams'...
SF Chron: "the something-is-wrong-here element of 'John Adams' extends well beyond Giamatti..."

comment #30

giantman says ...

Hey, this is fun!

New York News: "Best of all are two extraordinary performances at the center: Paul Giamatti as Adams and Laura Linney as his wife, Abigail."

San Jose News: "It manages to be a rousing piece of filmmaking..."

Entertainment Weekly: "Who says TV doesn't make history thought-provokingly exciting?"

TV Guide: "as sumptuous and satisfying as TV gets"

Hollywood Reporter: "handsome miniseries is praiseworthy on many levels"

Baltimore Sun: "one of the most compelling miniseries of the decade."

Gosh, even a monkey can do this.

comment #31

Mr B says ...

I guess I'm an idiot, so far almost every complaint I've read here is one of the things I really liked. I thought the tar and feather scene was done very well. It created a firm sense of outrage yet held back from overly sentimentalizing it with too much writhing and swelling music. Giamati was great, but I guess I usually like him, while others apparently don't.

I agree that WIlkinson has been the most inspired casting so far. I like how Morse is playing Washington as well, though the nose does look a bit goofy. Shrug.

comment #32

bertrand says ...

from Giantman's blog: Some Critics Don't Like "John Adams."

I've never been the type of person that has actively pursued a course of debate with people who don't like the things I enjoy on television. I know some critics liked "John Adams" like I did. I would certainly have prefered that ALL of the critics liked "John Adams," don't get me wrong, but I've understood for a long time the fact that isn't very realistic. Not every mini-series is going to be liked by everyone, it just doesn't happen. I much prefer being comfortable in my own skin and letting others come to their own conclusions about what they like or don't like what they watch on TV... until I feel annoyed enough to let it get under my skin. Most people do this sooner or later, especially when they have a lot of time on their hands. Which is understandable. Normally I happen to be a heck of a nice guy and not a pinhead. Now, what does this have to do with HBO's "John Adams"? Not much.

comment #33

giantman says ...

bertrand - I'm confused about your intention in the above comment, where you attribute a quote from me that I never made... isn't that called slander? Although I must admit that you did a very good job of making it sound like something that I might have said, even though I didn't.

So the question becomes, should I be laughing or should I be extremely pissed off?

comment #34

giantman says ...

I knew the quote sounded familiar, even though you changed it to suite your own purpose. I once saw a monkey at a traveling circus that could do the same thing, amazing animal. The actual quote, which was regarding a client pitch we lost a few months ago, was this:

"I've never been the type of person that has actively pursued a course of trying to be liked. I know people like that, and I ain't one of them. I would certainly prefer that people liked me, don't get me wrong, but I've understood for a long time the fact that isn't very realistic. No one is going to be liked by everyone, it just doesn't happen. I much prefer being comfortable in my own skin and letting others come to their own conclusions about wether they like that or not. Most do. Which is understandable, I happen to be a heck of a nice guy. But some don't and that's ok as well. Now, how does all that relate to losing a client pitch? Oh, it relates."

I certainly encourage everyone to visit my blog and copy and paste passages that you find interesting, change them for your own purposes (all the while leaving an IP trail a monkey can follow) and re-post them on a public site where my lawyers can easily find them. Makes life interesting.

comment #35

giantman says ...

Apologies. I had decided that I was pissed this morning. My only point was that anyone can find negative and positive critical reviews on just about anything they want. Duh. The point isn't what other people think, but what you think. That's it.