Very beginning. He's a grumpy groan who is dragged into the cause of liberty as martial law comes to Boston in the aftermath of the massacre. NOT TRUE. He had made studious arguments for liberty and the rights of Americans going back over a decade before that, and was a member of societies so devoted. Sam Adams, rabble rouser to the point of anarchy. NOT TRUE. He was thoughtful man consciuos of his choices. Worst of all is John Hancock --- in a scene concocted in a seeming attempt to inject grusome inhumanity masquerading as realism --- inciting a crowd to tar and feather a customs worker. NOT TRUE. Hancock was prudent and fair-minded (the disposition which got him the presidency of the Congress), and that incident apart from Hancock appears to have been the product wholecloth of British propaganda. This portrayal --- which left me fiercely (thugh thankfully briefly) sympathic to the British alone by the end of that episode (I wanted to retroactively impose martial law on Boston) ---- is extra upsetting when I read that it was a British director. Hancock and the Adamses were Whigs, and they pubilckly cried out against vigilantism. I'll also toss in that the foreshadowing of his disappointment with his son Charles is the sort of heavyhandedness that you come to get used to in telefilms, even on big-budget cable channels. This isn't a biography. It's a MAJOR TELEVISION EVENT, and it doesn't appear to deserve to be taken seriously.