Critical reception
On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes , 96% of 24 critics' reviews are positive.The website's consensus reads: "Examining how America's founding turned the world upside-down as the thirteen British colonies on the Atlantic Coast rose in rebellion, won their independence and established a new form of government that radically reshaped the continent." [12]
Writing in Vanity Fair , Jordan Hoffman characterizes the series as "loaded with characters, ideas, and perspectives" that make "history feel urgent and new," and highlighted its "stacked ensemble" of voice performers. Hoffman also notes the film's "stately pace" and attention to Loyalists and lesser known participants in the events. [13] Jennifer Schuessler in The New York Times argues that as a documentary it "aim[s] to strip away the barnacles of sentimentality and nostalgia" surrounding the founding of the United States. Schuessler noted that the series arrives "in the middle of a culture war," pointing to its "frank discussions of slavery and Native American dispossession" and its depiction of the Revolution as a "hyper-violent civil war that divided families and communities." She observed that the film "doesn't demonize Loyalists" and that its presentation of Native Americans as "members of powerful nations faced with complex choices" may be "the most eye-opening part of the documentary." The article also reported that Burns's "insistence on both inspiration and complexity has played well with audiences, including those well outside the PBS orbit." [14] Daniel Fienberg describes The American Revolution in The Hollywood Reporter as "smart, thorough, [and] sincere in intent," calling it "rousing, if repetitive." He wrote that the series is "patriotic, pragmatic and familiar," noting that it "fits snugly into the unprecedented tapestry that Burns has been weaving since Brooklyn Bridge." Fienberg praised its attention to "the internal conflicts and hypocrisies of the American Revolution," particularly its treatment of "the celebrations of equality that excluded Blacks and Native Americans," while also remarking that the production "relies heavily on familiar Burnsian tracking shots and zooms" and can feel "dry and a little languid." He concluded that despite its flaws, the series conveys "the optimism that we sometimes forget as we squirm through the latest evolution or devolution of the American experiment." [15] Writing for Politico , Nathaniel Moore suggests that Burns frames the series as a unifying civic project grounded in a "shared past," and described the cut he saw as heavy on factual narration while inclusive of voices often omitted from Revolutionary histories; he concluded that the film was "entertaining enough" to draw multigenerational audiences together at public screenings. [16]
