Der letzte Ritt

Is this better than Lonesome Dove? Depends on who you ask. I think that viewed objectively it is indeed a better mini-series. Two things complicate this in many people's minds. First, when it comes to the books I think most people think Lonesome Dove is a better book. Second, the first mini-series was so one of a kind that it really left an impression with people. Really got in their heads. By the time this came out people didn't find a western mini-series as groundbreaking. But if you watch them back to back now I think this one comes out on top. It features some great performances and, as others have commented, is a bit darker in tone and feel than the previous mini-series. If you liked Lonesome Dove this is a slam dunk for you to like.

First of all, the vast majority of those giving "Streets of Laredo" bad reviews have no legitimate complaints whatsoever. People whine about the dark tone, the killings, the acting, et cetera. Rather, this film has much more in common with the real old west, to a greater degree even than series like "Deadwood". Of course, many of the immature, misguided western fans seem to want happy horse-riding hippies who talk hard and rough but don't live it. How stupid to expect such from the real killers of the west.

Woodrow F. Call (James Garner) is not a nice man. And he should not be pigeonholed as one, either. Garner plays him the way he should be, and is even more impressive than Tommy Lee Jones in "Lonesome Dove", the series which preceded this one. Indeed, despite the rabid fanbase of "Lonesome Dove" (of which I very nearly belong), this series is undoubtedly superior. First of all, the direction is a vast improvement. Joseph Sargent handles the scenery and actors with far more intelligence and grace than Simon Wincer, who proved his woeful inadequacies when he returned for the prequel "Comanche Moon" last year. That series was pure trash, horribly acted and directed despite the great actors involved.

There are many great performances beside Garner. Charles Martin Smith, Sam Shepard, and Sissy Spacek are pure class. Smith, especially, has always been an excellent unnoticed actor. This is perhaps his best performance since "Never Cry Wolf" (1983). He is sympathetic and identifiable as the nervous railman. Shepard and Spacek play husband and wife quite intuitively. Their character development is well-performed to the highest degree. This is also one of Spacek's best performances.

Larry McMurtry has a very intuitive writing style, and the film carries over much of his subtlety. There's no overblown dialogue or direction to be found in "Streets of Laredo", something that the original "Lonesome Dove" series sometimes slipped into. I would say, without reservation, that this is one of the very best and most realistic depictions of the true west. A great film, with stunning acting and direction. A must see for any true film fan - narrow-minded western fans looking for a 'Hollywood' west need not apply.

RATING: 8.5 out of 10

I just read the book, and haven't seen the TV show for several years. But I have to say that the idea that Lorena would marry Pea Eye is ridiculous. Then having the coal miner's daughter play her is more preposterous. Cissy Spacek is a good actress, but has very strange looks, not the beauty Lorena is supposed to be, and was in Lonesome Dove. Pea eye is a goofy looking guy-you can tell just by his name. He wouldn't look anything like Sam Shepard. I like James Garner, but his shtick is that he is a large man who is basically a coward, and gets out of scrapes using his words. The exact opposite of Call. He's supposed to be a rather average size man, who is shrunken in his old age, yet still a formidable foe. Brookshire is a bookeeper who adapts sort of well to the west, but not the geek that is Charles Martin Smith. Yuk! Yet the book so enthralls, with all it's misery, that I think I am going to go out and rent this TV movie, if I can find it. "Twould be so much better with casting closer to the characters character. And looks.

If you haven't seen any of the other "Lonesome Dove" movies, "Streets of Laredo" is a strong drama with an excellent cast. James Garner is arguably America's least appreciated actor because he was always so handsome and charismatic. News flash: He's a terrific actor, not just a movie/TV star. Sissy Spacek is always wonderful. And all supporting parts filled with fine actors.

Problem is, for those of us who've seen the others in this saga, much of this one doesn't make sense. We have no idea of the year. "Lonesome Dove" was set in 1877, a year after "Custer's Last Stand." Gus, Woodrow and Pea Eye were "old men" about 50 years old who'd been together for 30 years. Lorena was in her early 20s, shy and illiterate. Now Woodrow is perhaps ten years older, Lorena is much older, and is a strong, worldly schoolteacher married to a Pea Eye who's at least ten years younger than the original Pea Eye. They've been married for at least 15 years, and have five children. And Woodrow and Pea Eye have STILL known each other only 30 years.

We wonder why Woodrow is in Laredo instead of at his thriving ranch in Montana. We wonder how and where Lorena and Pea Eye got together, given she went to San Francisco while Pea Eye stayed at the Montana ranch.

The novel doubtless fills in lots of these gaps, but the movie shouldn't require reading the novel. Perhaps McMurtry, a true American literary treasure, just threw this screenplay together.

But even those of us who know and love "Lonesome Dove," still one of the three best things ever made for television (with "Gettysburg" and "Band of Brothers"), can detach "Streets of Laredo" from the other three, ignore its many flaws, and just watch it on its own. When we do that, we enjoy a lot of wonderful acting in a very good drama.

Streets of Laredo is a fine western. It's just that Lonesome Dove set too high a standard to compare any other western with. Maybe the problem lies with the story itself....can anyone who saw LD imagine Lorena marrying Pea Eye and having a passel of kids???? Recall that Lorena wouldn't have anything to do with Lippy and yet she marries Pea Eye. Diane Lane and Tim Scott, together!?! No way! Streets of Laredo simply inverts the visuals embedded in our brains from LD: now Pea Eye(Sam Shepherd) is actually better looking than Lorena(Sissy Spacek). That's just too much of a stretch. I never thought I'd criticize Sissy Spacek but she just doesn't have any of Diane Lane's elegance and sensuousness. Ms. Lane was charming and endearing but Spacek's Lorena just grates on the nerves. Also for a sequel we are left mystifyingly in the dark as to why the main characters are back in Texas. Newt, who was the actual "lonesome dove" in LD, is never mentioned. What happened to Call's cattle ranch in Montana??? No clue. I realize the novel probably answers these questions but hell, this was a miniseries! The screenwriters should have had time to develop what happened since the end of LD. I also don't like the introduction of historical figures Roy Bean and John Wesley Hardin who are used as stage props to prove how fearsome Joey Garza is. Garza was so tough even the Apaches grew to fear him. Give me a break! The character Joey Garza merely strikes me as a punk who can shoot well. As a rule I don't like villains with pencil necks, no upper body strength, and who don't shave yet; it's just too hard to take them seriously. He doesn't inspire fear, but rather seems a nuisance we wish someone would eliminate. On the positive side, James Garner is marvelous as Woodrow Call. He won't replace Tommy Lee Jones in my mind as Call but then again, who could? Garner seems more stoic, more matter-of-fact than Jones was. Jones' portrayal had a lot of quiet emotion churning beneath the surface, unfortunately Garner has no Gus to play off of. Still he shines brighter in this movie than anyone else. I guess the main test that ranks Streets of Laredo unfavorably with LD is the affect it produces with time. It doesn't stay with one like LD. Scenes are not memorable and unforgettable as they were with LD. The bittersweet irony is missing. I don't have the sense it will involuntarily become part of one's psyche with time.