Texas Rising

Like what the two other reviewers' comments on this short TV drama by the History Channel, I have to say that this time, they've missed a great opportunity to glorify part of the history when Texas fought its independence and its future. A very bad screenplay tried so hard to dramatize that epic era had miserably missed the mark and turned it into a soap opera-like superfluous farce.

We have some of the better and great actors who signed up to play important historical characters in this one, but they were completely wasted and ridiculed by the lousy screenplay and its play writers. The scenes are great, the views are grand, but what a lousy arrangement turned this drama into the shallow marshland.

Why, I have to ask the History Channel, why you have to put two young jerks and clowns in such serious drama as members of the Texas Rangers? What made these two young stupid jerks qualified as Texas Rangers? Why the screenplay writer(s) you hired had to ridicule the name and the reputation of the Texas Ranger? These two young jerks didn't care about the future but only led by their dick heads to pursuit a young woman nurse in Sam Houston's degenerated and low morale camp. These two clowns segments in the first part of this drama had undoubtedly turned lot of viewers off to take this TV drama seriously.

Then, again, when the fall and slaughter of Alamo news reached Houston's camp, only a very short of moment we saw those street mob-like so-called Houston's fighting soldiers took off their hats to show their condolences and their respect for the fallen comrades, then when at the nightfall, we saw the whole camp seemed to celebrate Alamo falling into Santa Ana's control. We heard music and dancing all around in the camp. And Sam Houston other than did some lip services to his fallen brothers, only concentrated to reunited with his secret lover. At that moment, I just couldn't help hearing my curse and the only thing I remembered was "WTF?!"

Some of the Texas Rangers were played by several more matured actors who indeed did a great job to portray the tough life style of being a Ranger, their loyalty to their principles, their toughness also inevitably moved me for a few moments in the 1st part of this drama, but once those two young jerks appeared, it's all went into the drain.

I have to tell History Channel here: When you tried to revive or to repaint a history picture, dramatize it with unnecessary crap would only ruin every effort you guys have tried to do in the first place; and overly dramatizing the whole picture could only jeopardize the whole nine yards. But such stupidity could ever be improved or be cured, even you know it? I really doubt it.

This 5-part 10-hour TV mini-series starts with the defeat at the Alamo. It follows the fight between General Sam Houston (Bill Paxton) and Santa Anna (Olivier Martinez) as well as other stories. Santa Anna would eventually lose the Battle of San Jacinto on April 21, 1836 and be captured. The last episode would see the aftermath and the rise of the Texas Rangers.

There are some obvious accuracy problems even to a clueless guy like me. The question is whether it matters. The channel is called History Channel afterall. It ain't Lifetime and this is important history unlike "Hatfields & McCoys". One can play around with minor legends and folklore but if you play around with major history, it'd be nice to plaster the entire show with flashing neon signs saying THIS AIN'T TRUE.

The second problem is that the opening misdirected me by pontificating that all these various groups have differing goals. One of the first scene is Indians acting and portrayed as Indians from old Hollywood movies. That includes killing them easily and then mourning over the one white guy getting killed. It's very old fashion. At least, the Indians have one early scene discussing the politics and that saved the show at that point.

The first episode is very boring. Houston and his group are stuck in camp. I feel like some of his men who are itching to get moving. That idea could have been delivered in a more compelling way. It's not until the second episode that a big battle occur. This is still a show and it should try to hook the viewers right away. The obvious solution is to show some of the battle at the Alamo.

Just as the show seems to be picking up steam in the second episode, it loses me for good when the Mexican commander calls Colonel James Fannin a wetback. It is problematic on so many levels and it shows me the care with which the writers take. They think they're more clever than they actually are.

The actors in general are very good quality but they're not all necessarily shown in the best light. Bill Paxton is listless, I don't generally like Olivier Martinez and the years haven't been kind to Brendan Fraser. The acting is still generally good. The action scenes are also generally good for a TV miniseries. The production is relatively well made but those are not the problem.

It's laughable the number of reviews on this site from people whinging about inaccurate Texan history. It's the old story folks. When something is advertised as a 10 hour mini-series emanating from the History Channel and not classified as a documentary, I'm expecting, historical fiction, not an encyclopaedic regurgitation of a bunch of historical names and events. Texas Rising is a piece of historical fiction, based on the Texas Revolution against Mexico and how the Texas Rangers were created. If you like decent westerns, well produced with good acting and plenty of action, you should enjoy Texas Rising. If you were genuinely expecting some sort of doco, such as The Civil War, you'll be disappointed.

I've never quite understood why so many so-called educated people continually have this issue. Historical fiction is a recognised genre of literature and readers rarely raise an eyebrow when authors play fast and loose with the facts to achieve dramatic outcomes. The same thing occurs in Texas Rising, where plenty of liberties are taken for poetic licence. This includes characters being created, who sit alongside real historical figures in the narrative. At the end of the final episode, the production scrolled through the major real life characters represented in the series adding brief bios about their lives, during and after the events we see detailed in the show. Persona not represented were obviously fictional, for those viewers who were gnashing teeth worrying about that sort of thing, while continuing to watch what was clearly a non-documentary. But for one with a half-way educated mind, let's just say it's not rocket science difficult to generally discern between fact and fiction as to what you are watching.

I appreciated the opportunity to get a bit of an insight into the events occurring after the fall of The Alamo and to be introduced to President Andrew Jackson, General Sam Houston, the early rag-tag Texas Rangers led by the delightfully named Captain Deaf Smith and the legendary "Yellow Rose of Texas". I should mention Jeffrey Dean Morgan's outstanding and affecting turn as the consumptive, but quietly inspiring leader Smith and the terrific chemistry displayed between his character and Bill Paxton's salty, but confidently intelligent Houston. For those used to seeing Morgan bulked up in "tough guy action mode", your eyes may pop out, as you witness Smith's (real life) physical deterioration during the course of the series.

Dramatically and thematically I will agree with those critics who suggest that the overall tone of Texas Rising does appear to almost constitute "a love letter to the Lone Star State"and a conservative mainstream view of Texan history. In other words, there are few sympathetic perspectives to be seen from the Mexican or Native American fronts. They are largely depicted one dimensionally, as the villains of the piece, dispossessing the determined white settlers with their friendly, contented black slaves (some who were supposedly "free"). I did think this was a little unusual in an extended mini-series. There was a footnote after the final episode that a follow-up series concentrating on the Comanche Wars was planned, where one would think alternative frames of reference should well be approached.

Nevertheless, keeping the above in mind, I think those interested in a dramatic western perspective of lead-up events to the establishment of the Republic of Texas will not fail to be entertained by Texas Rising.

The History Channel took a historical event and rewrote the basic facts of the Alamo, Goliad, events leading up the the Battle of San Jacinto and the characters involved and has presented them as fact to an audience who may not know what actually happened.

Now anyone who doesn't know the facts will think that:

1. Lorca survived the Alamo. 2. Emily was sleeping with Sam Houston. 3. Central and East Texas are full of mountains with hundred foot high cliffs. 4. etc.

Shame on you History Channel. You were to report History, not rewrite it. What will you do next, create a mini-series about how Adolf Hitler was really a secret spy for the American Army during WWII while sleeping with a British official's wife?

Can I trust anything else I see on the History Channel anymore?

History Channel has presented some great historically-based miniseries in the past (Hatfields & McCoys for example), but Texas Rising is not a good example and it's not even interesting. I can hardly watch it...boring, bad acting, bad dialog and accents, even fake-looking "Texas" scenery. When previews began, I could not wait to watch this series, but I felt as though this series was thrown together to meet some kind of internal deadline. Most of the characters are unsympathetic and rigid. The only redeeming aspect to this series and the reason I rated it a 5 and not a 1 is the deliciously evil performance of Ray Liotta. Let's hope the next "History Channel Presents" is better than this one.