Texas Rising

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.

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.

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?

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.

I enjoy history. I read history books and I normally enjoy movies, shows, etc. about history but not this time. Such a waste of time, I didn't bother to watch the last two hours of it. It was full of actors that I normally enjoy, like Bill Paxton, Ray Liotta and Thomas Jane (totally wasted) and many character actors that I've seen in lots of movies over the years. Where has Brandon Frazier been - I hope he didn't come out of retirement for just this. Because if he did, he killed any future projects.

The writing is pathetic; the lines are delivered just as pathetic. Apparently there wasn't a director on the site. It is historically inaccurate (shame on "The History Channel). It is geographically inaccurate and no effort was made to make it appear that it matched the right time era. It appeared chopped up. Did they cut it, to make it easier to watch? There were gaps without explanation throughout the series. New stories would start and not finish.

Don't waste your time and I will definitely be suspicious of any history channel events in the future.