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.

Acting is fine, story is ok, history is meh Was expecting quite a bit more, but from the network of Ancient Aliens I may need to lower the bar. Worth a background watch while working at home.

As a member of the Daughters of The Republic of Texas I am ashamed but not surprised. If you are going to do a film based on true events, GET IT RIGHT. They left out very important people that actually took place in the fight. Look up my great-great-great grandfather, Capt. Jesse Billingsley and you will find out from not only his personal journal but many other resources that his company was the first to ride in. Where is Edward Burleson? Check your geography. I would never, nor will I ever recommend this to anyone. As a proud Texan, this makes me sick!

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.

First I must say it was well shot and decent to good acting. And I do plan on watching the entire thing. But to enjoy this film you MUST forget everything you know about Texas history.

It is as inaccurate as it gets. It might as well be set in space... I really don't understand why they did this, because they "mess up" on some of the most basic and common knowledge history. And the true story itself is already such a strong story to begin with.

I mean if they wanted to do something fictional they could have based it around a fictional person within the historical events themselves. Instead they tell the story as if that's what happened. When in reality it's pure fiction.

From the opening scene it is entirely false. The whole thing... The Alamo didn't even look like that. They have the Alamo with a domed roof, which wasn't added until long after the war. That was not he flag that was flying at the Alamo... How do we know this? Because the flag the production used is FICTIONAL. That flag never existed prior to this show. They just made it up.

They also have the barracks the same height as the Alamo, it wasn't. They also have it right next to the Alamo, again it wasn't. The walls don't have palisades, which they did have during the siege.

More disturbing is that they have Emily West at the Alamo, she wasn't and that she had a brother who was both free and died at the Alamo. As far as we know she did not have a brother, nor do we know of any freed Black men who fought at the Alamo. And Emily West did NOT have any relations with Sam Houston... utter nonsense.

In fact, if she did have a brother he would have been in Connecticut where she was from and not Texas. She was an indentured servant under a 1 year contract of employment to James Morgan at a hotel in Morgan's Point on the Gulf Coast of Texas outside of Houston at the time the Alamo fell. She was captured by the Mexican Army in Mid April, over a month after the Alamo and held as a sex slave by Santa Anna. She was not a spy for the Texas army...

Then there is the entirely fictional character Lorca... Who survives the siege and goes on a murderous revenge killing spree... He never existed.

They go even further from reality when they have the "survivors" of the Alamo being transported to who knows where by the Mexican Army. That didn't happen. They were just left there. And they weren't attacked by Kiowa Indians. And the Rangers didn't rescue them.

I must mention that someone stated "this is East Texas" in reference to where Sam Houston was... the mountains and such. No, that is not East Texas... But Sam Houston wasn't in East Texas when the Alamo Fell. He was in between Gonzalez and Austin in the hill country. So that's actually accurate.

Originally he was to travel from Washington on the Brazos (Austin) to meet up with the forces from Goliad to come to the defense of the forces surrounded by the Mexican Army at the Alamo. But Fannin had some troubles enroute with wagons and cannons so he turned around and went back to Goliad. Houston then sent word to the Alamo that no forces would relieve them and orders to Fannin to retreat East and awaited their reply somewhere around Gonzalez. That's what's going on when that scene took place.