Stella solitaria

I liked this movie and appreciated its general historical context. We sometimes forget the power of Mexico in early American history and before; and all the rapid annexation and political machinations. It's not like it was just quick and easy to build and adopt all the American states. There were fights with Indians, Mexicans, inner-state fighting as to annexation or not. Texas was independent for 10 years. And yet we know that Texas has always had its "I am my own country" view and this movie helps you see why and the Texas patriotism.

British and French were involved having a heavy hand in supporting the British or opposing them (French). France was a major instrument in helping the US gain its independence, and therefore lessen the UK's power, which was a strategic prerogative for France.

The movie does a good job keeping it about annexation and the forces that oppose it. Strong character development for Clark Gable as a man driven at times by heroism; by money; by doing the right thing. He forms a strong, believable, complex character, and his character unfoldment is strong.

The romantic interest with Ava Gardner is kept in its place, only about 10% of the movie. So we stay on track with the main plot.

The serious, egomaniacal Craden who wants to be president of Texas and to stay independent --- a great serious foil to Gable. It works well. However, a real wrecker of the film was the writing at the end: After Craden fights, and fights and fights -- and in really nasty, cruel ways -- we find out that Mexico is preparing for war (they will once they find out about annexation.). After Craden loses his fight to Gable, he shrugs his shoulders, joins Gable to fight Mexico. That brought down the movie score for me by 2 points. A ridiculous wink "Well I might as well join 'em" that just doesn't ring true. You feel everyone is having a good time, but all the tough stuff they just endured, "well, this is all for fun, glad we are entertaining you."

Great star cast. Gable is strong. Broderick the enemy is strong until the last ridiculous scene. Ava Gardner has fine acting; she is just given little to do. She still plays a critical role as the independent journalist who prints the truth - whether she likes it or not.

This movie was solid with great acting, good action scenes and history. I can't figure out why it doesn't go to the next level --perhaps because we just know everything is going to be ok. I'd say its formulaic but its not - they had some real depth to Devereax/Clark's character who had hero runs, runs for money, stays to do the right thing, never settles down -- a lot of mixed motives. There are different factions, Texas enemies, Mexico, indians. There are votes in Congress, exciting battle scenes, a romance and good acting. Somehow, though, it doesn't take it to the next level where you rave. I think we know it is going to be okay in the end, and so we relax too much; the writing could be different; and there needs to be a bit of a more serious tone for us to be on edge. The ending made you think they were all fooling around and don't take it that seriously.

Instead it's a solid, enjoyable, semi historical film, with very good acting. Great actors and good pacing. I enjoyed it a lot. Make the ending not joking/playful and it goes up 1.5 points.

I afraid even with the starpower involved in this one since there's not much they can do with a poor script.

Convoluted plot about the annexation of Texas into the union, it involves the opposing forces of Gable and Broderick Crawford in a fight to see whether Texas will become a state, or an independent republic.

Although there's plenty of action, too much of the film gets bogged down in the romance between Gable and Gardner. I guess MGM needed another vehicle for the two of them after THE HUCKSTERS (1947) or MOGAMBO (1953)

And the battle scene and what happens to Crawford at the end is unreal. It turns into a 'Let's all unite for Texas' kinda of a thing that looks implausible, especially after what's been going on for the previous 94 minutes.

If they had a better script it might have turned out to be something more entertaining. 4 out of 10

A movie set in 1845 Texas that deals with Texas either joining the union or going off and becoming an independent republic. Lionel Barrymore plays Andrew Jackson is who for joining the union and so is Clark Gable. Broderick Crawford and Ava Gardner want Texas to become an independent and Crawford wants to be the leader. Both sides are waiting for what Sam Huston has to say, but he is out helping the Indians form a peace treaty. Crawford is willing to do anything to get what he wants and Gardner begins to fall for Gable. At the end, of course, there is a big battle between Gable and Crawford's army and then a fight between the two of them. Clark Gable is the same as always and Broderick Crawford is miscast in this role. Ava Gardner is only OK and Lionel Barrymore is only in two scenes.

The diplomatic and political machinations around the admission of Texas to the USA are incredibly complex and are touched on in this film. It would have taken a longer and better film to explain it all. I think MGM had plans for one in this, but Dore Schary was budget cutting at the time and this got B western treatment for a stellar cast.

One thing they show is true and that is the influence of 77 year old former President Andrew Jackson on the Democratic Party he founded. His prestige was that big, he was the dominant political figure for 20 years or so in the country before, during and after his presidency.

Lionel Barrymore reprises the role of Jackson, he had previously played in MGM's The Gorgeous Hussy. He's still wheeling and dealing and he doesn't like what he's heard that his old friend and comrade in arms Sam Houston is climbing off his position of being for the annexation of the Texas Republic to the United States. On his own he sends Clark Gable as Devereaux Burke Texas cattleman to seek out Houston and get the real story.

On the way to completing his mission Gable finds Ava Gardner who is the editor of a local paper in Austin and Broderick Crawford another Texas cattleman who is violently opposed to annexation. They get a good political rivalry and a personal one over Gardner.

In the film as in real life Sam Houston, played by Moroni Olsen, is running a big bluff. He's playing footsie with the British by negotiating a treaty of alliance with them in order to force the hand of northern politicians who are against slavery, but who would like even less the British moving into Texas.

There's an exciting battle between the pro and anti annexation forces while the Texas Congress meets. It results however in a very unreal conclusion to the story.

It's unfortunate given the stellar cast Lone Star has that a better scripted story was not developed for them, even one that is completely factual. It's an A picture subject that got B picture treatment.

Starring Clark Gable, Ava Gardner, and Broderick Crawford, "Lone Star" is a rousing story of political intrigue based on the historical battle for The Republic of Texas. One side wanted annexation by the United States. The other wished to maintain the republic and set treaties with Mexico and other countries.

The battle for the minds of Texans is an interesting one, involving many factions, including the native Americans of the territory. The year is 1845 and Andrew Jackson, who still wields tremendous influence from Nashville, advocates annexation. Andrew Johnson is against it. Sam Houston--a local hero--is a significant unknown entity who may sway the Texas government and Texas hearts.

Gable plays Dev Burke, a Texas cattleman who agrees to represent Jackson's interests. Broderick Crawford plays Tom Craden, a significant influence around Austin, who has big plans for the republic. Ava Gardner plays Martha Ronda, editor of the Austin newspaper and "the woman" of Craden. Or is she?

This historical drama contains a steamy love story that also involves principles. And like most westerns, the bullets and fists fly. I enjoyed this film, mostly due to its strongly drawn characters.