Stella solitaria

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.

This big budget Western deals with cattle baron Deveraux (Clark Gable) who his assigned by Andrew Jackson (Lionel Barrymore) to convince Sam Houston for union Texas to United States . A fiery newspaper editor (Ava Gardner) is the woman between Deveraux and the bad guy , Craden (Broderick Crawford) . Deveraux must fight state senators (Crawford , Ed Begley , Russell Simpson) for union to United States.

This exciting picture about Texas fights for independence contains Western action , drama , historical happenings , a love story and results to be quite entertaining . Based on a screenplay by Borden chase , a Western expert . Gorgeous Ava Gardner as an intrepid journalist as well as Clark Gable's love interest . Film debut for George Hamilton and secondary acting by William Conrad and Ed Begley . The motion picture was well directed by Vincent Sherman . Also available in horrible computer colorized version .

It's partially based on historical deeds about Texas independence, these are the followings : With Mexican permission Stephen Austin brought the first Anglo-American colonists to Texas, the first of many, their numbers grew and they wanted self-government and this desire led to the revolt of 1835, the Texas war for Independence. General Santa Anna, stormed the Alamo, and wiped out the garrison on 6 March 1836. But on 21 April 1836 General Santa Anna suffered a crushing defeat by Sam Houston and was taken prisoner. Texas was declared a Republic in October 1836 and Houston became its first president. In 1845 Texas joined the US, this lead to war with Mexico and disastrous results for that country. Samuel Houston(1793-1863)well performed by Moroni Olsen, was a frontiersman and politician , he went to live with the Cherokees and took a Cherokee wife. After the fall of the Alamo, he managed to keep together a small force and launched a furious surprise attack on the Mexican army of 1300 camped on the western bank of the San Jacinto River. With Texas free and independent republic, Houston was elected the first president. When Texas was admitted to the United States in 1845, Houston was a senator to Washington.

1845 Texas, Independent, survived Alamo, Goliad and San Jacinto ... But Annexation?

Quite often the joy in being a fan of genre film making, in this case Westerns/Southerns et al, is that a pic can coerce you into reading up on real instances. Thus making this particular picture a requisite requirement for literature delving.

Directed by Vincent Sherman and written by Borden Chase (who would supposedly be irked by the depiction of his writing) and Howard Estabrook, Lone Star comes off as an "A" list film given "B" list production values. Nothing wrong with cast performances, Gable still has charisma in his fifties, Gardner oozes sexuality and Crawford dominates like a great presence should. However, it looks stagy, is overly talky as the makers try to make a politico pot boiler out of a sow's behind, while the action - in spite of a grandiose battering ram finale - just doesn't have an oomph factor.

Romantic love triangle feels pointless in the context of such historical filmic tellings, but this is off set by the Sam Houston and Native American splinter of the narrative. Rendering this as a frustrating whole, not without merits, and above average for sure, but difficult to recommend as one to seek out as a must. 6/10

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