Laredo: O Último Desafio

Is this better than Lonesome Dove? Depends on who you ask. I think that viewed objectively it is indeed a better mini-series. Two things complicate this in many people's minds. First, when it comes to the books I think most people think Lonesome Dove is a better book. Second, the first mini-series was so one of a kind that it really left an impression with people. Really got in their heads. By the time this came out people didn't find a western mini-series as groundbreaking. But if you watch them back to back now I think this one comes out on top. It features some great performances and, as others have commented, is a bit darker in tone and feel than the previous mini-series. If you liked Lonesome Dove this is a slam dunk for you to like.

I just read the book, and haven't seen the TV show for several years. But I have to say that the idea that Lorena would marry Pea Eye is ridiculous. Then having the coal miner's daughter play her is more preposterous. Cissy Spacek is a good actress, but has very strange looks, not the beauty Lorena is supposed to be, and was in Lonesome Dove. Pea eye is a goofy looking guy-you can tell just by his name. He wouldn't look anything like Sam Shepard. I like James Garner, but his shtick is that he is a large man who is basically a coward, and gets out of scrapes using his words. The exact opposite of Call. He's supposed to be a rather average size man, who is shrunken in his old age, yet still a formidable foe. Brookshire is a bookeeper who adapts sort of well to the west, but not the geek that is Charles Martin Smith. Yuk! Yet the book so enthralls, with all it's misery, that I think I am going to go out and rent this TV movie, if I can find it. "Twould be so much better with casting closer to the characters character. And looks.

Streets of Laredo - The sequel to Lonesome Dove

Streets of Laredo has much to offer - a long tale of famous Texas legends - some fictional, like Captain Woodrow F. Call, others real - John Wesley Hardin (played by Randy Quaid) and Judge Roy Bean (played by Ned Beatty).

If you're looking for a film to take you back to the wild, wild West, this one will do. It's a quiet story though, not full of action, as some shoot-em-ups are. Like Lonesome Dove it has heartbreak and pain, and some very quiet humor. Roy Bean and Call have a particularly great scene together, as do the young killer Call is after and John Wesley Hardin.

The story is also full of great ideas, something sorely lacking in most films. Family. Loyalty. Old Age. Change. Eastern values. Western traditions.

And while Sam Shephard has always been a respected actor, he MAKES this movie as he is at the center of one of the oldest conflicts on Earth - what makes a man a man, family or duty. He is so quiet! And so powerful when he does speak. His wife Lorena, played by Sissy Spacek, speaks for him most eloquently. Is she, or is she not THE greatest actor Texas ever produced? Who knew George Carlin could act?

James Garner is genuine, and authentic, as he always is.

The story is full of great characters - who fall away until the principles are left to resolve, or not resolve their conflicts.

The score is haunting, the cinematography is especially beautiful, the story is timeless, which is what one expects from Larry McMurtry.

Enjoy!

Streets of Laredo is a fine western. It's just that Lonesome Dove set too high a standard to compare any other western with. Maybe the problem lies with the story itself....can anyone who saw LD imagine Lorena marrying Pea Eye and having a passel of kids???? Recall that Lorena wouldn't have anything to do with Lippy and yet she marries Pea Eye. Diane Lane and Tim Scott, together!?! No way! Streets of Laredo simply inverts the visuals embedded in our brains from LD: now Pea Eye(Sam Shepherd) is actually better looking than Lorena(Sissy Spacek). That's just too much of a stretch. I never thought I'd criticize Sissy Spacek but she just doesn't have any of Diane Lane's elegance and sensuousness. Ms. Lane was charming and endearing but Spacek's Lorena just grates on the nerves. Also for a sequel we are left mystifyingly in the dark as to why the main characters are back in Texas. Newt, who was the actual "lonesome dove" in LD, is never mentioned. What happened to Call's cattle ranch in Montana??? No clue. I realize the novel probably answers these questions but hell, this was a miniseries! The screenwriters should have had time to develop what happened since the end of LD. I also don't like the introduction of historical figures Roy Bean and John Wesley Hardin who are used as stage props to prove how fearsome Joey Garza is. Garza was so tough even the Apaches grew to fear him. Give me a break! The character Joey Garza merely strikes me as a punk who can shoot well. As a rule I don't like villains with pencil necks, no upper body strength, and who don't shave yet; it's just too hard to take them seriously. He doesn't inspire fear, but rather seems a nuisance we wish someone would eliminate. On the positive side, James Garner is marvelous as Woodrow Call. He won't replace Tommy Lee Jones in my mind as Call but then again, who could? Garner seems more stoic, more matter-of-fact than Jones was. Jones' portrayal had a lot of quiet emotion churning beneath the surface, unfortunately Garner has no Gus to play off of. Still he shines brighter in this movie than anyone else. I guess the main test that ranks Streets of Laredo unfavorably with LD is the affect it produces with time. It doesn't stay with one like LD. Scenes are not memorable and unforgettable as they were with LD. The bittersweet irony is missing. I don't have the sense it will involuntarily become part of one's psyche with time.

One of the first things I do after watching a movie I really like, is checking reviews of others...professionals and amateurs, as listed here. It's very frustrating reading some of them. Why do people compare them? Why do they look for faults? Why do they not see and praise the positive aspects and ease up on critical commentary? It's like comparing apples & oranges & bananas & strawberries, etc. Comparing a film to the book or a previous film seems overly critical to me. It always bothered me when Siskel & Ebert & Roeper, et al. rated films as bad or good...thumbs up or down...see it or don't see it. Streets of Laredo is a perfect example. A lot of superb work was put into this fascinating sequel by the director, the cinematographer, the actors, the music composer, the art directors and more. It deserves more than comparisons with the equally superb mini-series Lonesome Dove and its fabulous other sequels. James Garner's Woodrow Call was terrific, so was Tommy Lee Jones' but is it fair to compare them? Cissy Spacek's Lorena was just as good as Diane Lane's as were Sam Shephard's and Tim Scott's Pea Eye interpretations. How do you rate cake and pie? Is one better than the other? Should you condemn it to thumbs down or tell others to avoid it? Maybe to some people this is the way. One constant in all the LD sequels is Larry McMurtry's brilliant characterizations. And don't complain about character development. It takes time to develop a character's nuances and profile. E.G Archie Bunker, Mary Richards, Barney Miller and friends. How long a movie do you want to watch? To wrap it up, Streets of Laredo is a superb film with great acting, directing, cinematography, and a stirring musical score and more. So was Lonesome Dove, Return to Lonesome Dove, Dead Man's Walk, Comanche Moon and the TV series. They're all different but great!