Comanche Moon

While I would agree that this is no Lonesome Dove, I did find it to have a few good scenes. The cowboy scene where they discuss what a genius is was one of them. However, the greatness of the original was how the characters were written and developed. I don't really see that with this installment, but keep in mind, the first part of Lonesome Dove paled in comparison to the 2nd and 3rd parts. I have always been a fan of Steve Zahn. It is never easy to take on a role made famous by someone else. I thought Zahn had many of the mannerisms that Duvall used down pat. I noticed the Gus finger wave and the head shake. However, the writing wasn't good enough to make me stop watching the actor and start paying attention to the story. I wouldn't call it a waste of time, since westerns are few and far between, but I wouldn't call it great TV either. I'll watch the rest.... if there isn't a game on.

Things I like. Steve Zahn as Gus, nails the part, copies Robert Duvalls mannerisms which makes him feel comfortable to Gus fans. (some of the other actors copy their predecessors style in this series as well). Karl Urban, looks grim and tough, but can crack a joke and smile too, which T.L.Jones did in original series. The gear, the guns, the clothing, all accurate, or very close to period accurate. I'll never forgive Costner and Duvall for having a nylon lariat in their chuckwagon in Open Range. The Comanches, they are actually riding bareback, rather than hiding a modern saddle under a Navajo blanket. And they aren't painted as politically correct peace loving pastoralists, but as a proud warrior people. There are some dumb scenes, but it beats the heck out of yet another variation on doing something stupid to not win a million dollars reality game shows.

What shocked me about the COMANCHE MOON DVD (other than getting it for just five dollars at WalMart) was just how enjoyable and poignant it really was. As a serious reader who has read and reread all the classic LONESOME DOVE novels, I knew a lot was going to be left out and over-simplified, yet I wasn't prepared for how moved I was at the end.

First, the bad news. The Comanche side of the story is watered down and much of the impact is lost. In the book the father-son conflict between Buffalo Hump and his son Blue Duck is literally Shakespearean, with enormous intensity and passion. As the son of a Mexican woman Buffalo Hump brutally raped, Blue Duck is a symbol of tragic retribution, and the destruction he brings on Buffalo Hump is chilling and inevitable. ("The gods are just, and of our pleasant vices make means to plague us.") In the movie it just seems pointless, and random. Also in the book, Blue Duck is a symbol of change. He fights better with pistols and rifles than with the bow or the lance, and he leads an army of white drifters rather than native warriors. But in the movie these changes are glossed over, so the deeper meaning is lost.

On the other hand, the story of the Texans is told well and there are some amazing performances. Captain Scull and his sexy wife Inez are both annoying cartoon characters in the book, but Val Kilmer and Rachel Griffiths really succeed in making them not only charismatic and funny but strangely likable as well. It's interesting to note that in the book Inez Scull takes no part in any action outside of the bedroom, but in the movie she is far braver. During the Great Raid she actually joins the Rangers in fighting off the Comanches with a rifle! Normally I hate when these changes happen but here I felt it was right for the character and added a dimension of courage along with her cruelty.

Steve Zahn and Karl Urban are both terrific as Gus McCrae and Woodrow Call, but what really surprised me was how much Elizabeth Banks did as Maggie Tilton, the mother of Call's son Newt. In the books I always visualized Maggie as sort of drab and hopeless, but in the movie she's practically radiant, full of courage and good cheer no matter what the circumstances. (Whether a real prostitute on the frontier would glow like Elizabeth Banks is another question.) But it was nice to see that Maggie was more than just a victim. And some of the final scenes with Newt leaving his mother's home and saying goodbye to a young Jake Spoon were incredibly heartbreaking. These were not characters I cared about when I read the book (I was much more interested in the Comanches) but in the movie the brilliant performances really made me care.

All in all I think COMANCHE MOON the movie is really a very successful film -- if you take it on its own terms and don't compare it to the book.

I must have seen a different version than the first person on the user comments section.

It's really, really good...Steve Zahn and Karl Urban are great together. Val Kilmer's character is much like he was in the novel, although the emphasis is on Gus and Call and the Comanches. We get to see what happened with Call and Newt's mother as well. I won't spoil it, but it gives a lot of insight into Call's character.

All the actors did a really convincing job. Steve Zahn had the biggest challenge, I thought, to follow Robert Duvall! There's a lot of action, humor, tragedy. It's got something for everyone. I can't wait until it airs, my family are all jealous I got to see it early!

I think the consensus is pretty unanimous about this recent TV miniseries: it's okay but it's a far cry from "Lonesome Dove." It gets compared to the latter simply because this a prequel to that famous story.

"Commanche Moon" is definitely worth a watch for any fan of westerns. Just don't expect it to be as intense as "Lonesome Dove." Steve Zahn and Karl Urban are not Robert Duvall and Tommy Lee Jones, and the characters they play aren't as strong as how Duvall and Jones portrayed the same two guys. Some say it's unfair to criticize this movie because of the comparison but you have to compare it - it's the story of the same two leading Texas Ranger characters: "Woodrow Call" and "Gus McCrae."

The main difference, I found, was that this prequel is a lot of slower and more relational (the two Rangers and their women) at times. Yet, I didn't mind that because the two main women were pretty ladies and generally likable and agreeable people. They were played nicely by Linda Cardelini ("Clara Forsythe") and Elizabeth Banks ("Maggie.").. They helped make this long movie palatable. If you've seen pictures of women in the Old West, none of them looked half as pretty as Cardelini and Banks, though. They were a joy for these male eyes to ogle. Maggie's son "Newt" was a wonderful kid, too - the kind of boy every parent would want..

The most interesting character, I thought, turned out to be "Inish Scull," played by Val Kilmer. As in the western film, "Tombstone," Kilmer almost steals the show from the leads. "Scull" is really an original, if I ever saw one: a strange dude, indeed.

Actually, all of the supporting actors in here did a fine job, from Keith Robinson's "Deets" to Wes Studi as "Buffalo Hump." I always find Studi to be fascinating, no matter what role he plays. I wish he had had a bigger role in this miniseries.

One thing this film has in common with "Lonesome Dove" and other good westerns: the scenery and photography. It's just beautiful at times and is a joy to watch. We also have an excellent director of this film: Simon Wincer, who directed "Lonesome Dove" and an another outstanding TV western, "Crossfire Trail." He also did two of my other favorite feature films, both based in his home country of Australia: "Phar Lap" and "Quigley Down Under."

Unfortunately, although I enjoyed this, "Commanche Moon" is nothing as good as the above-mentioned films.Yet, I still watched all of it and was sorry it ended, if that makes any sense. It made me want to watch Woodrow and Gus again, this time with Tommy Lee and Robert.

Note: The title page says this is 360 minutes. That must have included the TV commercials. The two-disc DVD version I saw was about 4 hours and 40 minutes.