Texas Sob Fogo

The History Channel took a historical event and rewrote the basic facts of the Alamo, Goliad, events leading up the the Battle of San Jacinto and the characters involved and has presented them as fact to an audience who may not know what actually happened.

Now anyone who doesn't know the facts will think that:

1. Lorca survived the Alamo. 2. Emily was sleeping with Sam Houston. 3. Central and East Texas are full of mountains with hundred foot high cliffs. 4. etc.

Shame on you History Channel. You were to report History, not rewrite it. What will you do next, create a mini-series about how Adolf Hitler was really a secret spy for the American Army during WWII while sleeping with a British official's wife?

Can I trust anything else I see on the History Channel anymore?

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!

I started watching this with very high hopes. As a proud Texan I was happy that the rest of the nation would get to learn more about our history, not just that there was a massacre at the Alamo but the whole story of the fight for Texas freedom.

HOW WRONG I WAS. The History Channel has taken Texas history and made it into a truly God-awful soap opera with a few historical names and events sprinkled in here and there. The facts are so washed out that this shouldn't even be called history. The least the History Channel could have done was film in Texas!! Its like they just said "F*ck it, everyone thinks Texas looks like this anyways" This is such a poor and vapid representation of the struggles that men and women went through for the republic of Texas. The History Channel can not seriously be expecting people to believe this is really how it happened.

I may not be a historian but I have done more than my fair share of research on Texas history and I do not recall Santa Anna having a French accent. Someone must have been drunk when casting some of these characters. And the story line skims over most of the characters, not really giving the audience to know who they were or why they are important to the story-line. The writers end up losing many important figures by simply trying to fit too many into this letdown of a TV series. Sad really. Quantity over quality it seems.

The only shining light this series has is Brendan Fraser and the truly terrifying Ray Liotta. They make this worth watching.

It's laughable the number of reviews on this site from people whinging about inaccurate Texan history. It's the old story folks. When something is advertised as a 10 hour mini-series emanating from the History Channel and not classified as a documentary, I'm expecting, historical fiction, not an encyclopaedic regurgitation of a bunch of historical names and events. Texas Rising is a piece of historical fiction, based on the Texas Revolution against Mexico and how the Texas Rangers were created. If you like decent westerns, well produced with good acting and plenty of action, you should enjoy Texas Rising. If you were genuinely expecting some sort of doco, such as The Civil War, you'll be disappointed.

I've never quite understood why so many so-called educated people continually have this issue. Historical fiction is a recognised genre of literature and readers rarely raise an eyebrow when authors play fast and loose with the facts to achieve dramatic outcomes. The same thing occurs in Texas Rising, where plenty of liberties are taken for poetic licence. This includes characters being created, who sit alongside real historical figures in the narrative. At the end of the final episode, the production scrolled through the major real life characters represented in the series adding brief bios about their lives, during and after the events we see detailed in the show. Persona not represented were obviously fictional, for those viewers who were gnashing teeth worrying about that sort of thing, while continuing to watch what was clearly a non-documentary. But for one with a half-way educated mind, let's just say it's not rocket science difficult to generally discern between fact and fiction as to what you are watching.

I appreciated the opportunity to get a bit of an insight into the events occurring after the fall of The Alamo and to be introduced to President Andrew Jackson, General Sam Houston, the early rag-tag Texas Rangers led by the delightfully named Captain Deaf Smith and the legendary "Yellow Rose of Texas". I should mention Jeffrey Dean Morgan's outstanding and affecting turn as the consumptive, but quietly inspiring leader Smith and the terrific chemistry displayed between his character and Bill Paxton's salty, but confidently intelligent Houston. For those used to seeing Morgan bulked up in "tough guy action mode", your eyes may pop out, as you witness Smith's (real life) physical deterioration during the course of the series.

Dramatically and thematically I will agree with those critics who suggest that the overall tone of Texas Rising does appear to almost constitute "a love letter to the Lone Star State"and a conservative mainstream view of Texan history. In other words, there are few sympathetic perspectives to be seen from the Mexican or Native American fronts. They are largely depicted one dimensionally, as the villains of the piece, dispossessing the determined white settlers with their friendly, contented black slaves (some who were supposedly "free"). I did think this was a little unusual in an extended mini-series. There was a footnote after the final episode that a follow-up series concentrating on the Comanche Wars was planned, where one would think alternative frames of reference should well be approached.

Nevertheless, keeping the above in mind, I think those interested in a dramatic western perspective of lead-up events to the establishment of the Republic of Texas will not fail to be entertained by Texas Rising.

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.