L'étoile du destin

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.

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.

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 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

Clark Gable stars in this 1952 Western which deals w/Texas's road to statehood. Boiling down to two different factions for & against annexation of Texas w/Andrew Jackson, the president at the time, played by Lionel Barrymore, getting Cable's help for the pro while Broderick Crawford stands against the action. Meeting during an Indian skirmish, Gable & Crawford actually manage to be civil to each other (no kidding!) but Cable doesn't divulge who he is & his agenda. Meeting Crawford's squeeze, Ava Gardner, Cable becomes enamored w/her but then Gable goes into motion on his plans which culminates in a tense standoff where Texas politicians, which includes Ed Begley, deliberate Texas's fate, as opposing forces are in the midst of battle. Entertaining to be sure but doesn't make a lick of sense when it comes down to the actual politics which took place at the time but the stars' charm make all of this nonsense go down handily like warm soup on a cold afternoon.