Texas

For historical fiction with accurate underpinnings this strikes me as a pretty good effort. Not perfect but considering the loaded nature of the subject it is the most even-handed treatment I have ever seen.

So far as being an entertaining film, it is a bit slow to get going. For historical accuracy and attention to detail it rates higher than others. For one, Jim Bowie actually has a genuine Bowie knife. The Alamo has the correct front. Rarely has anyone else portrayed these two simple details properly.

Performances are tour-de-force and in general this is a well made and acted film.

I should live to see the day when Hollywood can make a film about Texas and/or The Alamo and not ignore what many historians point to as the central issue, that being slavery. In 1836 one out of eight persons in Texas were slaves. We don't see even one in this movie. The subject is not mentioned or alluded to once.

Overall this film has many more strengths than weaknesses and clearly took great steps towards accuracy and fairness.

After watching the made for TV movie "Texas" loosely based on James Michener's novel, I must confess two things: First I enjoyed the movie very much as a Readers Digest condensation of American history. Whether it is a true representation of the Michener novel does not concern me and is unimportant. I loved what the movie makers did with Centennial and most of the adaptations of his novels, including Texas. I found, for the most part, it was a good collection of vignettes of the progress of the American assimilation of the Mexican lands into what America called her Manifest Destiny. Sam Houston was sent to Texas, by President Andrew Jackson, for the express purpose of continuing these policies. As for the negative comments I have read concerning this movie. I have news for those who panned this movie because it was not like the book. Well it is not suppose to be like the book. I find it interesting how most of these reviewers ignore the fact that novels and movie making are two very different art forms and cannot under the best of conditions be totally and actually combined. The movie "Texas" does a fine job reflecting the conditions (though weighted to the point of view of the Texicans)that probably existed among many points of view of that time and place. It was one of the best $6.00 I have ever spent. Hurrah For Hollywood!

Back in the old days this film Texas would have been given a glitzy premiere at one of those old movie palaces and would have been directed by someone like John Ford or Howard Hawks. We are indeed fortunate to have this film, one of the most accurate on the subject of the founding of the Republic of Texas.

True life Texas heroes like Sam Houston and Stephen Austin played here by Stacy Keach and Patrick Duffy don't seem to happen in this day and age. As it turns out I just finished reading a book about Sam Houston a character who was involved in every major event one way or another from the early Indian wars fighting under Andrew Jackson right up to the Civil War when Texas repudiated her founder and seceded. He's one person I never get tired of reading and talking about. Stacy Keach does him justice, I'm sure Houston descendants would approve.

Stephen Austin led the first group of colonists who were from New England as opposed to the mostly southern based immigrants that later settled. All done with the permission of the Mexican government until they became alarmed at the number of Anglos coming in. Duffy captures Austin the dreamer quite well.

A nice supporting cast is given to Keach and Duffy and school kids studying the history of the time would do well to watch this film for a most accurate portrayal.

It's interesting that none of those who panned this movie were Texans. Whether or not it followed Michener's book closely is not the point; it followed history very well.

The whole reason Americans came to settle in Texas in the first place - as the movie made abundantly clear through Patrick Duffy's Stephen F. Austin - was that Mexico had not and could not properly settle such a vast land. Austin's colony was established at the invitation of Santa Anna.

It was only as Santa Anna systematically denied the Texicans - or Texians, if you prefer - basic rights that any citizen of any nation should reasonably expect from his government that they revolted. As the movie made clear, Austin did everything he could - with Sam Houston's concurrence - to keep his agreement with Santa Anna. The Mexican dictator literally drove him and the Texicans to revolt in order to give him an excuse to invade and slaughter them. His cruelty was best shown by what happened at Goliad - where the Texicans surrendered, only to be lined up and murdered after giving up all their weapons.

This last could have been emphasized a little more to show the bleak reality of trying to deal with this despot, but that's my only quarrel with the entire movie. I gave it an 8 - and wondered how IMDB managed to come up with a weighted average of 4.1 when 55% of the voters gave it a 7 or better.

I have to admit that I have not read Mr. Michener's book, so I think that I can comment objectively on this movie. Insofar as the movie of "Texas" is concerned, I thought it was excellent.

The story covers a 25 year period between 1821 and 1846 when Texas went from being a Mexican province to an independent republic to a state within the U.S.A. Historical characters are blended with fictional characters to great effect. The direction by Richard Lang is crisp and keeps this sweeping saga both moving and interesting. The cinematography by Neil Roach is simply breathtaking. The battle scenes (including the Alamo) are expertly staged and utilize slow motion to great effect.

The excellent cast includes Stacy Keach as Sam Houston, Patrick Duffy as Steven Austin, Rick Schroder as Otto, Chelsea Field as Mattie, Benjamin Bratt as Garza, Anthony Michael Hall as Quimper and Randy Travis as the first Captain of the Texas Rangers.

As made for TV movies go, "Texas" is definitely a cut above the average.