wlfgdn
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.
steven-222
This movie is hokey as heck, but enjoyable if you're interested in the subject. Benjamin Bratt fans should especially like it; his character spans the entire movie and he turns in a charismatic performance. Stacy Keach does fine work as Sam Houston, and Rick Schroder is good as the emotionally conflicted young hero. Production is a bit spotty; quite a bit of the Alamo battle scene is footage from the old John Wayne movie!Of course, the movie does not mention that one of the main "freedoms" the Texas settlers were fighting for was the freedom to own slaves (for some reason the "oppressive" Mexican government thought that was wrong). Funny, how those who exhort others to fight for freedom so often have their eye on exploiting or subjugating other people...some things never change, especially in Texas!
Willard-4
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!
Killer_Bee
Let's start with the similarities of the book and the movie, James Michener's name appears on both and it is set in the early days of Texas. From there, only the character's name resemble anything from the book. Granted there are a few good actors(Stacy Keach,David Keith), They are far outnumbered by ones that should seek work in B-grade horror flicks. The camera work was so bad I could swear some of the battle scenes looked like old footage from a 50's movie. The Writers took a magnificent story about the history of Texas and made into something I could see on Rawhide or The Rifleman. All in all, This was a big disappointment
AD
