meganmiller-75195 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!

a.lampert I'm going to miss this series each week. Absolutely loved Texas Rising but then I'm not a Texan. I've read a lot of reviews on here, obviously from disgruntled people who know the real details but then this was made to appeal to the masses who love a good western like me. Being English I only know the basic story of The Alamo and history of Texas, mostly from movies, and I never worry too much about the facts in motion pictures because they're made to entertain, not to educate. Bill Paxton made a fine Sam Houston and Jeffrey Dean Morgan a moving 'Deaf'Smith. Olivier Martinez as Santa Anna was outstanding I thought, very well cast and charismatic. Ray Liotta thrown in for some intimidating moments as Lorca was terrific, in fact most of the characters were well cast and entertaining, particularly Jeremy Davies who I'd seen a lot of in 'Justified', a brilliant character actor. The actor who played the renegade Comanche chief was really intimidating also and really upped the drama level whenever he appeared. In fact, can't wait for the next series, apparently to be call The Comanche Wars.

SnoopyStyle 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.

txfishrman Having watched each season of "Vikings" I could hardly wait for "Texas Rising." Sadly, the quality of the two series is incomparable. Historically and geographically, "Texas" is about the worst thing I have seen in a very long time. Being a fifth generation Texan, I am insulted and saddened by what I have seen to date. If History Channel was going to spend the money they did on this production they should have hired at least a native-born Texas fifth grader as a consultant.I have watched and plan to finish watching this travesty just to prove to myself that I can bear up to torture.