PUNTUACIÓN EN IMDb
6,2/10
1,3 mil
TU PUNTUACIÓN
El expresidente, Andrew Jackson, envía al tejano Devereaux Burke de vuelta a casa en una misión para facilitar a Sam Houston conseguir la unión de estados.El expresidente, Andrew Jackson, envía al tejano Devereaux Burke de vuelta a casa en una misión para facilitar a Sam Houston conseguir la unión de estados.El expresidente, Andrew Jackson, envía al tejano Devereaux Burke de vuelta a casa en una misión para facilitar a Sam Houston conseguir la unión de estados.
Argumento
¿Sabías que...?
- CuriosidadesLionel Barrymore had previously played US President Andrew Jackson in La espléndida descarada (1936). Beulah Bondi, who plays Minniver Bryan, played Jackson's wife, Rachel Jackson, in the earlier film.
- PifiasThe map showing what the new Republic of Texas will look like shows West Virginia and Virginia separated. This did not happen until the beginning of the Civil War when a number of western counties ceded from Virginia to create West Virginia. This separation and the actual counties that ceded not have been predicted before it happened.
- Citas
Devereaux Burke: Put it this way - I've always had a wandering foot. This is the first time I've ever wanted a woman.
Minniver Bryan: [Taking him literally] What?
Devereaux Burke: Hear me out. This is the first time I've ever wanted a woman to be my wife.
- ConexionesReferenced in Golden Saddles, Silver Spurs (2000)
- Banda sonoraMoonlight Is Meant for Lovers
Sung by Ava Gardner
Reseña destacada
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.
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.
- phawley-251-115921
- 27 nov 2021
- Enlace permanente
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y añadir a tu lista para recibir recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is Lone Star?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- 1.600.000 US$ (estimación)
- Duración1 hora 34 minutos
- Color
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.37 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugerir un cambio o añadir el contenido que falta
Principal laguna de datos
By what name was Estrella del destino (1952) officially released in India in English?
Responde