Texas

I've always thought this was a very accurate portrayal of Houston. I think he was just the way Elliot presented him. This is a part of Texas history that I love to explore. The 6 week retreat and final battle for Texas Independance.

Sam Houston will always be remembered as the man who annexed the US to Texas and changed everything. Told with respect for the Mexican view, Gone to Texas does more than hint President Jackson's resolve to get Texas one way or another and his tasking of Sam Houston to the project to relieve both whites and Indians in the American East of coping with Sam. The legend of San Jacinto is told in the traditional fashion , but there's more than a hint that Houston had General Gaines' US troops for the task.

But it's still a pleasure to revisit young America bursting with enthusiasm albeit at Mexico's expense. G.D. Spradlin played President Andrew Jackson as he is remembered the last of the demi-Gods. I think even the Raven would have liked

Sam Elliott in his part. Bo Hopkins was an excellent choice for Colonel Sidney Sherman, cool arrogant and deadly.

COMPARABLE FILMS: ONE MAN's HERO, The Alamo

Saw this over the weekend. The story of the founding of the Republic of Texas (the Battle of the Alamo, the Battle of San Jacinto) and all the real people who were involved is extremely dramatic in itself. Therefore, no matter how it is treated, it is always going to look "over the top"; in the light of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, that "drama" will seem hokey. But Sam Elliott deserves an acknowledgement of at least trying to portray Sam Houston was an actual human being (Houston was a true statesman- one who looked at the future consequences); Sam Elliott did the same sort of "humanizing" for Wild Bill Hickock, another person who can easily be overdone because that was how he was. Katharine Ross did well as Mrs. Dickinson, the woman who was buried with the sobriquet: The Only Survivor of the Alamo. Maybe someday, people will also know the importance of Emily Morgan (the real Yellow Rose of Texas). Factually, this was a correct filmplay, not as bloody as it could have been. Somewhat cheesy, but all-in-all, not too bad.

Just saw it again last night on t.v. This is a fantastic film. Very well done by all involved. Then again, how can one not like a Sam Elliott western? he is one of the best western stars we have and we need to get him back in the saddle again to churn out some more.

Of all the movies I've come across dealing with early Texas history (various versions of The Alamo, Michener's Texas, Texas Rangers, King of Texas, Two for Texas), this is by far the best.

No sugar-coating here. Instead of loading on the usual simplistic blather about heroic Texas revolutionaries fighting for "freedom" (these were slave-owners; they wanted the "freedom" to own human beings), this movie makes the point early on that self-serving adventurers from the US were scheming to take Texas from Mexico long before the revolution came. Jim Bowie is seen inviting Houston to do just that; Houston, drunk with his Indian compatriots, dreams of seizing Texas and making it an Indian Republic (with himself at the head, naturally). For such "dreams of freedom" to take place, a lot of people will have to die, but when ruthless men believe in their own manifest destiny, nothing must get in the way of their empire-building. Thus the J.R. Ewing mentality of Texas was set from the very beginning...and continues to this day, with our war-mongering Texas president.

Are men like Houston (or Julius Caesar, or Napoleon, or George Bush) admirable? Frankly, after living 50 years on this planet, I've had my fill of these dangerous egomaniacs, but for better or worse they are the types who make history for the rest of us, so any work that offers insight into their personalities and careers is interesting to watch. Most movies that portray the Texas revolutionaries reflexively offer brain-dead patriotic pabulum; they're fairy-tales for adults who think like children. The script for this movie offers far more to think about.

Even the most justified wars are always fought for someone's profit, and atrocities always take place on both sides. And yet, at the outset of every war, a large component of the population goes forth with stars in their eyes, thinking that god must be on their side and that everything will be just wonderful. What's truly reprehensible is to look back on those wars in retrospect with the same stars in your eyes, instead of training a hard, unflinching gaze on the cruel and ugly realities of history and the types of men who make it. This movie does that to a greater degree than most, and for that I give it credit.