User reviews

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.

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 is a fairly historical film. It has pretty good acting. Good battle and effects. But it does not give you an idea on all the battle. Goliad (where the prisoners get shot) was just as good battle as the Alamo.All in All,,,A very good film on the Texas independence. Maybe not a classic but good enough to watch.

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!

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!

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 should have realized that any two-video set being sold for only $6 would be bad. I even read the reviews before watching this film, and that still didn't sway me. I loved the book, and I knew it couldn't be as bad as people said.

Yeah, it is.

A patchwork of film, video, and what appears to be stock footage combine to make a three-hour tour of one chapter of James A. Michener's epic novel. Well, the time period covered was one chapter, but I don't remember many of the situations actually occurring in the book. The packaging on my copy of the movie gives Maria Conchita Alonso top billing - though it turns out that she is only in one speaking scene. On the second tape.

The actors are to be commended for playing their roles well, despite a smarmy, overwrought script. They are to be insulted, though, for accepting the roles in the first place.

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.

The Texas Revolution of 1835 to 1836, including the periods preceding and immediately following, is depicted in this mediocre 3-hour made-for-television film, whose only redeeming value is bringing light and paying homage to Stephen F. Austin, the so-called "Father of Texas" whose life story had long been overshadowed by that of the legendary Sam Houston. The rest of the film is simply the usual "Santa Anna is a tyrant" storyline and with a weak attempt to show the Mexican perspective with a fictional Hispanic character displaying stereotypical Latin machismo. Combined with short low-budget battle scenes, such as the Alamao and San Jacinto, this film is recommended only for real history buffs who who do not come from Mexico. To its credit, the Mexican uniforms look accurate and the romantic subplot (another love triangle) doesn't take up too much screen time. Overall, this movie depicts the violent secession movement by Texas' Anglo-Saxon racial minority to be a positive and just revolution against Mexican tyranny as personified by the general Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, the so-called "Napoleon of the West".

This junk bore as much resemblance to the novel as a pickle slice does to a cucumber. The film makers took the Alamo section out of the book, made it into a movie, and said it was based on the book. Hah! Wonder what they did to induce Mr. Michener to endorse this piece of fluff? It was just another Davy Crockett, flintlock rifle, Santa Ana, 13 days of glory collection of poppycock. I almost started rooting for the mexicans, just to get the damn thing to end. And what was that scene where Stacey Keach was trying to get James Bowie to let him look at the knife? The sexual innuendos he used were juvenile and unnecessary. They could have used the film they wasted on that silliness to put in some real dialogue. This show was an embarrassment to Hollywood. Or can those clowns be embarrassed?

This movie was NEVER intended as a live, acted version of the novel. The reason, in fact, James Michener gave the movie his blessing was because of this. Michener writes novels, fictionalized stories very loosely based on actual history. The movie was intended simply to portray the actual history that inspired his novel, in a way that would relate to the novel itself.

It is for that reason that one cannot simply dismiss this movie as worthless. The cinematography used has been a liability to some viewers, according to previous reviews, but was used for effect. In the end, anyone who knows Texas, American, and/or Mexican history will immediately understand the movie is slanted a bit to favor the (historical) Texan's point of view. This should in now way deter you from viewing the film objectively, either as a great representation of historical events, or simply for your own amusement. This movie's all star cast is akin to such a cast as was viewed in A Few Good Men, and few movies since.

The Texas revolution must be taken in the context of being just one of several local revolutions against Santa Ana's overthrow of the 1826 Mexican constitution. For this reason, many Texas hispanics fought on the Texan side. Similarly, Edina de Zavala was one of the two main movers for the preservation of the Alamo and in the Daughters of the Texas Revolution.

While military disasters, the Alamo and Goliad did convince Santa Ana that the Texans were no real military threat. This caused him to send part of his force back to Mexico. For one thing, it was difficult to supply such a large army in early spring in Texas so far away from its supply base. BTW, this was one of Houston's calculations.

Santa Ana also divided his remaining forces in an effort to resolve the revolt as quickly as possible and to make foraging easier. He also attempted to terrorize the Texans and anybody else in Mexico contemplating further revolt by executing all prisoners at Goliad and the Alamo. This miscalculation insured that no Texas soldier would ever surrender again.

Using a force of 8-900 men, Santa Ana then chased the Texican army across Texas. He eventually "trapped" them against water at San Jacinto, while waiting for the rest of his army to show up for the final blow. While Santa Ana was a pretty good soldier, given their past history, it apparently never occurred to him that the Texicans would actually take the initiative. The rest is history.

I rented this movie to get an easy, entertained view of the history of Texas. I got a headache instead. The depiction of history in this movie is so comical that even mad TV would not have done a better job.

I rented this movie with really no expectations, other than I like western movies. The fact that it was 3 hours long seemed fine to me, I had some time to kill. To get down to the story I have no idea whether it follows the novel or not, but that's beside the point, since it's the movie we are reviewing not the book to movie relation. After some research on the Internet I found that it did, in fact, follow history very closly. Enough about that. I read in a comment above that someone praised Patrick Duffy's part in the movie, but I do not agree. Duffy can act, yes, but the problem is that it's basically the same character wether it's Step-By-Step, Dallas or any other part. This is a type of character that does not fit into the plot of a western in my view. What's really great is to see Rick Schroeder doing a rather large part and doing it very well. I first saw him in Blood River and was amazed at his acting talent in relation to the western theme.

All in all, I do recommend that you see this movie, it's an entertaining piece and does not get "slow" because it's long running time.

The Movie whether it follows the book James Michener's book nor not was excellent. I've watched this several times and enjoyed it every time. As far as wlfgdn's review where he implied that several historians agree that slavery was the central issue for the independence from Mexico is horse pucky at best. The fight to become a Republic of Texas was solely based on the fact that the people who once lived under the Constitution of the U.S and moved to Texas wanted the same freedoms that the government of Mexico refused to give. It was the resentment of the Mexican rule not slavery as the central and main reason for the eventual Republic of Texas.

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

History fans will love it, film lovers will loathe it. "Texas" is good if you need to brush up on your U.S. history and you have the ability to make witty comments and laugh at a poorly made movie. Everything from the acting to the script to the cinematography is definitely sub-par. Ooh, and watch out for those scandalous eye-candy moments, such as Ricky Schroeder's a**e making an appearance in a river-bathing scene, and topless women running around in the final gun battle. There's nothing gratuitous in this film, history is represented exactly how it happened, and everything is totally believable. Remember the Alamo!