User reviews

Acting is fine, story is ok, history is meh Was expecting quite a bit more, but from the network of Ancient Aliens I may need to lower the bar. Worth a background watch while working at home.

It's laughable the number of reviews on this site from people whinging about inaccurate Texan history. It's the old story folks. When something is advertised as a 10 hour mini-series emanating from the History Channel and not classified as a documentary, I'm expecting, historical fiction, not an encyclopaedic regurgitation of a bunch of historical names and events. Texas Rising is a piece of historical fiction, based on the Texas Revolution against Mexico and how the Texas Rangers were created. If you like decent westerns, well produced with good acting and plenty of action, you should enjoy Texas Rising. If you were genuinely expecting some sort of doco, such as The Civil War, you'll be disappointed.

I've never quite understood why so many so-called educated people continually have this issue. Historical fiction is a recognised genre of literature and readers rarely raise an eyebrow when authors play fast and loose with the facts to achieve dramatic outcomes. The same thing occurs in Texas Rising, where plenty of liberties are taken for poetic licence. This includes characters being created, who sit alongside real historical figures in the narrative. At the end of the final episode, the production scrolled through the major real life characters represented in the series adding brief bios about their lives, during and after the events we see detailed in the show. Persona not represented were obviously fictional, for those viewers who were gnashing teeth worrying about that sort of thing, while continuing to watch what was clearly a non-documentary. But for one with a half-way educated mind, let's just say it's not rocket science difficult to generally discern between fact and fiction as to what you are watching.

I appreciated the opportunity to get a bit of an insight into the events occurring after the fall of The Alamo and to be introduced to President Andrew Jackson, General Sam Houston, the early rag-tag Texas Rangers led by the delightfully named Captain Deaf Smith and the legendary "Yellow Rose of Texas". I should mention Jeffrey Dean Morgan's outstanding and affecting turn as the consumptive, but quietly inspiring leader Smith and the terrific chemistry displayed between his character and Bill Paxton's salty, but confidently intelligent Houston. For those used to seeing Morgan bulked up in "tough guy action mode", your eyes may pop out, as you witness Smith's (real life) physical deterioration during the course of the series.

Dramatically and thematically I will agree with those critics who suggest that the overall tone of Texas Rising does appear to almost constitute "a love letter to the Lone Star State"and a conservative mainstream view of Texan history. In other words, there are few sympathetic perspectives to be seen from the Mexican or Native American fronts. They are largely depicted one dimensionally, as the villains of the piece, dispossessing the determined white settlers with their friendly, contented black slaves (some who were supposedly "free"). I did think this was a little unusual in an extended mini-series. There was a footnote after the final episode that a follow-up series concentrating on the Comanche Wars was planned, where one would think alternative frames of reference should well be approached.

Nevertheless, keeping the above in mind, I think those interested in a dramatic western perspective of lead-up events to the establishment of the Republic of Texas will not fail to be entertained by Texas Rising.

First I must say it was well shot and decent to good acting. And I do plan on watching the entire thing. But to enjoy this film you MUST forget everything you know about Texas history.

It is as inaccurate as it gets. It might as well be set in space... I really don't understand why they did this, because they "mess up" on some of the most basic and common knowledge history. And the true story itself is already such a strong story to begin with.

I mean if they wanted to do something fictional they could have based it around a fictional person within the historical events themselves. Instead they tell the story as if that's what happened. When in reality it's pure fiction.

From the opening scene it is entirely false. The whole thing... The Alamo didn't even look like that. They have the Alamo with a domed roof, which wasn't added until long after the war. That was not he flag that was flying at the Alamo... How do we know this? Because the flag the production used is FICTIONAL. That flag never existed prior to this show. They just made it up.

They also have the barracks the same height as the Alamo, it wasn't. They also have it right next to the Alamo, again it wasn't. The walls don't have palisades, which they did have during the siege.

More disturbing is that they have Emily West at the Alamo, she wasn't and that she had a brother who was both free and died at the Alamo. As far as we know she did not have a brother, nor do we know of any freed Black men who fought at the Alamo. And Emily West did NOT have any relations with Sam Houston... utter nonsense.

In fact, if she did have a brother he would have been in Connecticut where she was from and not Texas. She was an indentured servant under a 1 year contract of employment to James Morgan at a hotel in Morgan's Point on the Gulf Coast of Texas outside of Houston at the time the Alamo fell. She was captured by the Mexican Army in Mid April, over a month after the Alamo and held as a sex slave by Santa Anna. She was not a spy for the Texas army...

Then there is the entirely fictional character Lorca... Who survives the siege and goes on a murderous revenge killing spree... He never existed.

They go even further from reality when they have the "survivors" of the Alamo being transported to who knows where by the Mexican Army. That didn't happen. They were just left there. And they weren't attacked by Kiowa Indians. And the Rangers didn't rescue them.

I must mention that someone stated "this is East Texas" in reference to where Sam Houston was... the mountains and such. No, that is not East Texas... But Sam Houston wasn't in East Texas when the Alamo Fell. He was in between Gonzalez and Austin in the hill country. So that's actually accurate.

Originally he was to travel from Washington on the Brazos (Austin) to meet up with the forces from Goliad to come to the defense of the forces surrounded by the Mexican Army at the Alamo. But Fannin had some troubles enroute with wagons and cannons so he turned around and went back to Goliad. Houston then sent word to the Alamo that no forces would relieve them and orders to Fannin to retreat East and awaited their reply somewhere around Gonzalez. That's what's going on when that scene took place.

This is an historical epic that fans of accuracy have been a tad miffed about. It starts with the aftermath of The Alamo and General Sam Houston deciding to do tactical withdrawals. We get to meet the main players and they are all based on real historical persons - well mostly – as far as I was able to ascertain. We have Brandon Fraser playing a 'half breed' called Billy Anderson of the Texas Rangers and Ray Liotta putting in a very strong performance as Lorca – who goes Mexican killing mental after El Degüello was played by Santa Anna prior to the over running of the Alamo – meaning that no quarter would be given and indeed none was.

Then we have the political machinations of the 'gung ho' brigade who wanted to avenge their countryman and take on the Mexicans as soon as possible – versus the caution and strategy of Houston. We also have the Comanche's and their position in all of this – ostensibly from the war path loving young bucks. The makers also throw in a fair bit of love interest and plenty of action too. The guns are proper muzzle loaders too so they have tried to be authentic but some commentators have complained of the 'colour' of the speech as being a bit grand for some of these back woods type people. The plot follows all the way up to the final battle and beyond and leads nicely to the second season which is going to be about the Comanche wars.

Now I really enjoyed this but I was not seeing it as being a history lesson. It falls short in places but fine performances all round manage to keep it from being any where near a car crash. The one thing that is truly awful is the location filming; this was done in Mexico and so wildly misrepresents the topography where the conflict actually took place. So if you want a good period romp with a fair smattering of frontier action, then fill your boots, if you want a history lesson then you may want to avoid, and one last mention Kris Kristofferson plays Andrew Jackson albeit fleetingly and the music is quite good too.

I live in Houston and have been to all the real locations mentioned in the film. Pretty laughable landscapes are laughable. Quite a lot of lesser known real life characters in the show which I appreciate, even if what they did doesn't match history. I would have hoped the History Channel would have tried to be more truthful, but it was entertaining.

It is exciting to watch history come alive, especially when it is history about a place where you live. It is overdo that the story of what happened after the Alamo is being told to millions. I understand that this is a fictional series, but the basis is correct. Sam Houston came in with our troops and enacted justice upon those murderers from the Alamo. Great cast and acting. Glad to Brandon Frasier again. He brings an interesting part to his character. And I love the black woman's accent, absolutely beautiful. She is an excellent actress. Excited to see what Ray Liotta brings to the story. Looking forward to tonight's airing. On a side note, TX Ranger John (Jack) Coffee Hays is my relative and I am very proud of that fact!

The greatest piece of television I have ever seen in my life. Brendan Fraser is a treasure and deserves the Emmy for his portrayal of Billy Andersen. I was brought to tears multiple times while Fraser was on screen, and i'm getting a little teary eyed right now just thinking about it. His poignant performance transcends acting. This is one of those once in a lifetime performances where it's hard to even properly describe its magic in words. It's understated yet complicated, natural yet performed with surgical precision. The idiosyncrasies in his every facial expression and the way he delivers a line is just absolutely breathtaking. All I really have to say is thank you Mr. Fraser.... thank you.

Like most historical films coming out of Hollywood, I did not expect this to be accurate. If you watch it as a western movie and not as a true version of history, it will be more enjoyable.

The History Channel took a historical event and rewrote the basic facts of the Alamo, Goliad, events leading up the the Battle of San Jacinto and the characters involved and has presented them as fact to an audience who may not know what actually happened.

Now anyone who doesn't know the facts will think that:

1. Lorca survived the Alamo. 2. Emily was sleeping with Sam Houston. 3. Central and East Texas are full of mountains with hundred foot high cliffs. 4. etc.

Shame on you History Channel. You were to report History, not rewrite it. What will you do next, create a mini-series about how Adolf Hitler was really a secret spy for the American Army during WWII while sleeping with a British official's wife?

Can I trust anything else I see on the History Channel anymore?

We've been looking forward to the series, and one of the main things I love is all the great actors in it together. It's very interesting how many of the real people played a part in our history later on, if people want to look into the main characters portrayed. They did a great job of setting a lot of the backstory on the first episode. So many sad parts, but they're keeping it real, and we can't wait till next Monday. I also find it very interesting Bill Paxton is related to Sam Houston, how appropriate for him to be playing the part now. Good job to everyone involved, I love seeing history being brought to life. Thank you for all the work you've put into it.

History Channel has presented some great historically-based miniseries in the past (Hatfields & McCoys for example), but Texas Rising is not a good example and it's not even interesting. I can hardly watch it...boring, bad acting, bad dialog and accents, even fake-looking "Texas" scenery. When previews began, I could not wait to watch this series, but I felt as though this series was thrown together to meet some kind of internal deadline. Most of the characters are unsympathetic and rigid. The only redeeming aspect to this series and the reason I rated it a 5 and not a 1 is the deliciously evil performance of Ray Liotta. Let's hope the next "History Channel Presents" is better than this one.

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!

This is a decent flick with a solid cast of B-list actors. Having grown up in South Texas and lived in San Antonio though, I was hung up on the scenery the whole time. Suffice to say, the locales portrayed look nothing like the actual locales. No big deal, but don't base any travel decisions on this movie.

Not a Texan, so I had little historical knowledge to balance against the show. I liked it.

Texas Rising is one of those cheesy dramadies that you watch for the action. Watching this show for even less than 15 minutes should tell you that historical accuracy is not what they're going for. You watch it for the blood, tension, cowboy quips, and gunfights in what most equate to the battles of Texas. The acting by the cast, while decent, is marred by overdramatic and choppy writing/scene placement. The desolate settings they've chosen to represent as Texas can also take away from your enjoyability, though if you're not familiar with how Texas looks then this might not be an issue.

If you can believe it, with so many things working against Texas Rising, there is one arguable saving grace keeping it good. Of its cast, Brendan Fraser in particular gives a fantastic performance as a Western Texas ranger raised by Native Americans. Truth be told, with the cheesiness and oftentimes questionable writing of the show, it is very unlikely I would be watching without Fraser's powerhouse performance keeping me entertained.

Note: This review is based on season 1.

Texas Rising is an excellent series that tells a truly inspiring tale of an underdog victory. At first, I was upset that the series began after Alamo's defense because that is an amazing story in itself, but I quickly understood the narrative that the screenwriter hoped to achieve. The story provided ample background and time to convey the extremely desperate situation of the Texas rebels, slowly revealing how high the stakes were raised and how unlikely it was for any rebel to survive, let alone win.

Unfortunately the story peters out during the finale, Part 5. This part wraps up all the loose ends of the series, but 1.5 hours of winding down drags excessively. Assuming a second season is ever made, I think the first season should have left out the whole story of the cabin outside of Victoria. It awkwardly interrupts the main story, and it's much better as a background for the Comanche Wars since it doesn't affect the Texas Revolution story at all. The cabin story, plus the Comanche portions of Part 5, should have been reserved as background for the intro to season 2, which would make season 1 flow much better and would remove much of the fluff from Part 5.

The best part of the series was the phenomenal cast. This show uses dozens of fairly big names, even in minor roles, and it pays off tremendously. Every single recurring character was given so much depth and personality that it was easy to care for each one of their stories. The dialogue was filled with fantastic colloquialisms and spot-on slow-speaking southern drawls.

Thanks to other negative reviews, I feel obligated to comment on the historical inaccuracies. The details like the flags and building designs were inexcusable, but the other changes made the show better for the most part. There's no real basis for the Lorca story arc, but it substantially improves the show's emotional depth, so it's an excellent addition from a storytelling point of view. Emily West didn't have the major role that she has in the show, but it's fun to give her a more interesting reason for becoming the Yellow Rose of Texas. Finally, we all know Texas doesn't have Utah's mountains and rock formations, but western films widely popularized the idea of those formations as part of the wild west, so it's easy to see those rare scenes more as homage than a presentation of a historical fact.

I have always been a big fan of the Westerns and have watched many in my lifetime, but this, by far, has been the greatest triumph in the Western genre I've seen on these 47 years on Earth. The Plot, the Setting, the Score and of course the Cast, spearheaded by the beautiful, rambunctious, Brendan Fraser. His performance as Billy Anderson is one that is very hard to describe but believe me when I say this; it brought a tear to my eye. The emotional depth of his character spoke to me on some sort of ethereal level - a feeling that reminds me of the moment when a woman rips out your heart and spurns you. It is a feel that really sticks with you, y'know? If I had to equate Brendan's role to any other great performances throughout TV and Movie history I would have to compare his performance mainly to Peter O'Tooles great rendition of Lawrence of Arabia (it really stuck with me) and Aidan Gillens infamous, spectacular, portrayal of CIA in the The Dark Knight Rises.

All in all it has been a great watch so far and I can't wait to see what the Big Guy Brendan can pull off in the other episodes and in the future of his now revitalized career.

This is great and entertaining stuff. I do understand those who complain about historical inaccuracies, but for others who live far away from Texas (such as me) or those who aren't in love with history books this is great TV series with historical background.

This stuff shouldn't be rated as some historical documentary. Texas Rising and the other History channel hit "Vikings" deserve genre of their own as they both are great. Even if the scenario has been added with fictional stories and adventures, titles as these are great at recreating the authentic atmosphere of the past. It is great at showing the struggles and problems for people living in Texas in 19th century.

On other hand I really enjoyed acting in this TV series as it has some well known actors.

Highly recommended even if you aren't bookworm of history.

I enjoy history. I read history books and I normally enjoy movies, shows, etc. about history but not this time. Such a waste of time, I didn't bother to watch the last two hours of it. It was full of actors that I normally enjoy, like Bill Paxton, Ray Liotta and Thomas Jane (totally wasted) and many character actors that I've seen in lots of movies over the years. Where has Brandon Frazier been - I hope he didn't come out of retirement for just this. Because if he did, he killed any future projects.

The writing is pathetic; the lines are delivered just as pathetic. Apparently there wasn't a director on the site. It is historically inaccurate (shame on "The History Channel). It is geographically inaccurate and no effort was made to make it appear that it matched the right time era. It appeared chopped up. Did they cut it, to make it easier to watch? There were gaps without explanation throughout the series. New stories would start and not finish.

Don't waste your time and I will definitely be suspicious of any history channel events in the future.

Like what the two other reviewers' comments on this short TV drama by the History Channel, I have to say that this time, they've missed a great opportunity to glorify part of the history when Texas fought its independence and its future. A very bad screenplay tried so hard to dramatize that epic era had miserably missed the mark and turned it into a soap opera-like superfluous farce.

We have some of the better and great actors who signed up to play important historical characters in this one, but they were completely wasted and ridiculed by the lousy screenplay and its play writers. The scenes are great, the views are grand, but what a lousy arrangement turned this drama into the shallow marshland.

Why, I have to ask the History Channel, why you have to put two young jerks and clowns in such serious drama as members of the Texas Rangers? What made these two young stupid jerks qualified as Texas Rangers? Why the screenplay writer(s) you hired had to ridicule the name and the reputation of the Texas Ranger? These two young jerks didn't care about the future but only led by their dick heads to pursuit a young woman nurse in Sam Houston's degenerated and low morale camp. These two clowns segments in the first part of this drama had undoubtedly turned lot of viewers off to take this TV drama seriously.

Then, again, when the fall and slaughter of Alamo news reached Houston's camp, only a very short of moment we saw those street mob-like so-called Houston's fighting soldiers took off their hats to show their condolences and their respect for the fallen comrades, then when at the nightfall, we saw the whole camp seemed to celebrate Alamo falling into Santa Ana's control. We heard music and dancing all around in the camp. And Sam Houston other than did some lip services to his fallen brothers, only concentrated to reunited with his secret lover. At that moment, I just couldn't help hearing my curse and the only thing I remembered was "WTF?!"

Some of the Texas Rangers were played by several more matured actors who indeed did a great job to portray the tough life style of being a Ranger, their loyalty to their principles, their toughness also inevitably moved me for a few moments in the 1st part of this drama, but once those two young jerks appeared, it's all went into the drain.

I have to tell History Channel here: When you tried to revive or to repaint a history picture, dramatize it with unnecessary crap would only ruin every effort you guys have tried to do in the first place; and overly dramatizing the whole picture could only jeopardize the whole nine yards. But such stupidity could ever be improved or be cured, even you know it? I really doubt it.

OK, watched the first episode and liked it! I watched it in spite of some of the negative reviews, (which are the first thing I read when checking reviews of anything)and was able to figure out (as anyone would, after actually you know...*watching* it!) that a lot of stuff posted in the negative reviews was simply false and stupid! One reviewer made the comment "Every Texas school kid over the age of 8 *knows* the attack on the Alamo occurred March 6th...but the show leads off with it being on March 7th...!" and proceeds to spew his bullcrap opinion ad nauseum....After watching the first episode, leading off with the date March 7th, 1836, it was clear that they were referring to events occurring ON 7 March, *the day after* the attack on the Alamo.... Santana's army was digging a mass grave for the people KILLED on March 6th, and that was the scene where they captioned the March 7th date....they did no imply, in ANY way, that the Alamo was attacked that day...which, as the bogus reviewer stated, was a pretty important fact considering the nature of the material in the film! Once it became obvious that the reviewer couldn't get *that* right, the rest of his, and the others, completely negative review became moot....I had to check it out for myself. Yes: the show seems rife with "artistic license" and historical faux pa's....but it IS a TV show! It has to compete with lots of other shows in order to get the viewers! Yes, it's VIOLENT...violence SELLS! If Clint Eastwoods 1950's series Rawhide tried to make in on TV today, it too would be rife with similar violence! Or it wouldn't be around very long! I know *I* wouldn't watch it if they tried, now, the exact thing they did in the 50's! It would be too tame, simply. This is the quandary the creators of good TV are facing today: How to make something everyone wants to watch!? And it simply cannot be denied: Violence (and sex) sells! It's an unholy competition but...*they* didn't create it.....WE did! The viewers! Can't blame anyone but ourselves...