UNLIMITED STREAMING
WITH PRIME VIDEO
TRY 30-DAY TRIAL
Home > Drama >

Houston: The Legend of Texas

Houston: The Legend of Texas (1986)

November. 22,1986
|
6.4
| Drama History Western War

Sam Elliot stars as Sam Houston, the visionary who nearly single-handedly forged the state of Texas into a powerful entity in its own right. Refusing to forget the Alamo (as if anyone could), Houston led the military in Texas' rebellion against Mexico. G.D. Spradlin co-stars as President Andrew Jackson, with Michael Beck appearing as Jim Bowie, James Stephens as Stephen Austin, and Richard Yniguez as Mexican General Santa Anna. Lensed on location in the Lone Star state, this sweeping made-for-TV film originally occupied three hours' screen time on November 22, 1986. Its title at that time was Houston: The Legend of Texas. ~ Hal Erickson, Rovi

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

Linkshoch
1986/11/22

Wonderful Movie

More
Aubrey Hackett
1986/11/23

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

More
Erica Derrick
1986/11/24

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

More
Juana
1986/11/25

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

More
Robert J. Maxwell
1986/11/26

Sam Elliot is one tough pecan in this movie. He snarls, shouts, is shot off his horse (twice), and defies all dissenters whether superiors or subordinates. His is the only memorable face or performance. The names of some of the other characters are familiar from other sources -- Bowie, Travis, and Crockett and Deaf (pronounced "deef", as in the peanut butter) Smith -- but the actors are background whether than figures in this inexpensively made film. (Katherine Ross does what amounts to an uncredited cameo.)I can't comment on the historical accuracy of the story but it seemed convincing enough to a complete outsider. Well, not complete. I once saw Sam Houston's signature on the register of an inn in Monterey, now converted to a museum. I also had something of a problem keeping the movement of the various forces straight. When Houston orders a certain bridge to be "cut down" I only know that this will hinder any possible retreat of his own men because one of his staff tells him so. I don't know where the bridge is, or where Santa Ana is in relation to it.But I suspect the battle scenes are at least as realistic as in John Wayne's "Alamo." In the Wayne movie all of the usual conventions of the old-fashioned Western are adhered to. (One of our men can kill five of theirs, etc.) Here, at least, the viewer learns what scholars have known for years from diaries kept by ordinary Mexican soldiers that happened to surface after the battles. Not all the Texicans fought to the last man at the Alamo. Some surrendered and were executed, including possibly Davey Crockett. And the wounded were bayoneted to death by the victorious Mexicans. It was a hard war. Early on, when one of Houston's staff reveals that he paroled several hundred Mexican soldiers with a promise never to fight against Texans again (it was a common practice at the time), Houston chews him out and declares they'll be back again behind Santa Ana. We presume that what Houston is saying is that the Mexican prisoners should have been executed. At the final battle of San Jacincto, Houston's forces defeat Santa Ana's and take hundreds of prisoners, but we see plenty more fleeing Mexicans being deliberately shot and bayoneted, including an unarmed teen-aged drummer boy. As Robert E. Lee was supposed to have said at Frederickburg, a quarter of a century later, it is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we might come to love it. Fewer John Wayne's dying heroic deaths and more harmless teen-agers deliberately executed might remind us a bit more accurately of what war was (and is) all about.

More
12Charlie
1986/11/27

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.

More
kborahjr
1986/11/28

I thought I would really like this movie. Perhaps it is because I am fan of all things Texan, or perhaps it was because it starred Sam Elliott. Either way, I was, sorry to say, disappointed. First, you should be warned that this was a TV movie. I did not realize this when I rented it, but it became apparent quite quickly! Second, if you were expecting the Sam Elliott of "We Were Soldiers", "Tombstone", or "Gettysburg", he's not in this movie. However, Elliott is not only in the sub-standard performance category. The acting overall reminded me not of a TV special, but rather of those made-for-middle school history class productions. Finally, if you are a student of history, this is not the movie to watch. The producers and/or writers took some liberties that did not have to be taken, especially in dealing with a larger-than-life figure like Sam Houston. If you still feel inclined to rent this movie, save it for a rainy or snowy day!

More
nasfan
1986/11/29

This movie is very cheezy. The acting isn't perfect, but it is (sort of) accurate. I especially liked the way they portrayed the Cherokee and the Osage. It shows a little research on the producer's part, but they didn't really portray Sam Houston's life so accurately. A lot of his life was over dramatized, but I can look over that.If you look at the movie in a whole view, it is ok... for TV. Recommended for viewing if you are bored and have an hour and a half to spare.6/10

More