Texas (1995)

Waste of Money.

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

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.

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".

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.

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?