Texas (1995)

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

There are better movies of two hours length. I loved the actress'performance.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

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.

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.

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.

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