Streets of Laredo (1995)

This was probably a different sequel than people expected. The sequel they expected was probably Return to Lonesome Dove. Why? Because Return to Lonesome Dove dealt with the threads left hanging by the original Lonesome Dove, mainly Call's relationship with Newt. I also dealt with the ranch set up in Montana. It's understandable that people would have expected that. But Return to Lonesome Dove was in many ways just a rehash. Robert Duvall is replaced by William Petersen, Danny Glover by Lou Gossett Jr., and Frederic Forrest with Dennis Haysbert. They are simply replacement characters. Once again, there's a cattle drive. It deals with Newt and Call's relationship, but thing brings in another paternity case. It just goes to prove that Lonesome Dove brought those story lines to their natural, if not their emotionally satisfying, conclusion. Newt and Call both know the truth, even if they can't admit it to each other. Without knowing for sure whether Call intends to return to Montana, we're left with the feeling that Newt has to make his own way in the world, and has reached a point where he's ready too. The other supporting characters don't really need to some back, as they were ranch hands, not major characters Given that, I wasn't disappointed not to see Newt or many other characters return when I saw the sequel or read the book. Though I was disappointed that McMurtry felt he had to kill off Newt. And it makes sense that McMurtry, who is from Texas, would want to maintain a connection to Texas rather than move the entire story up to Montana.The deaths of Gus, Jake and Deets leaves only two Rangers alive: Call and Pea-Eye. The two of them are very similar in a way. Pea-Eye is task-oriented, like Call, not a joker like Gus, so that makes an interesting dynamic to explore. It's also a good way to show a contrast between them, which is why Lorena returns. Call had a chance to have a family with Maggie, a whore, but he turned his back on it. Pea-Eye, on the other hand, pursues that relationship and starts a family.Though it is a sequel to Lonesome Dove, viewers should brace themselves for what is, in all other respects, a completely different movie. Were it not for the history that Call and the Parkers have, this could have been a story completely separate from the Lonesome Dove series. This, like the prequels, is a story were the work of a Texas Ranger takes center stage. You see Call and Parker in action, and you also see the pursuit from his quarry's point of view, and that of his mother, who has lost so much of her family to the Rangers. Unlike Lonesome Dove, which had a romantic sense of adventure, this film shows the harm that their work sometimes causes. It also shows the affect of civilization on the Old West. No date is specified, but this appears to be set in the late 19th or early 20th century, in which the Texas Rangers, and Call in particular, are becoming obsolete. As Woodrow and Pea Eye show, however, they still have work to do, and do it well. It's not quite the film that Lonesome Dove was, which had a great mixture of romance, darkness, adventure and excitement--it's a much darker film--but still worth a look.Oh, and to correct one of the other reviews. Robert Duvall played Gus before, not Call. Tommy Lee Jones played Call, who is played here by James Garner. And there are two other constants: Lorena; played in Lonesome Dove by Diane Lane and here by Sissy Spacek; and Pea Eye Parker; played in Lonesome Dove by Tim Scott, and here by Sam Shepard. It took me a while to realize that too, since they look so different. But her mention of Blue Duck and her whoring life is enough to connect the dots, and Sam Shepard actually plays Pea Eye as a man with some intelligence though not much formal education, rather than the simpleton that we got from Tim Scott. A nice improvement, I think. He seems a more competent Ranger. It's also a shame that Tommy Lee Jones never returned to the role of Woodrow Call, though maybe at the age Call is in this story, it wouldn't have made sense. I must say Garner and Shepard both appear younger, mainly since their hair has turned grey from white.

Sorry, this movie abandoned the viewers. Loose ends? How many were there? Too many to count. I watched Lonesome Dove, too, and didn't really have any expectations for this movie, but I'd have to say it wasn't about the thread between movies or characters; how much Garner was like Jones, etc. It was, for me, about the lack of point of view. There are so many threads that do not get drawn together in a good way. Who really is the narrator? Why was Hardin's character in the movie? Why don't we see or learn more about Pea Eye whose close relationship with Call is given to us at the beginning? Why the guy who burns people down? So much time was spent on extraneous characters who perhaps in the book are interesting to the story but in a screen play become burdensome to the main story. I wished for more clarity, more development of the main characters. And, the movie did not really take place on The Street of Laredo.

Is this better than Lonesome Dove? Depends on who you ask. I think that viewed objectively it is indeed a better mini-series. Two things complicate this in many people's minds. First, when it comes to the books I think most people think Lonesome Dove is a better book. Second, the first mini-series was so one of a kind that it really left an impression with people. Really got in their heads. By the time this came out people didn't find a western mini-series as groundbreaking. But if you watch them back to back now I think this one comes out on top. It features some great performances and, as others have commented, is a bit darker in tone and feel than the previous mini-series. If you liked Lonesome Dove this is a slam dunk for you to like.

Streets of Laredo is a fine western. It's just that Lonesome Dove set too high a standard to compare any other western with. Maybe the problem lies with the story itself....can anyone who saw LD imagine Lorena marrying Pea Eye and having a passel of kids???? Recall that Lorena wouldn't have anything to do with Lippy and yet she marries Pea Eye. Diane Lane and Tim Scott, together!?! No way! Streets of Laredo simply inverts the visuals embedded in our brains from LD: now Pea Eye(Sam Shepherd) is actually better looking than Lorena(Sissy Spacek). That's just too much of a stretch. I never thought I'd criticize Sissy Spacek but she just doesn't have any of Diane Lane's elegance and sensuousness. Ms. Lane was charming and endearing but Spacek's Lorena just grates on the nerves. Also for a sequel we are left mystifyingly in the dark as to why the main characters are back in Texas. Newt, who was the actual "lonesome dove" in LD, is never mentioned. What happened to Call's cattle ranch in Montana??? No clue. I realize the novel probably answers these questions but hell, this was a miniseries! The screenwriters should have had time to develop what happened since the end of LD. I also don't like the introduction of historical figures Roy Bean and John Wesley Hardin who are used as stage props to prove how fearsome Joey Garza is. Garza was so tough even the Apaches grew to fear him. Give me a break! The character Joey Garza merely strikes me as a punk who can shoot well. As a rule I don't like villains with pencil necks, no upper body strength, and who don't shave yet; it's just too hard to take them seriously. He doesn't inspire fear, but rather seems a nuisance we wish someone would eliminate. On the positive side, James Garner is marvelous as Woodrow Call. He won't replace Tommy Lee Jones in my mind as Call but then again, who could? Garner seems more stoic, more matter-of-fact than Jones was. Jones' portrayal had a lot of quiet emotion churning beneath the surface, unfortunately Garner has no Gus to play off of. Still he shines brighter in this movie than anyone else. I guess the main test that ranks Streets of Laredo unfavorably with LD is the affect it produces with time. It doesn't stay with one like LD. Scenes are not memorable and unforgettable as they were with LD. The bittersweet irony is missing. I don't have the sense it will involuntarily become part of one's psyche with time.