Texas (1995)

The cast is first-rate. No exceptions. But not all of the cast is the best out of the whole movie, because there is only a few of the cast that actually stand out and make themselves different from their own many other roles in TV and movies. The section of the cast that is good, but not as good as the rest is: Stacy Keach, Patrick Duffy, Maria Conchita Alonso, David Keith, John Schneider, and Grant Show. The section of the cast that is great, and towers above the rest is: Ricky Schroder, Anthony Michael Hall, Chelsea Field, Benjamin Bratt, and Randy Travis. The reason Anthony Michael Hall is one of the best actors from this movie is because he plays a coward with a yellow streak down his back that is about ten miles wide, and twenty miles long. However, he is also a show-off, because he is obviously trying to make himself look better so he won't be so much of a coward. But this does not work, because his cowardice shines through, and he knows it, so he ends up trying to look rich and successful by strutting around in his stupidity-ridden uniform with his hair slicked back. Sadly, the only other person that actually does anything about it is Houston, and he does it quite well. Ricky Schroder delivers a powerful, powerful performance. Chelsea Field's character is the most determined and strong-willed, and she knows when to and how to exploit that. Benjamin Bratt is barely recognizable, with all his makeup and facial hair, but his character basically only cares about his own interests, thoughts, desires and wills. But his character is so good because he likes to use others to fulfill his own interests, thoughts, desires and wills, that is, everybody except Otto, who will not be pushed, poked, or prodded one way or the other. He knows what he has to do and how to do it, and he sticks to that. Perhaps "Texas" is not as good as the only other movie that I have seen Ricky Schroder in, which is LONESOME DOVE, and also maybe his Otto MacNab was not as well done as his Newt Dobbs, but in "Texas" his character is given a much more expanded role. What is up with Patrick Duffy and the Michael Landon-is hairdo? Remember the Alamo! Remember Goliad!

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".

This movie is hokey as heck, but enjoyable if you're interested in the subject. Benjamin Bratt fans should especially like it; his character spans the entire movie and he turns in a charismatic performance. Stacy Keach does fine work as Sam Houston, and Rick Schroder is good as the emotionally conflicted young hero. Production is a bit spotty; quite a bit of the Alamo battle scene is footage from the old John Wayne movie!Of course, the movie does not mention that one of the main "freedoms" the Texas settlers were fighting for was the freedom to own slaves (for some reason the "oppressive" Mexican government thought that was wrong). Funny, how those who exhort others to fight for freedom so often have their eye on exploiting or subjugating other people...some things never change, especially in Texas!

After watching the made for TV movie "Texas" loosely based on James Michener's novel, I must confess two things: First I enjoyed the movie very much as a Readers Digest condensation of American history. Whether it is a true representation of the Michener novel does not concern me and is unimportant. I loved what the movie makers did with Centennial and most of the adaptations of his novels, including Texas. I found, for the most part, it was a good collection of vignettes of the progress of the American assimilation of the Mexican lands into what America called her Manifest Destiny. Sam Houston was sent to Texas, by President Andrew Jackson, for the express purpose of continuing these policies. As for the negative comments I have read concerning this movie. I have news for those who panned this movie because it was not like the book. Well it is not suppose to be like the book. I find it interesting how most of these reviewers ignore the fact that novels and movie making are two very different art forms and cannot under the best of conditions be totally and actually combined. The movie "Texas" does a fine job reflecting the conditions (though weighted to the point of view of the Texicans)that probably existed among many points of view of that time and place. It was one of the best $6.00 I have ever spent. Hurrah For Hollywood!