A good historical western
Added 5/11/2009
Mitchener tends to do an historical rewrite in these sweeping novels.
The ideas is to make a story connecting the history to the individuals involved. He really isn't as successful as this in many cases.
This mini-series is relatively well scripted, costumed and acted.
I liked it because it gave a "feel" for the historical Texas that is missing in many westerns.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
While this book had some good story telling, the characters were not very well defined. Towards the end, it seemed he was just writing the story to get it over w/& to include as much history as he could in one place. Didn't seem very historically accurate. I also watched the movie of the same name/author & it was absolutely terrible.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Good novel well transfered to the screen
Added 10/13/2007
I agree with everybody that has posted reviews about this movie, but the ones that have only 1 or 2 stars. In the style of Gone With the Wind, the novel shows how families were at first united, then separated during the conflict. I am familiar with the historical facts and that is why I could follow the locations and time, but someone who has not read the book or know little about the true facts would be a little lost. I was lucky to get this movie on DVD. The sound and the colors are great, the photography is very good, the landscapes and the sets believable, picture is sharp except for the stolen parts from an earlier movie. I am giving the movie 4 stars because of the battle scenes (the ones made for this movie), even considering it was a made for TV movie, they could have been choreographed an filmed better. In overall for a low budget TV movie, it was very good. I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to rebroadcast it, specially now that the DVD has became a scarce item. I will keep it in my library of history documentaries and movies.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
mediocre, underwhelming and American-biased
Added 10/30/2006
The Texas Revolution of 1835 to 1836, including the periods preceding and immediately following, are depicted in this 3-hour TV movie whose only redeeming value is shedding light and paying homage to Stephen Austin, the "Father of Texas" whose story and contribution to an Anglo-dominated Texas has been overshadowed by the legendary Sam Houston. The rest of the film is the usual "Santa Anna is a tyrant" storyline with short low-budget battle scenes and a weak attempt to show the Mexican perspective via a fictional Hispanic character displaying stereotypical Latin machismo. Anyone who knows Texan history will realize that the Anglo settlers/rebels did not fight just for basic civil liberties like habeas corpus but also for the right to own black slaves, something which "tyrannical" Mexico had abolished but which persisted in the "land of the free" USA. Politics aside, this movie is really talky, boring and showing very little of the Alamo defenders like Crockett, Bowie and Travis. It is recommended only for real history buffs interested in Austin and Houston and who do not come from Mexico. Everyone else should watch John Wayne's "Alamo", which at least has the decency to commend the bravery of Mexican soldiers acting as a tyrant's cannon fodder.
2 out of 3 people found this helpful.
|
We are original orginal of this video and have watched it on tv once an then this set.
It is one of the best movies we havd seen on the Alamo and the start of Texas as a independant State.
Charle Heston really done a great job in his naration.
It is a solid 3 hr movie with lots of action, love story and other things that make it great.
I highly recommend seeing it, you will not forget it.
1 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
