AniInterview
Sorry, this movie sucks
Marketic
It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.
Rexanne
It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny
dunsuls-1
Sometimes even before HBO,a TV movie was made worth seeing.Not the huge budget to give the subject was it deserves,but for its time,1986 it's really quite good.Sam Elliott as Sam Houston is the focus and the scope of the story that is almost as broad as the USA itself.So some will be disappointed at the short,quick overview of many very important details.There is so very much to tell. And like many TV movies it starts so very slow that only the power of Elliott's screen presence keeps you interested.Surly someone will one day make a true picture of the father of Texas.He deserves it,booze,women and all.For remember this,he was a head of state,governor of two states and a congressman and senator from different states,Who else in our country has that pedigree?? How much is fact,or fiction,I don't know,however I would like to know about his dream for a Indian nation in Texas before he ever went there.If Honest Abe is getting a new look this year,I believe Houston should get one two.For all its flaws and unevenness,this film temps you to learn more about this crazy character and very unique figure in our history.REMAKE !!!!
steven-222
Of all the movies I've come across dealing with early Texas history (various versions of The Alamo, Michener's Texas, Texas Rangers, King of Texas, Two for Texas), this is by far the best.No sugar-coating here. Instead of loading on the usual simplistic blather about heroic Texas revolutionaries fighting for "freedom" (these were slave-owners; they wanted the "freedom" to own human beings), this movie makes the point early on that self-serving adventurers from the US were scheming to take Texas from Mexico long before the revolution came. Jim Bowie is seen inviting Houston to do just that; Houston, drunk with his Indian compatriots, dreams of seizing Texas and making it an Indian Republic (with himself at the head, naturally). For such "dreams of freedom" to take place, a lot of people will have to die, but when ruthless men believe in their own manifest destiny, nothing must get in the way of their empire-building. Thus the J.R. Ewing mentality of Texas was set from the very beginning...and continues to this day, with our war-mongering Texas president.Are men like Houston (or Julius Caesar, or Napoleon, or George Bush) admirable? Frankly, after living 50 years on this planet, I've had my fill of these dangerous egomaniacs, but for better or worse they are the types who make history for the rest of us, so any work that offers insight into their personalities and careers is interesting to watch. Most movies that portray the Texas revolutionaries reflexively offer brain-dead patriotic pabulum; they're fairy-tales for adults who think like children. The script for this movie offers far more to think about.Even the most justified wars are always fought for someone's profit, and atrocities always take place on both sides. And yet, at the outset of every war, a large component of the population goes forth with stars in their eyes, thinking that god must be on their side and that everything will be just wonderful. What's truly reprehensible is to look back on those wars in retrospect with the same stars in your eyes, instead of training a hard, unflinching gaze on the cruel and ugly realities of history and the types of men who make it. This movie does that to a greater degree than most, and for that I give it credit.
frankfob
Cheesy, badly done TV movie shot on the cheap about Sam Houston. Listlessly acted--except by Sam Elliott in the title role, whose performance consists mostly of shouting at the top of his lungs--sloppily written, wretchedly directed, cheap-looking junk has no atmosphere, no sense of history, no suspense, no drama, no nothing. The action scenes, especially the battle of San Jacinto, are clumsily set up and badly shot. The supporting cast has a few well known character actors, such as Bo Hopkins and Ned Romero, but consists mostly of unknowns, and judging by their performances here, they should stay unknowns. The 1939 Richard Dix film "Man of Conquest," also about Houston and the battle of San Jacinto, is vastly more entertaining and professionally done. If you want to watch a film about Sam Houston, check out that one and leave this one to gather dust on the shelf, where it belongs.
12Charlie
Just saw it again last night on t.v. This is a fantastic film. Very well done by all involved. Then again, how can one not like a Sam Elliott western? he is one of the best western stars we have and we need to get him back in the saddle again to churn out some more.
