Solidrariol Am I Missing Something?

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Yazmin Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

meganmiller-75195 As a member of the Daughters of The Republic of Texas I am ashamed but not surprised. If you are going to do a film based on true events, GET IT RIGHT. They left out very important people that actually took place in the fight. Look up my great-great-great grandfather, Capt. Jesse Billingsley and you will find out from not only his personal journal but many other resources that his company was the first to ride in. Where is Edward Burleson? Check your geography. I would never, nor will I ever recommend this to anyone. As a proud Texan, this makes me sick!

SnoopyStyle This 5-part 10-hour TV mini-series starts with the defeat at the Alamo. It follows the fight between General Sam Houston (Bill Paxton) and Santa Anna (Olivier Martinez) as well as other stories. Santa Anna would eventually lose the Battle of San Jacinto on April 21, 1836 and be captured. The last episode would see the aftermath and the rise of the Texas Rangers.There are some obvious accuracy problems even to a clueless guy like me. The question is whether it matters. The channel is called History Channel afterall. It ain't Lifetime and this is important history unlike "Hatfields & McCoys". One can play around with minor legends and folklore but if you play around with major history, it'd be nice to plaster the entire show with flashing neon signs saying THIS AIN'T TRUE.The second problem is that the opening misdirected me by pontificating that all these various groups have differing goals. One of the first scene is Indians acting and portrayed as Indians from old Hollywood movies. That includes killing them easily and then mourning over the one white guy getting killed. It's very old fashion. At least, the Indians have one early scene discussing the politics and that saved the show at that point.The first episode is very boring. Houston and his group are stuck in camp. I feel like some of his men who are itching to get moving. That idea could have been delivered in a more compelling way. It's not until the second episode that a big battle occur. This is still a show and it should try to hook the viewers right away. The obvious solution is to show some of the battle at the Alamo.Just as the show seems to be picking up steam in the second episode, it loses me for good when the Mexican commander calls Colonel James Fannin a wetback. It is problematic on so many levels and it shows me the care with which the writers take. They think they're more clever than they actually are.The actors in general are very good quality but they're not all necessarily shown in the best light. Bill Paxton is listless, I don't generally like Olivier Martinez and the years haven't been kind to Brendan Fraser. The acting is still generally good. The action scenes are also generally good for a TV miniseries. The production is relatively well made but those are not the problem.

bssnyder Creating a work of fiction around historical events in inaccurately depicted locations and calling it history is laughable. Mountainous, desert-like terrain in Victoria and Harrisburg? Large rocky outcrops and caves at San Jacinto? Seriously? Both of those locations are on the Texas coastal plain, where the closest thing to a hill is a good 300- 400 miles to the west. Even the depictions of San Antonio and Goliad were grossly inaccurate. No amount of very good acting can compensate for the fabricated melodrama in this series. The representation of Emily West is 99 percent fiction; very little is actually known about her. One Texas hero, Stephen F. Austin, is barely mentioned. The role of the Commanche, among other native peoples, is glossed over.All in all, I was very disappointed with this film. While it's something I'd expect to see on the broadcast networks, it's not up to snuff for the History Channel.

ckw5205 Too bad even Bill Paxton admitted fictional characters were okay. There are too many false events to write. History Channel takes a big dive in credibility with this farce. The Yellow Rose "person" is fictional and a myth at best. These writers, directors and producers should at least have to take a basic course in Texas history to come up with a "biopic" such as this. The time line is all wrong, Santa Ana didn't come back until a year after Houston was elected President. It infers Deaf Smith died of TB and there is no evidence of that. There is no reference to how Santa Ana was really captured. There are too many things bad about this crappy show to write here. It's insulting to any real Texan and Paxton should be embarrassed.