bobbobwhite As the story plot and characters in this series have been explained and dissected by others in detail, this post is mostly commentary about its intent and result.Precisely how the dedicated director and writer interpreted the story on film made all the difference in its quality. As the actors were not the same as in earlier versions and stories in the Lonesome Dove series, a consistency in story intention and attitude had to be maintained for it to be successful through all the varied incarnations using different actors and tech people. And that is precisely what made this version work so well, as it was a serious, deadly and harsh story true to its original essence, and it had to be told that very same and true way and not devolve into what TV does so often with sequels....and that is to try to make it funny, different, "family entertainment", and as a result, vastly inferior. Those sequel story insults it did not do, and much thanks for that.The somber, serious and often sad and lonely plains essence of Captain Call was as well executed here as in the original, along with the story's harsh cruelty of frontier criminality and justice juxtaposed with intense love, loyalty and human kindness. The director and the actors stuck closely to that serious intent and execution, and that is primarily what made this story version work so well, and it was a worthy successor to the original in all ways.This was a quality TV production, in many ways the equal of most big studio films of the genre, and in many ways far superior(most especially in the great musical score). A true pleasure to watch again and again and a serious triumph of the real potential of TV programming when someone cares to do a story right and not just try to sell advertising for sponsors.

ccthemovieman-1 I found this to be a decent follow-up to the excellent Lonesome Dove TV miniseries. Although a different cast and a different story, it does the original story justice and follows that if you liked Lonesome Dove, then you'll like this, too. However, in my opinion, Lonesome Dove was decidedly superior and holds up better in multiple viewings. I liked this a lot the first time I saw it; not so much the second time.There is just one constant in the two stories: the character of Capt. Woodrow Call, played by Tommy Lee Jones in the first series and by James Garner in this sequel. You can't go wrong with either actor.On my second look at this long story (227 minutes), I didn't enjoy it as much the first time because I found the last hour just too bleak and depressing. Watching character after character getting killed and listening to Sissy Spacey's constant complaining wore me down. I liked the unique finish: an uplifting, sentimental postscript in which Garner shows a human side to him that hadn't been shown the first three hours. That was a nice touch, but was "too little, too late."In summary, mixed reviews: this is definitely worth a look, especially for Garner who is fascinating. I gave it nine stars after that initial viewing. But, trust me, unless you enjoy being depressed, one trip down the Streets Of Loredo might be all you will want. But do see it, especially if you like "realistic" hard-bitten westerns.

FlottaGuidato This is my favorite movie. It may be long, but it's not drawn out. It doesn't have the regular ol' western theme.. you know, and older man, a widowed woman, a crazy horse... no no no, this movie is real. I watch it from time to time and enjoy it even more each time. Alexis Cruz does a fantastic job as Joey Garza. Samuel Shephard is also fabulous in his role, and fits the part perfectly. 9.5 out of 10 stars.

jmcody Granted, both the original Lonesome Dove novel and film are unique works of extremely fascinating classic story telling. Streets of Laredo obviously has a great deal to live up to and, when viewed or read in conjunction with Dove, it does suffer in the sense that our familiarity is slightly snubbed. Of course not much can measure up to the original, and so obviously this is something that cannot be helped. This sequel is far more brutal and violent that its predecessor. Violent death or at least the threat of it is an ever present character awash on Laredo's landscape much more than Dove.That said, Streets of Laredo as a film stands firmly upon its own merits which are quite impressive.Firstly, the cast is sublime. James Garner, always a vastly underrated actor, creates a stoic yet tragic Call. His final scene is at once heart breaking and resonating with strong quiet hope. His performance is all about what film acting aspires to become: he moves mountains without words.The rest of the cast is on equal footing with Garner. Playwrite Sam Shepard's Pea Eye, although losing much of Tim Scott's original Bentonesque forlorn rube, is filled with earthy heroism and and poetry. Sissy Spacek, as the whore re-incarnated as a schoolmarm Lorena produces the tough backbone needed to survive the Texas prarie. Comedian George Carlin's finely drawn panhandle scamp solidifies the theory that the border between comedy and tragedy is narrow at best. These are just a few of the excellent standouts in the sound ensemble.Secondly, there is the very narrative itself. It plays like a Sunday funeral dirge-ever aware of the passing of an era, yet peering into a glimmer future of simple optimism and hope. In McMurtry's frequently brutal world, everyone has a shot at redemption. Grace isn't free but it is availble to all willing to run the gauntlet, as long as they have a pure heart. In this film, pure of heart may not necessarily mean pure of deed, but at least evil is evil and good is good.This film bravely balances the aformentioned violence with scenes of wry humour and gentleness. In that regard, Laredo comes the closest anyone has come to honoring Peckinpah's greater works.The film, because it was produced for television is already mostly forotten by the minnions, but richly deserving of an audience. Enjoy and Savor.