wbanders The lists below is only from the first 15 minutes.Now although I teach Texas History, I'm not going to claim to be a detailed expert. However if you are looking for a min-series/film about Texas, skip this piece of crap.1. The Alamo ended March 6th, not March 7th. What writer/tech consultation etc couldn't do some basic fact checking.2. I wasn't aware there was a majestic 400 foot cliff desert mesa in Gonzalez, Texas. My how the hill country has changed in the last 180 years.3. The Karankawa Indians are riding horses across the desert chasing Mexican soldiers. Again I wasn't aware there was a desert between San Antonio de Bexar and Gonzalez, nor that the Karankawa ever ranged that far from the Texas Coast, much less on horses, which there are no reports of them ever using.Not to mention the Karankawa sided with Mexico during the Revolution, and were already almost extinct.I had to stop watching in the first episode. Any one of my 7th grade honors students could have written a more accurate narrative.

grantss A quite ridiculous portrayal of Texas history.The story of Texas' independence from Mexico, from immediately after the Battle of the Alamo until slightly beyond General Santa Anna's ultimate defeat. Told through the eyes of General Sam Houston plus a myriad of lesser characters.Incredibly lame. The story could not be more one-sided, unobjective and bellicose. Characters are very badly drawn, dialogue is plain stupid, plot is appalling. Cast looks impressive, on paper: Bill Paxton (as General Sam Houston), Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Crispin Glover, Thomas Jane, Kris Kristofferson (as President Andrew Jackson), Brendan Fraser, Ray Liotta. However, the acing is mostly hammy: over-the-top, gung ho machismo nonsense.Only positive thing I can say is that at least it isn't as bad as Sons of Liberty, though its quite marginal. Very similar in their propaganda-like deliveries. Texas Rising was at least closer to history.Like Sons of Liberty, this is history for kids and rednecks. More fiction than fact. Far more style than substance.

mohancraig I actually read one that somehow compared this series to "The Lord of the Rings"... Lol, what dorks! It says right at the outset in plain English that the story is loosely based on historical events i.e. not a documentary; so do any of these ticked off reviewers know what a drama is... I mean besides the one they are personally having over the the production of this movie?!All the egregious inaccuracies aside that somehow defame the great state of Texas in so many ways that I'm not even seeing (but I guess you had to be there... like some of these reviewers think they were), the series was alright; a little slow at points but worth a watch. I didn't like Bill Paxton cast as Sam Houston probably because he looked nothing like the "Actual" Sam Houston who existed hundreds of years ago... also there was a bush in the town of Victoria that shouldn't have been there; seriously just enjoy the movie and don't over-think things... you'll be happier in life.

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.