sykespj I was an oilfield brat from Australia who landed at Angleton Junior High (about 50 miles outside of Houston) in 1970-71. At the time, it was compulsory to study Texas history. I was absolutely fascinated with the sheer excitement and adventure surrounding the rise of the Republic of Texas. I even got the only A+ in the class for my Texas history scrapbook... absolutely jam-packed with any bit of memorabilia or promotional pamphlet (thanks Mum) I could find.Unfortunately, this version of the story bears about as much similarity to the truth of the story as the history the small-town of Texas in northern New South Wales. C'mon... anyone who has even flown over southeast Texas knows that most of it is as flat as a pancake. Most days I could see the smog in Houston from Angleton. Why did that same rocky outcrop keep showing up? Come to think of it, there is one very much like it in Texas, N.S.W. The real story is so gripping, there was absolutely no need to put together this soapy pre-fabricated crap. Shame on the History Channel.

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.

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.

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.