Houston: The Legend of Texas (1986 TV Movie) User Reviews (16)

Interesting biopic about the frontiersman, soldier , and politician became the first president of the Republic of Texas

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 29 October 2013]

Passable Western inspired by historical events about Sam Houston and his fight for Texas independence . Historic events and great action as well as an acceptable cast . Sam (Sam Elliott) left his mark across the West's thousand toughest miles to escape a scandal back east . From the Red River to the Rio Grande he was hunted and feared ; a restless giant in a violent land . Tall in the saddle, restless of heart , he ranged across a violent land , forging an era with cold steel . President Jackson (G.D. Spradlin) personally orders him to lead the battle for Texan independence, he overcomes his reluctance to become involved and leads his partners to a string of victories over the Mexican army . Advocate at law Sam Houston gets together with notorious Texan leaders , his compatriots as Jim Bowie (Michael Beck) , Davy Crockett , William Barrett Travis (William Russ) and Stephen Austin (James Stephens) . When the Texans revolted against Mexico rule in 1835 , Sam was made commander-in-chief of the rebel army . After the fall of the Alamo on 6 March 1836 to the Mexican army and the subsequent retreat of the Texan forces , Sam managed to keep together a small force of less than 800 men and on 21 April 1836 launched a furious surprise attack . At the end takes place the famous battle of San Jacinto , in which was imprisoned General Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana (Richard Yniguez) . It's until the spectacular crushing spotlight of total defeat with Sam Houston as commander-in-chief when the movie comes alive at all .

This exciting picture about Texas fights for independence contains action Western , drama , historical happenings and is quite entertaining . Interesting writing based on a story and screenplay by Frank Q. Dobbs , a Western expert and also producer . Good main cast in which Sam Elliott stands out , he gives a good acting as impulsive as well as two-fisted leader . Ample support cast formed by notorious secondaries playing brief roles , many of them performing historical characters , such as John P. Ryan as David Burnett , James Stephens as Stephen Austin , Richard Yniguez as Gen. Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna , Michael Beck as Jim Bowie ,John de Lancie as Van Fossen , Bo Hopkins as Col. Sidney Sherman , Ned Romero as Indian chief , G.D. Spradlin as President Andrew Jackson and uncredited , Katharine Ross , Sam Elliott's wife . Atmospheric as well as thrilling musical score by Dennis McCarthy . Colorful and evocative cinematography by Frank Watts , though in television style and being necessary a right remastering . Medium budget TV film , being professionally directed by Peter Levin , though with no originality . Levin is a good craftsman who has worked in Television for decades directing a lot of films , series and episodes .

The picture is based on historical deeds about Texas independence, these are the followings : With Mexican permission Stephen Austin (James Stephens) brought the first Anglo-American colonists to Texas, the first of many, their numbers grew and they wanted self-government and this desire led to the revolt of 1835, the Texas war for Independence . General Santa Anna (Richard Yniguez) , stormed the Alamo , being defended by Jim Bowie (Michael Beck) , Davy Crockett and William Travis (William Russ) , and wiped out the garrison on 6 March 1836 . The legendary defense served as a rallying point for the beleaguered Texas . Although Santa Anna , who lost at least 600 of some 3000 troops against a force of less than 200 , referred as a small affair , the valor of the defenders gave the surviving Texan troops something to remember . But on 21 April 1836 General Santa Anna suffered a crushing defeat by Sam Houston (Sam Elliott) and was taken prisoner . Texas was declared a Republic in October 1836 and Houston became its first president. In 1845 Texas joined the US, this lead to war with Mexico and disastrous results for that country. Samuel Houston (1793-1863) well performed by Sam Elliott , was a frontiersman and politician , he went to live with the Cherokees and took a Cherokee wife . After the fall of the Alamo , he managed to keep together a small force and launched a furious surprise attack on the Mexican army of 1300 camped on the western bank of the San Jacinto River . With Texas free and independent republic , Houston was elected the first president . When Texas was admitted to the United States in 1845, Houston was a senator to Washington . Later , when civil war threatened , he was opposed to secession from the Union and refused to take oath of allegiance to the Confederate government . He relinquished his office and retired from public life .

Cheesy, but all-in-all, not too bad

[ftsam16 · 7/10 · 26 April 2004]

Saw this over the weekend. The story of the founding of the Republic of Texas (the Battle of the Alamo, the Battle of San Jacinto) and all the real people who were involved is extremely dramatic in itself. Therefore, no matter how it is treated, it is always going to look "over the top"; in the light of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, that "drama" will seem hokey. But Sam Elliott deserves an acknowledgement of at least trying to portray Sam Houston was an actual human being (Houston was a true statesman- one who looked at the future consequences); Sam Elliott did the same sort of "humanizing" for Wild Bill Hickock, another person who can easily be overdone because that was how he was. Katharine Ross did well as Mrs. Dickinson, the woman who was buried with the sobriquet: The Only Survivor of the Alamo. Maybe someday, people will also know the importance of Emily Morgan (the real Yellow Rose of Texas). Factually, this was a correct filmplay, not as bloody as it could have been. Somewhat cheesy, but all-in-all, not too bad.

Ok Telemovie

[nasfan · 6/10 · 4 April 2001]

This movie is very cheezy. The acting isn't perfect, but it is (sort of) accurate. I especially liked the way they portrayed the Cherokee and the Osage. It shows a little research on the producer's part, but they didn't really portray Sam Houston's life so accurately. A lot of his life was over dramatized, but I can look over that.

If you look at the movie in a whole view, it is ok... for TV. Recommended for viewing if you are bored and have an hour and a half to spare.

6/10

Code Duelo

[rmax304823 · 10 December 2003]

Sam Elliot is one tough pecan in this movie. He snarls, shouts, is shot off his horse (twice), and defies all dissenters whether superiors or subordinates. His is the only memorable face or performance. The names of some of the other characters are familiar from other sources -- Bowie, Travis, and Crockett and Deaf (pronounced "deef", as in the peanut butter) Smith -- but the actors are background whether than figures in this inexpensively made film. (Katherine Ross does what amounts to an uncredited cameo.)

I can't comment on the historical accuracy of the story but it seemed convincing enough to a complete outsider. Well, not complete. I once saw Sam Houston's signature on the register of an inn in Monterey, now converted to a museum.

I also had something of a problem keeping the movement of the various forces straight. When Houston orders a certain bridge to be "cut down" I only know that this will hinder any possible retreat of his own men because one of his staff tells him so. I don't know where the bridge is, or where Santa Ana is in relation to it.

But I suspect the battle scenes are at least as realistic as in John Wayne's "Alamo." In the Wayne movie all of the usual conventions of the old-fashioned Western are adhered to. (One of our men can kill five of theirs, etc.) Here, at least, the viewer learns what scholars have known for years from diaries kept by ordinary Mexican soldiers that happened to surface after the battles. Not all the Texicans fought to the last man at the Alamo. Some surrendered and were executed, including possibly Davey Crockett. And the wounded were bayoneted to death by the victorious Mexicans. It was a hard war. Early on, when one of Houston's staff reveals that he paroled several hundred Mexican soldiers with a promise never to fight against Texans again (it was a common practice at the time), Houston chews him out and declares they'll be back again behind Santa Ana. We presume that what Houston is saying is that the Mexican prisoners should have been executed. At the final battle of San Jacincto, Houston's forces defeat Santa Ana's and take hundreds of prisoners, but we see plenty more fleeing Mexicans being deliberately shot and bayoneted, including an unarmed teen-aged drummer boy. As Robert E. Lee was supposed to have said at Frederickburg, a quarter of a century later, it is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we might come to love it. Fewer John Wayne's dying heroic deaths and more harmless teen-agers deliberately executed might remind us a bit more accurately of what war was (and is) all about.

American fortitude

[madwand6 · 6/10 · 19 June 2018]

The acting in this movie is atrocious and it is a wonder that Sam Elliot ever became a star after this. But it is a wonderful story of early American fortitude, so for that, it is worth a watch. Just expect a cringefest along the way.

What in Sam Houston!

[deanofrpps · 9/10 · 1 January 2004]

Sam Houston will always be remembered as the man who annexed the US to Texas and changed everything. Told with respect for the Mexican view, Gone to Texas does more than hint President Jackson's resolve to get Texas one way or another and his tasking of Sam Houston to the project to relieve both whites and Indians in the American East of coping with Sam. The legend of San Jacinto is told in the traditional fashion , but there's more than a hint that Houston had General Gaines' US troops for the task.

But it's still a pleasure to revisit young America bursting with enthusiasm albeit at Mexico's expense. G.D. Spradlin played President Andrew Jackson as he is remembered the last of the demi-Gods. I think even the Raven would have liked

Sam Elliott in his part. Bo Hopkins was an excellent choice for Colonel Sidney Sherman, cool arrogant and deadly.

COMPARABLE FILMS: ONE MAN's HERO, The Alamo

Not Quite What I Expected

[kborahjr · 3/10 · 7 July 2002]

I thought I would really like this movie. Perhaps it is because I am fan of all things Texan, or perhaps it was because it starred Sam Elliott. Either way, I was, sorry to say, disappointed. First, you should be warned that this was a TV movie. I did not realize this when I rented it, but it became apparent quite quickly! Second, if you were expecting the Sam Elliott of "We Were Soldiers", "Tombstone", or "Gettysburg", he's not in this movie. However, Elliott is not only in the sub-standard performance category. The acting overall reminded me not of a TV special, but rather of those made-for-middle school history class productions. Finally, if you are a student of history, this is not the movie to watch. The producers and/or writers took some liberties that did not have to be taken, especially in dealing with a larger-than-life figure like Sam Houston. If you still feel inclined to rent this movie, save it for a rainy or snowy day!

A very good western and a good film.

[12Charlie · 10/10 · 3 August 2003]

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.

Botched, amateurish mess

[frankfob · 2/10 · 29 September 2003]

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.

From The Back Of The Box

[viewerschoice · 2 February 2002]

The American West has produced more than its share of legends, but none greater than the true-life story of Sam Houston. Sam Elliott is the frontier hero and statesman whose bravery and vision led to the creation of Texas! 1829-Sam Houston's career as the popular governor of Tennessee ends in disgrace and heartbreak. He treks back to the happy place of his boyhood among the Cherokee Indians.

Houston finds love with a part-Cherokee and honor as he negotiates peace among warring tribes. Yet the U.S. Government destroys his triumph by coldly seizing the Cherokee land.

In despair, he heads to the Mexican territory of Texas to join his old friend Jim Bowie in an epic fight for the liberation of what will one day be the state of Texas.

Remake

[dunsuls-1 · 8/10 · 8 November 2012]

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 !!!!

A broken television film that Sam Elliott couldn't adhere to

[bawrey · 5/10 · 19 August 2019]

This film lacked any passion, charisma, or chemistry among the short-lived, but overly extensive cast. Most of the time I thought I was watching a John Wayne film, like Rooster Cogburn or Cahill, with all the over abundance of Sam Elliott's exaggerated screaming. I suggest watching this while drafting a fantasy league, as background noise while finishing up a project or two, or if you're interested in a simple synopsis of how Texas won its independence.

History's harsh reality

[steven-222 · 8/10 · 27 September 2006]

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.

Sam Houston 1793-1863

[bkoganbing · 9/10 · 10 November 2013]

I will fully admit to prejudice as far as Houston: The Legend Of Texas is concerned. Sam Houston is one of my favorite characters from American history. To do full justice to his life and all the events of it and all history that he was part of would require a mini-series. Maybe someone will do one some fine day.

But for now this film will do insofar as the years of 1829 to 1836 are concerned. This is as scrupulously accurate account of Houston's life as we're likely to get being that his years with the Cherokee and his scandalous divorce are concerned. Especially the latter since Eliza Allen destroyed all her correspondence and Houston never spoke publicly of the split between them.

Sam Elliott plays Sam Houston and he completely fills my conception of the role. Lean and rangy Elliott has the requisite background and skills to bring the character of Houston to life. The women in his life up to that point are played by Claudia Christian as Eliza Allen and Devon Ericson as Cherokee princess Tiana Rogers.

Rogers by the way was of the same family that later gave us Will Rogers, a noted Cherokee himself. She was Houston's common law wife and sad to say he deserted her as he reinvents himself for a political comeback in Texas. Though he was one of the few frontier characters who respected and fought for American Indians, he knew that was a minority opinion. Though he stood up to Andrew Jackson himself on the subject, when Houston went to Texas he never saw Rogers again.

Jackson by the way is played by G.D. Spradlin who steps into a place occupied by Lionel Barrymore and Charlton Heston as our screen image of the 7th president. His part is brief, but memorable.

Of course the battle of San Jacinto is the highlight of the film, again recreated with scrupulous accuracy. With that the Republic of Texas is secure and Houston is elected its first president. But even after this there is still so much more to the Houston story. Knowing that you wish the film wasn't ending.

As for his personal life, it was on a visit to Alabama while Texas was a Republic that Sam Houston met Margaret Lea, a southern belle from a rich plantation family who was a generation and a half younger than him, but whom he married. They had a whole bunch of kids so his personal life was fulfilled eventually. But that was a few years after the action of this film ended.

This is a well crafted look at one of our greatest Americans and I highly recommend it for all audiences, for children of all ages, especially if they reside in the Lone Star State.

Sam Elliott's finest hour on film, portraying houston during his prime years.

[weezeralfalfa · 10/10 · 13 June 2014]

This excellent historical drama covers the important events in the life of Sam Houston from 1829 - 36: from the time of his tenure as governor of TN, to the aftermath of the Battle of San Jacinto, which was his greatest claim to fame. Most of the details are reasonably accurate, historically. Apparently, it was mostly filmed in Texas. Sam Elliott was an excellent choice to play Houston.

The film begins with discussions among Houston's apprehensive soldiers around their camp the night before the Battle of San Jacinto, then switches to a permanent flashback, to Houston's fancy wedding reception, when TN governor. Unfortunately, this turned into a fiasco, as it soon became evident that there was some fundamental incompatibility with his young bride. Historically unclear what this was. In the film, she indicates she loves another, but her father made her marry Houston. Thus, Houston returns her to her incensed father, graciously claiming the incompatibility was his fault. Houston then promptly resigned as governor amid much criticism, and headed for the Cherokee reservation in AK. On the way, he supposedly meets Jim Bowie, who tries to talk him into going to Texas, instead. This meeting is fictional, although it's true that Bowie spent this period trying to recruit settlers for Texas, and moved to Texas several years before Houston.

According to the then narrator: Tiana Rogers(Devon Ericson): a Cherokee who became his wife for a spell, Houston had spent several years as a youth living with the Cherokee, then in TN(historically correct), and apparently they felt more like family at this time than white folks. There followed Houston's second 'hippy' period, when he dressed like a Cherokee and fought for perceived injustices by governments and their agents toward this tribe. The screenplay indicates he talked up the pipe dream of Native Americans joining together to run out the Mexicans and Americans from Texas, converting it into a nation only for N.A.s. I don't know if this is true. However, his historic beating of congressman Stanbery in Washington, D.C., and the subsequent trial are historically correct. Houston's love/hate relationship with President Jackson is also dramatized during this segment. After this incident, Houston(with Jackson's blessing?)decided to forsake the Cherokee for Texas, where he soon joined the pro-independence group.

The film dramatizes the many conflicting opinions Houston had to deal with in responding to the threat of large Mexican armies intent on eliminating the independence movement. The details of the Battle of the Alamo are skipped(appropriately), and we see only the mopping up operation by the Mexicans. In the face of mounting criticism, Houston knows his only chance to defeat the Mexicans is to retreat, to buy time for possibly more army volunteers, and to wait for an opportune time and place to attack Santa Anna's forces. He finds this opportunity at San Jacinto, after Santa Anna divided his army into several segments, and his men were asleep in the afternoon, being exhausted from having worked all night on defenses. The film fails to adequately portray the importance of the tall grass in hiding the movement of his troops toward the Mexican line. However, it does portray the importance of an ankle wound in causing Houston to be evacuated to the US for treatment soon after the brief battle.

The film dramatizes Houston's early relationship with Mirabeau Lamar. Initially, he's portrayed as a dangerous diversionary, proposing to lead a force to Mexico city to take over the government while the Mexican army is in Texas. This is actually an allusion to Lamar's later ill-advised ambition, as Houston's successor as Texas president, to extend Texas westward to the Pacific. The Texas congress knew that Texas alone was too weak to accomplish this at that time. Lamar also differed from Houston on the question of how to deal with the hostile Native Americans. In contrast to Houston's pro-N.A. attitude, Lamar wanted to exterminate them all. This was popular with most settlers. In the film, Lamar is later correctly portrayed as impressing Houston with his bravery, and is given command of the cavalry during the big battle.

Houston's often adversarial relationship with interim Texas President David Burnet is also several times brought out. Burnet was the one who dealt with Santa Anna's fate after the battle, and drew up the Treaties of Velasco, which supposedly recognized the independence of Texas. The capture of Santa Anna is accurately portrayed. Despite the obvious desire of many Texans to execute Santa Anna, Houston knew he was more valuable alive to dissuade an attack by his other scattered forces.

After serving 2 of the 3 terms as Texas's president, Houston served as a Texas senator until the eve of the Civil War, trying to counter extremists from both the North and South, correctly predicting that the Kansas-Nebraska Act would set the nation on the path to war. He also correctly predicted the ultimate outcome of the war for the South, thus was depressed when he died, during the midst of the war.

The inscription on Houston's tomb characterizes him as he perhaps wished to be remembered: a brave soldier, a fearless statesman, a great orator, a pure patriot, a faithful friend, a loyal citizen, a devoted husband and father, a consistent Christian, an honest man.

Love Elliot as Houston

[drvd-85385 · 9/10 · 21 April 2022]

I've always thought this was a very accurate portrayal of Houston. I think he was just the way Elliot presented him. This is a part of Texas history that I love to explore. The 6 week retreat and final battle for Texas Independance.