Comanche Moon (2008) User Reviews (80)

Agreed: It's No 'Lonesome Dove,'' But It Still Has Merit

[ccthemovieman-1 · 7/10 · 3 March 2008]

I think the consensus is pretty unanimous about this recent TV miniseries: it's okay but it's a far cry from "Lonesome Dove." It gets compared to the latter simply because this a prequel to that famous story.

"Commanche Moon" is definitely worth a watch for any fan of westerns. Just don't expect it to be as intense as "Lonesome Dove." Steve Zahn and Karl Urban are not Robert Duvall and Tommy Lee Jones, and the characters they play aren't as strong as how Duvall and Jones portrayed the same two guys. Some say it's unfair to criticize this movie because of the comparison but you have to compare it - it's the story of the same two leading Texas Ranger characters: "Woodrow Call" and "Gus McCrae."

The main difference, I found, was that this prequel is a lot of slower and more relational (the two Rangers and their women) at times. Yet, I didn't mind that because the two main women were pretty ladies and generally likable and agreeable people. They were played nicely by Linda Cardelini ("Clara Forsythe") and Elizabeth Banks ("Maggie.").. They helped make this long movie palatable. If you've seen pictures of women in the Old West, none of them looked half as pretty as Cardelini and Banks, though. They were a joy for these male eyes to ogle. Maggie's son "Newt" was a wonderful kid, too - the kind of boy every parent would want..

The most interesting character, I thought, turned out to be "Inish Scull," played by Val Kilmer. As in the western film, "Tombstone," Kilmer almost steals the show from the leads. "Scull" is really an original, if I ever saw one: a strange dude, indeed.

Actually, all of the supporting actors in here did a fine job, from Keith Robinson's "Deets" to Wes Studi as "Buffalo Hump." I always find Studi to be fascinating, no matter what role he plays. I wish he had had a bigger role in this miniseries.

One thing this film has in common with "Lonesome Dove" and other good westerns: the scenery and photography. It's just beautiful at times and is a joy to watch. We also have an excellent director of this film: Simon Wincer, who directed "Lonesome Dove" and an another outstanding TV western, "Crossfire Trail." He also did two of my other favorite feature films, both based in his home country of Australia: "Phar Lap" and "Quigley Down Under."

Unfortunately, although I enjoyed this, "Commanche Moon" is nothing as good as the above-mentioned films.Yet, I still watched all of it and was sorry it ended, if that makes any sense. It made me want to watch Woodrow and Gus again, this time with Tommy Lee and Robert.

Note: The title page says this is 360 minutes. That must have included the TV commercials. The two-disc DVD version I saw was about 4 hours and 40 minutes.

Much Is Missing, But Much Is Worthwhile

[Dan1863Sickles · 8/10 · 9 May 2011]

What shocked me about the COMANCHE MOON DVD (other than getting it for just five dollars at WalMart) was just how enjoyable and poignant it really was. As a serious reader who has read and reread all the classic LONESOME DOVE novels, I knew a lot was going to be left out and over-simplified, yet I wasn't prepared for how moved I was at the end.

First, the bad news. The Comanche side of the story is watered down and much of the impact is lost. In the book the father-son conflict between Buffalo Hump and his son Blue Duck is literally Shakespearean, with enormous intensity and passion. As the son of a Mexican woman Buffalo Hump brutally raped, Blue Duck is a symbol of tragic retribution, and the destruction he brings on Buffalo Hump is chilling and inevitable. ("The gods are just, and of our pleasant vices make means to plague us.") In the movie it just seems pointless, and random. Also in the book, Blue Duck is a symbol of change. He fights better with pistols and rifles than with the bow or the lance, and he leads an army of white drifters rather than native warriors. But in the movie these changes are glossed over, so the deeper meaning is lost.

On the other hand, the story of the Texans is told well and there are some amazing performances. Captain Scull and his sexy wife Inez are both annoying cartoon characters in the book, but Val Kilmer and Rachel Griffiths really succeed in making them not only charismatic and funny but strangely likable as well. It's interesting to note that in the book Inez Scull takes no part in any action outside of the bedroom, but in the movie she is far braver. During the Great Raid she actually joins the Rangers in fighting off the Comanches with a rifle! Normally I hate when these changes happen but here I felt it was right for the character and added a dimension of courage along with her cruelty.

Steve Zahn and Karl Urban are both terrific as Gus McCrae and Woodrow Call, but what really surprised me was how much Elizabeth Banks did as Maggie Tilton, the mother of Call's son Newt. In the books I always visualized Maggie as sort of drab and hopeless, but in the movie she's practically radiant, full of courage and good cheer no matter what the circumstances. (Whether a real prostitute on the frontier would glow like Elizabeth Banks is another question.) But it was nice to see that Maggie was more than just a victim. And some of the final scenes with Newt leaving his mother's home and saying goodbye to a young Jake Spoon were incredibly heartbreaking. These were not characters I cared about when I read the book (I was much more interested in the Comanches) but in the movie the brilliant performances really made me care.

All in all I think COMANCHE MOON the movie is really a very successful film -- if you take it on its own terms and don't compare it to the book.

For what it is, it's worth watching.

[red17 · 8/10 · 17 January 2008]

There have been some harsh criticisms of Comanche Moon on IMDb. I think this is for three reasons. First, purists are disappointed that the mini-series is not exactly like the book. Second, it's not as good as the original Lonesome Dove. Finally, people like to complain on IMDb and the greatest films in the world will have bad comments.

I would like to say that no movie is going to be as good as the book. That's just the way it is. Lonesome Dove wasn't as good as the novel it was based on. Additionally, the movie of Lonesome Dove had some things left out ans switched around. That's just they way its going to be with a film adaptation of anything. So its a futile argument when looking at Comanche Moon.

I do agree it's not as good as the original Dove. But hey, nothing is. I know people that guide their lives by the lessons they learned from the Dove. If I was going to compare every book I read, movie I watched, and TV I viewed by Lonesome Dove; I would be perpetually unhappy.

This is a made for TV miniseries based on a prequel to Lonesome Dave (the novel) and sequel to Dead man's Walk, and that's what you get. It's the best TV I've seen in years. It's a fun set up for Lonesome Dove. We get to learn about the history of the Rangers we came to know and love in Dove. Zahn does an amazing job in recreating Gus McCrae. Elizabeth Banks and Linda Forenelli (sp?) also do great jobs as creating characters that help fill in the past of the rangers and Newt.

If/when it comes on again, I promise you'll enjoy it more than some crumby reality show.

A worthy prequel

[ScarletPimpernel64 · 9/10 · 16 January 2008]

What has hurt this film is everyone and their Aunt Matilda is comparing it to its illustrious predecessor, which is always going to hurt any show. If you take it as a western, it's a darned good show. We discover how our characters in 'Lonesome Dove' wind up in the situations they start up in (Such as: Why do two Texas Rangers, who live on adventure, wind up in a dead town? And how did Gus manage to lose the love of his life?) The performances are very good, and we see the exact same mannerisms the characters will have down the road. The actors did a very good job. The cinematography was superb, and while the music didn't live up to the legendary score of nearly two decades past, that was an impossible task, and it was still fine.

It also helped that we had three episodes, which you just don't see in a miniseries anymore. Heck, it's downright impossible to see a two part telefilm these days.

Fans of the western, rejoice!

Comanche Moon was worth my time

[living-systems · 6/10 · 16 January 2008]

I was able to watch all 3 episodes but have not read the book so I don't know if this was a faithful adaptation. I expected more action but thought the acting for the most part was pretty solid. Rachel Griffiths was a bit too over the top for me and Karl Urban was too stiff. Steve Zahn though was right on the money. I thought he sounded quite a bit like Robert Duvall and had a lot of the same mannerisms as well. It really made the connection for me that this was Gus in his younger days and it was for me the strongest aspect of the movie. A lot of familiar actors' faces among the Indians and it was different seeing Adam Beach as a pretty low down character. I'm accustomed to seeing him more of a good guy. Not sure I would run out and buy the DVD but it was certainly worth my time.

I saw it at a screening a few weeks ago...

[skyking1967 · 10/10 · 5 February 2007]

I must have seen a different version than the first person on the user comments section.

It's really, really good...Steve Zahn and Karl Urban are great together. Val Kilmer's character is much like he was in the novel, although the emphasis is on Gus and Call and the Comanches. We get to see what happened with Call and Newt's mother as well. I won't spoil it, but it gives a lot of insight into Call's character.

All the actors did a really convincing job. Steve Zahn had the biggest challenge, I thought, to follow Robert Duvall! There's a lot of action, humor, tragedy. It's got something for everyone. I can't wait until it airs, my family are all jealous I got to see it early!

What's the matter with everyone? It's a prequel for goodness sake!

[mrytide · 7/10 · 23 April 2008]

Everyone wants Duvall and Jones back, come on! Viewers are saying things like, Zahn and Urban aren't as deep...Puhlease! Were you as deep when you were young? That's the whole point: They have a lot to learn. Zahn and Urban pull off the shallow innocence they were directed to act, and with superb commitment to preserving the nuances of Duvall and Jones' input into the characters. Zahn is flagrantly perfect as the early Gus, and Urban is subtly perfect as the early Woodrow. What a bold move it must have been for them to take on such a position in the entertainment industry. They must have known they would have everyone coming down on them for not actually being the beloved originals, yet they clearly put the best effort forward. I gave it a 7 because the editing was choppy in places, and time-lines were sketchy, but the acting was a joy to watch. Val Kilmer was absolutely great. One more thing: I expect audiences would have been more accepting of the mysticism implied by the appearances of a jaguar and blue and gold macaw if more effort had been put into the way they appear and are so simply accepted by the characters.

It's no Lonesome Dove but.....

[ashale8 · 8/10 · 16 January 2008]

I am a big fan of Lonesome Dove and all the books in the series and I love the movie. I was happy to see that they finished up with Comanche moon. I have been a long time fan of Steve Zahn and was eager to see him in a serious role. I personally think that Steve Zahn has done an amazing job of re-creating Gus. I can't think of another actor who would have been better. He has the voice, the mannerisms, the pronunciation of word all down to a T. Granted, no one could ever hold a candle to Robert Duvall as Gus, but I think that Steve Zahn has done a pretty darn good job. Karl Urban acts the same in all the movies he has been in so he has made a good match for Woodrow Call. AS for the movie itself, yeah it's a little corny but can you really beat Lonesome Dove? No, I don't think so.

A few good scenes

[confused4410 · 6/10 · 14 January 2008]

While I would agree that this is no Lonesome Dove, I did find it to have a few good scenes. The cowboy scene where they discuss what a genius is was one of them. However, the greatness of the original was how the characters were written and developed. I don't really see that with this installment, but keep in mind, the first part of Lonesome Dove paled in comparison to the 2nd and 3rd parts. I have always been a fan of Steve Zahn. It is never easy to take on a role made famous by someone else. I thought Zahn had many of the mannerisms that Duvall used down pat. I noticed the Gus finger wave and the head shake. However, the writing wasn't good enough to make me stop watching the actor and start paying attention to the story. I wouldn't call it a waste of time, since westerns are few and far between, but I wouldn't call it great TV either. I'll watch the rest.... if there isn't a game on.

A poor adaptation of a less-than great novel

[grizzledgeezer · 4/10 · 17 January 2008]

I'm not sure this review contains spoilers, but I'm playing it safe by indicating there might be. Regardless, it's unlikely anyone will watch this film who isn't familiar with the book.

There's an old wisecrack about laboring mightily and bringing forth a mouse. "Comanche Moon" is such a mouse.

The novel focuses more on the Indians than the Americans. In adapting it for TV, McMurtry and Osanna rightly reasoned that the audience would be more interested in the whites than the reds. Unfortunately, there's little in the novel that we don't already know about Gus, Woodrow, and their friends. So the movie gives us mostly a portentous prehash of what will occur in "Lonesome Dove". The Indians -- who have their own story to tell -- are largely relegated to the background -- so much so that someone who hasn't read the novel will rightly wonder why it's titled "Comanche Moon".

The novel has no overall story line, or much of a "point". This could have been fixed in the movie, by more strongly drawing the contrast between the Indians losing their lands and way of life to the encroaching Americans, who bring "civilization". This opportunity was missed.

Unlike "Lonesome Dove", "Comanche Moon" has few extended scenes that develop character or relationships -- at least among the Americans. The extended scenes with the Indians have been largely removed or shortened. And for a (net) four-hour film, it is remarkably episodic and choppy. One gets the feeling the script was originally longer, and cut to reduce production costs.

The screenplay comprises mostly clichéd dialog, aphorisms, and platitudes. Coming from the author of "The Last Picture Show", it's a startlingly bad script. McMurtry and Osanna had the opportunity to fix problems with the story and characterizations, but did not.

Some of the best dialog from the novel is missing or altered, for no obvious reason. For example, Clara (Cassie) shows her intense hatred of Woodrow (Jack) by condemning Gus (Ennis) for always running off to be with his "pard". That tart little revelation of Clara's sexual jealously is gone. Then there's the scene where the ur-dense Woodrow warns Maggie not to let Jake Spoon "compromise" her. The exchange in the novel is shorter and harsher; the film tones it down, and doesn't portray Woodrow as quite the socially stupid, emotionally frozen stone he is. (When I read that scene in the novel, I wanted to punch Woodrow in the stomach -- or worse.)

There are other changes, some of them understandable. Inish Scull's eyelids are not cut off; to do so would like have required expensive CGI. But Buffalo Hump has no hump! (Perhaps it was felt unreasonable to ask Wes Studi to schlep around such a huge prosthesis.) And Buffalo Hump's character is "kindler and gentler". He is nowhere nearly as grotesquely violent as he was in the novels.

The only good thing about this near-turkey is Steve Zahn's remarkable performance -- not so much as Gus McCrae, but as Robert Duvall playing Gus McCrae. It is uncanny. He perfectly duplicates Duvall's mannerisms and manner of speech, without ever appearing "deliberate" or self-conscious. As was Duvall, he is wholly "within" the character. And he actually shows us Gus becoming "more Gus" in the third part of the film.

The best thing about "Comanche Moon" is that it won't spoil your affection for "Lonesome Dove", not just a great Western, but a great American film.

PS: For those who think Rachel Griffiths was over the top -- that's the way she was in the book.

Was Not Expecting This

[dallasryan · 9/10 · 29 March 2015]

When I started watching this mini-series I was not expecting much as I loved Lonesome Dove and I figured this would be a cheap prequel of it. I was very wrong. The acting is spot on in this mini-series. I would very much recommend watching Lonesome Dove first, and then watching Comanche Moon. If the viewer watches the series in this order then the viewer will have a much more enjoyable experience with Comanche Moon because really it's about Gus and Woodrow(Robert Duvall and Tommy Lee Jones' characters in Lonesome Dove).

So in this mini-series, it's still about Gus and Woodrow when they were younger. Gus and Woodrow are brilliantly played by Steve Zahn and Karl Urban in this one. Spot on performances too, the best role I've ever seen Steve Zahn play as Gus. If one watches Lonesome Dove first and then Comanche Moon, the viewer then gets to see all of the little nuances of Gus and Woodrow of when they were younger. The performances by Zahn and Urban were extremely well developed and very thoughtfully played in staying true to the characters that we fell in love with that were portrayed by Duvall and Jones in Lonesome Dove. Zahn and Urban really did their homework with exploring and playing these two iconic characters. A real treat it was to watch this mini-series. I loved it.

I can't forget to mention Val Kilmer too. Kilmer is a laugh out loud riot in this film. He is so funny and it's well worth watching, also/or, for Val Kilmer's performance. I highly recommend this film.

Comanche Moon is informative, if you watch out for historical inaccuracies

[vegacarrol · 17 January 2008]

First of all, I did not read the book, but I am now planning to. I would praise this miniseries most for the inclusion of the Comanche language, and I hope it is authentic. Any comments out there on that?

The custom of torturing captives spread northward from the Aztecs, who conquered other tribes in central Mexico and butchered thousands of people on their hideous sun god altars. The custom of scalping was introduced by the whites, in Canada and New England, and it spread westward. Prolonged and viciously cruel executions were the rule throughout "civilized" Europe and only in the late 19th and 20th centuries has humanity made a concerted effort to be rid of them, despite the appalling atrocities of the Holocaust... enough said, the things to watch out for in Comanche moon are first, the alleged cooperation of the Texas Rangers with the occupying Yankee troops during Reconstruction. The Rangers were regarded as an armed Confederate force and were officially disbanded during this period. Documentations of their activities as an outlawed organization are extremely scarce. Many of them hired out as gunmen for the cattle barons, against rustlers who were running cattle across the Rio Grande. Mexican hacienda owners and ranchers in Nuevo Leon had had their livestock decimated by a series of wars, and they bought cattle, no questions asked. Other rustlers stole cattle in Mexico and sold them to the Texas barons. The Mexican government complained in 1878. The Texas Rangers who fought the Mexican rustlers were unrestrained by any court system and they were brutal to the Texas- Mexican population. They chased suspected rustlers into Mexico and shot them for "resisting arrest." They often behaved as badly as the Mexican War's notorious "rackensackers" who were Rangers and their imitators who invaded with General Taylor in the north. They were so abusive of civilians that Taylor almost sent them home in disgrace, but rescinded the order when his forces were vastly outnumbered by General Santa Anna's army. Another thing to watch out for in Comanche Moon is the depiction of Cynthia Parker. When she is recovered by the Texans, a little inaccuracy is excusable, but it shows her with long hair and later, her husband, the warrior Peta Nocoma, is shown as still alive. Peta Nocoma died from an infected wound before Cynthia Ann was recovered,and she had cut her hair very short, a sign of mourning. Personally, I think this production is yet another gringo view of Texas history, with hardly any presence of Mexican Texans in it but for a typically stereotypical "Mexican bandit" El Ahumado... and those cages on pulley masts hanging over the side of a cliff are ridiculous. Was this guy supposed to be an engineer? And where would he get those tall trees to make into masts in that part of the country? However, I praise the author's desire to include authentic wildlife of the period, which have mostly vanished today. Yes, the jaguar did range that far north, but it was nocturnal. A daytime attack by a big cat would have more likely been a puma. And there was a parrot that lived in canyons and dive bombed any creature or person that got too close to its nest. It is now gone, too. There is a scene in an Indian village with the Indians dying of cholera. SMALLPOX! The Comanches were done in by forked tongue treaties and the US Army, in the first documented modern use of germ warfare, gave them blankets taken from a smallpox hospital. Quanah Parker, the son of Cynthia Ann Parker and Peta Nocoma, continued the tribal custom of polygamy. He lived a long and accomplished life and his grave boasts an impressive monument.

Go Rangers!

[c_nicolesimpson · 7/10 · 19 January 2008]

Okay, let's face it. Nothing will ever touch "Lonesome Dove". It had the great Robert Duvall after all. That being said, I have to say that Steve Zahn nailed it. He's usually cast as a dumb ass. So, I was worried he wouldn't pull this off...but he did. Not just because he was the closest to Robert Duvall's portrayal as you can get, but also because he really proved his acting ability. The movie itself was not necessary. "Lonesome Dove" explained their history, but it was fun to see the characters in their youth. It's also probably good for people who haven't seen "Lonesome Dove" yet. All and all I'm glad they made it. But, it's kind of like "Star Wars"...don't mess with a good thing.

Are IMDb Votes Reliable?

[dfales · 4/10 · 16 January 2008]

I viewed the first two nights before coming to IMDb looking for some actor info. I saw the 9+ rating which surprised me since I was not that impressed by what I'd seen. (As reference, I happen to believe Lonesome Dove was the best TV western ever. I grew up next to the MGM back lots in Culver City in the 50s and have a certain sense of reverence about the Western genre.)

So I saw the glowing first review and decided to read "more". There I found several reviews with 1 or 2 stars that summed up my feelings well about the lack of character development, poor editing, feeling that it was shot on the Universal back lot (MGM's is long gone), and overall impression that it was not going to come close to changing my feelings about LD. My impression is that the overwhelming vote of those who chose to write was "less than a 4.0".

This got me to wondering about the process that yields a 9+ rating. If the people giving the 10s and 9s do not take the time to justify their vote, is the ballot box being stuffed by people with a monetary motivation? I have long used IMDb as one tool to screen movies and thought it the best available. Now I am not so sure.

probably won't win awards, but enjoyable to watch

[usedtobeawannabe · 8/10 · 14 January 2008]

Things I like. Steve Zahn as Gus, nails the part, copies Robert Duvalls mannerisms which makes him feel comfortable to Gus fans. (some of the other actors copy their predecessors style in this series as well). Karl Urban, looks grim and tough, but can crack a joke and smile too, which T.L.Jones did in original series. The gear, the guns, the clothing, all accurate, or very close to period accurate. I'll never forgive Costner and Duvall for having a nylon lariat in their chuckwagon in Open Range. The Comanches, they are actually riding bareback, rather than hiding a modern saddle under a Navajo blanket. And they aren't painted as politically correct peace loving pastoralists, but as a proud warrior people. There are some dumb scenes, but it beats the heck out of yet another variation on doing something stupid to not win a million dollars reality game shows.

Loved working in the filming

[efandreas · 11 January 2008]

I worked as a background actor in 'Comanche Moon' in mid 2006 on the 'Austin' set of Bonanza Creek Ranch near Santa Fe in New Mexico. I wrote my day to day observations on my blogspot. The Blackfoot Indian horseback riders were described very favorably. The day by day experiences were told in the best of my recollections, after arriving home hours after dark, from long days on set in filming conditions that were less than favorable.

I give the entire production company credit for even moving forward in the conditions described. The PC crowd will most assuredly view this film as a negative portrayal of the violent Comanches. I have no idea how, in the current PC obsessed USA, this story will be told on prime time without censorship. McMurtry's book tells it exactly as it was.

Now after watching the TV series; I find the really great depictions of violence have been cut. Most of the great horseback riding scenes are cut. The 'burning Austin' scene is extremely brief. we did some great work and no sign of it is on the screen. The ratings were not good. Val Kilmer was overweight. Too bad the editing was so PC.

I have since been fortunate enough to acquire a book written by a family ancestor from San Saba Texas, in the middle 1800's. She tells in detail the horrors of the Comanche raids. It parallels exactly, the book written by McMurtry. She wrote the first person accounts in her diary, as a young girl. After the loss of her parents and the ranch, she raised her siblings. She was 9 when her gripping story begins. Surviving on the Texas Frontier, by Sarah Harkey Hall, copyright 1996.

Filming experience on set, first Posted Jun 2006 on DaFlikkers

The Further Adventures of McCrae and Call!

[bsmith5552 · 7/10 · 20 September 2019]

"Comanche Moon" is the second prequel to "Lonesome Dove". It covers the "Rangerin'" years of Gus McCrae (Steve Zahn) and Woodrow F. Call (Karl Urban). They are working for the state of Texas in 1858 under Governor Pease (James Rebhorn) to keep the Comanche nation at bay. The rangers are led by Captain Inish Scull (Val Kilmer) an oddity at best.

The story also encompasses the men's love lives. McCrae is in love with Clara Forsythe (Linda Cardinelli), Call is involved with prostitute Maggie (Elizabeth Banks) and Scull who's wife Inez (Rachel Griffiths is equally odd and beds who ever she fancies at a particular time.

On patrol, Scull's prize horse is stolen by the Comanche. For some reason he sets out on foot with the Indian tracker to retrieve the animal.. In his absence he appoints McCrae and Call as co-captains of the detachment. Scull seeks out the brutal Alumado (Sal Lopez) whom he vows to kill. Alumado imprisons Scull where he remains through most of the story.

While the Rangers are out on patrol, Comanche chief Buffalo Hump (Wes Studi) organizes an attack on Austin massacring several citizens and having their way with several of the women. Oddly enough, I was surprised that the Rangers didn't exact some sort of reprisal for the Comanche's butchery.

Returning home, the Rangers see the devastation caused by the Comanche. Ranger Bill Coleman (Ray McKinnon) is distraught to learn that his wife Pearl (Melanie Lynskey) had been raped by the Comanche, so much so that he hangs himself unable to deal with the situation. Call learns that Maggie is pregnant with what she believes to be Call's child a situation that Call is unable to accept given Maggie's "past". Gus, meanwhile, becomes the latest of Inez Scull's conquests which turns Clara towards horse trader Bob Allen (Josh Berry).

Buffalo Hump turns his rebellious son Blue Duck (Adam Beach) away from the tribe. Blue Duck forms a gang of murderers and roams the country killing innocent people. Alumado dies en route to a cure for a fatal spider bite. Call and McCrae arrive in Alumado's camp and rescue the near mad Scull. Along the way the boys come upon an emerging town called Lonesome Dove. Fast forward to the end of the Civil War (1865) and the Union soldiers move in to take over policing the Comanche.

Maggie is raising her son who looks remarkably like Woodrow but he fails to recognize the boy as his son. Maggie with Pearl at her side dies prematurely. Clara has gone on to marry Allen have three children and settles down in Nebraska. Scull goes back east after the war and settles in Boston with his unfaithful wife.

The story ends with Gus and Woodrow seeing the end of the Texas Rangers and plan to move to, you guessed it, Lonesome Dove to start up ranching.

See you in Lonesome Dove.

Not lonesome dove but damn close

[Mikeelliott58 · 9/10 · 25 August 2018]

Okay zahn was a perfect Gus.. in fact if this would have come out first we would be saying that Duval did as good a job..

Not an epic because it was a growing up movie so had to be choppy .. lonesome dove was a quest movie .

Look at this for what it is and you can see it for as great as it is..

Oh for reality!

[rmp2-163-744654 · 6/10 · 8 March 2017]

The event opens episode two and it is obvious what is going to happen. It happens in nearly every western. There is a raid on a town by outlaws or Indians and all the townsfolk run out into the street and get shot or chopped down. Why not stay inside under cover? Use your gun to fire at the targets in the street and possibly survive! It is risible!

Other than that annoying incident it is worth a watch but not as good as 'Lonesone Dove.'

Quality Television Returns

[jmh2350 · 8/10 · 13 January 2008]

Unlike the superficial and dumbed down Terminator T.V. special that aired on Fox the same night, Comanche Moon is a return to excellence in T.V. production and writing. This prequel to the original Lonesome Dove mini-series is as brilliant to watch and, in some ways more vibrant than the original -- and it moves more quickly. Now, devotees of the original might not at first "buy" Steve Zahn and Karl Urban as the young Gus and Woodrow (respectively), but the quality of the writing and production bear watching further, and before long we are in love with the characters, because their personalities retain the same qualities originally personified by Duvall and Jones. Unfortunately, in the first episode of this new series we do not get to see much of the Joshua Deets character, originally portrayed by Danny Glover, but one scene of the young Deets comforting a victim of a Comanche rape was exquisite. The addition of some rich new characters boosted this drama remarkably, most notably Rachel Griffiths as the outrageously pompous and scandalous wife of the Captain of the Texas Rangers; Val Kilmer as the Texas Rangers Captain who knows his outrageous wife all too well and is himself a bit off the beam while nonetheless heroic; and Sal Lopez as a thoroughly detestable Mexican bandito gang leader (with Jake Busey as a toady). Unless you do not like westerns whatsoever and unequivocally, there is nothing that should keep you from watching this finely written, acted and lavishly filmed production -- and a tip o' the hat to CBS for bringing this to us.

Solid cast, but ultimately flawed by weak source material

[Hunter_1957 · 7/10 · 25 February 2008]

"Comanche Moon" had everything going for it. For starters, Simon Wincer's back, a man who's name is synonymous with high-quality TV westerns. Unfortunately, the problems with "Moon" are something even the most talented director couldn't solve: A poor script based on a lackluster novel.

Forget historical accuracies -- as any reader of the novels can tell you, the biggest travesty in "Moon" is that it's not even consistent with information from the original "Lonesome Dove" masterpiece. So many wonderful, rich moments in the miniseries and, to an even greater degree, the book, are completely missing in "Moon." Considering the fact that most viewers of "Moon" are probably coming with at least some sort of "Dove" background, the lack of character-driven and emotional backstory is downright painful.

That said, "Moon" is one instance where the adapted version could and should have been altered to make it more suitable for the screen. For example, the novel "Moon" focuses largely on the Comanches themselves. To its credit, the miniseries tries to service the Comanches, but in the end it gives them just enough that the viewer just gets a sense they're missing out on some important part of the story. Similarly, Val Kilmer's Scull loses out here too -- the role should have either been expanded so Kilmer (and Rachel Griffiths, for that matter) actually had something to do, or the roles should have just been reduced to smaller, supporting parts. Instead, Kilmer gets top billing for a character that just leaves you scratching your head after his appearance in the completely bizarre final act.

There's strange moments throughout the film that just make no sense to those who haven't read the book (a killer parrot? what?) -- further, there isn't a single scene that shows us that Call and McCrae are anything near the amazing Texas rangers they claim to be. Not a single one of their expeditions in Moon (or "Dead Man's Walk," for that matter) ends successfully, and Call and McCrae just seem to blunder their way through one pointless mission after another.

Frankly, Larry McMurtry should never have been given the job of writing the script, and only did so because of the praise surrounding that other cowboy movie, Brokeback Mountain. McMurtry can write good novels (although there's some dissension over the consistency of that statement), but he's never exactly established himself as a scriptwriter. This production would have benefited from not only bringing back director Wincer, but original screenwriter Bill Wittcliff to adapt the novel to screen. Witcliff doesn't exactly have a mountainload of material to his screen writing credit, but no one can deny he did a fantastic job at whittling down the original "Lonesome Dove." With all this said, "Comanche Moon" is almost a brilliant production, aided by a terrific cast that unfortunately just aren't given enough to do. Steve Zahn's portrayal of Gus McCrae -- or rather, his portrayal of Robert Duvall as Gus McCrae -- is dead-on. And while some have criticized Karl Urban as Woodrow Call, saying his performance doesn't imitate the quiet, stoic Woodrow of the original movie, all I can say is: blame McMurtry, because McMurtry is the one who -- both in the "Moon" novel and now the miniseries -- turned Woodrow from socially inept, awkward, but natural leader, into some emotionless character whose lines are just dull and whose character motivations are only clear if you've seen them portrayed far more adequately in the "sequel".

Still, it's the cast that sparkles in "Moon," to the degree that I left the miniseries with that same feeling of melancholy I felt watching the original "Lonesome Dove" -- this time because I realized it's probably the last time we'll see these characters appear on screen for a long, long time to come -- and quite honestly, this cast could have done so well in a well-nurtured, full-blown network TV series.

All in all, aside from wasted opportunities with the cast, the biggest travesty is that the original Lonesome Dove novel contained so much rich backstory for the characters that would have been fascinating, utterly fascinating, to see translated on screen. Unfortunately, all that has been tossed aside in favor of McMurtry's tedious, inconsistent and ultimately irrelevant, prequel.

What a mess

[Cedar-4 · 1/10 · 14 January 2008]

Was really looking forward to seeing a continuation of Lonesome Dove but this was total garbage. Cinematography was terrible. Shot way too tight. Was almost viewing the Grand Canyon through a stationary telescope. Editing was cut, cut, cut. Not even smooth. More like a bad student editor. Don't know if McMurtry did the screen play but the dialog was terrible. Really like Val Kilmer's portrayal of Doc Holiday in Wyatt Earp but what in heck was he doing with this character in Comanche Moon??? I have no idea. Even looked like it was shot on a sound stage using the old Bonanza sets. How can the director of the original Lonesome Dove gone so wrong with this? Where was his head.............. Can't say much for the acting either. It's a shame to have messed up such a beautiful western that could have been but more like they rushed this one just to get it in the can. Have read other reviews and see that others felt the same way. Not even curious to watch the next few nights cause it would be just a waste of time like the first night was.

(2nd post)..................OK, since nothing else was on TV I must be honest and admit that I watched the last 2 nights of Comanche Moon. And I will be honest to tell you that I didn't make it to the end of either of the last 2 episodes because I fell asleep! I can only admit that I was watching the two main characters very closely and I could pick out some mannerisms that Steve Zahn did while portraying the character that Duval did such an excellent job with. So I must give Zahn credit for that. As for Karl Urban's portrayal....simple dead meat. Can only say again that I was very disappointed only because I cared so much for the original LD and like others .......have defended my feelings for a truly great western.

Incredible Casting!

[Bri_fee · 10/10 · 23 January 2008]

The casting on this film is incredible! You could actually go straight into Lonesome Dove and believe you were watching the characters age. The acting was amazing. Every character gave you a glimpse into the mind set of the original actors. Perhaps not all scenes were historically correct, however, I don't believe that was the purpose of the film. I believe it was meant to give us an insight into the connections that formed the bond we all came to love in the original film, and that it did accomplish beautifully. I hope it shows again followed by the original. Again, this casting director did a stellar job of casting, I want to see more of her work. Thank you for three lovely evenings of entertainment!

Compared to what it could have been, paltry

[star_in_the_zenith_79 · 6/10 · 22 August 2013]

Comanche Moon may have been one of the most anticipated films ever for me, as well as the most anticipated stories. When you think about it, this novel and movie should have been amazing. Call, Augustus, Deets, Jake, and Pea Eye all in their prime, the West still even more wild than Lonesome Dove, young Blue Duck, not to mention the great warriors Buffalo Hump and Kicking Wolf whose characters were built up greatly in Dead Man's Walk. With a setting like this how could it miss? If this had been done right it could have easily outshone even the original Lonesome Dove, the setup was just that good.

But it was mostly a disappointment. It was way to rushed, did not truly recapture the characters we came to love so much in Lonesome Dove, was inconsistent in many ways from the history outlined in Lonesome Dove, and strayed away from the original characters to much. It was almost like an unfeeling and unemotional documentary of the lives of Gus and Call prior to Lonesome Dove, and an inconsistent one at that. I'm not going to go into to much detail about how it failed to truly establish and develop the characters to being what we knew and loved in Lonesome Dove, but it will be obvious as you watch it. Overall, Zahn and Urban probably did the best jobs of playing Call and McCrae since Duvall and Jones, but the problem was far more with the source material. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't terrible, but it fell well short of what it could been. You almost get the sense McMurtry was trying to just get this over with, and as a result did a great story a terrible injustice.

Disappointed

[[e-mail] · 3/10 · 14 January 2008]

I am seldom motivated to write a review unless inspired by the quality of the movie. In the case of Comanche Moon I was so uninspired I felt the need to warn others how bad this TV mini series is. Here are a few thoughts.

The Indians: They came across like they were in a Saturday Night Live Skit, making fun of how Indians talk. When McMurtry writes dialogue in his novels it reads so interesting; I am not sure how they ended up with what they got.

Gus McCrae: Looks like Festus from the old Gunsmoke Series. Acting is OK and the mannerisms from Robert Duvall's McCrae are right on, but the look is pure comedy cowboy.

Clara: Maybe you could use a little dirt or sweat on her next time. Ever been in Austin in the summer before Air conditioning? I promise you women did not look like that. Do you think they never saw any episodes of Dearwood?

Gov. Elisha Pease: Again whenever they are in the Governor's office it feels like a Saturday Night Live Skit, and the skit is bombing.

Woodrow Call: Call is the most reasonable character, of course He talks so little how can you screw up that? But hey, what about that hat?

Blue Duck: See above and include the fact that he isn't even a tiny bit scary. They should have gotten Javier Bardem to play the part.

The Rangers: Right out of "O Brother, Where Art Thou" I expected George Cloony to come riding up and them to break into a song.

Perhaps I am premature because the miniseries isn't completed but I doubt I will watch any more of it any way.

I would not expect anyone to be able to duplicate the enthralling feel of Lonesome Dove, but I watch this and it seems like they have no feel for the old west at all.