Streets of Laredo (TV Mini-Series 1995) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
26 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
An old Western with ideas!
austinpeale24 November 2000
Streets of Laredo - The sequel to Lonesome Dove

Streets of Laredo has much to offer - a long tale of famous Texas legends - some fictional, like Captain Woodrow F. Call, others real - John Wesley Hardin (played by Randy Quaid) and Judge Roy Bean (played by Ned Beatty).

If you're looking for a film to take you back to the wild, wild West, this one will do. It's a quiet story though, not full of action, as some shoot-em-ups are. Like Lonesome Dove it has heartbreak and pain, and some very quiet humor. Roy Bean and Call have a particularly great scene together, as do the young killer Call is after and John Wesley Hardin.

The story is also full of great ideas, something sorely lacking in most films. Family. Loyalty. Old Age. Change. Eastern values. Western traditions.

And while Sam Shephard has always been a respected actor, he MAKES this movie as he is at the center of one of the oldest conflicts on Earth - what makes a man a man, family or duty. He is so quiet! And so powerful when he does speak. His wife Lorena, played by Sissy Spacek, speaks for him most eloquently. Is she, or is she not THE greatest actor Texas ever produced? Who knew George Carlin could act?

James Garner is genuine, and authentic, as he always is.

The story is full of great characters - who fall away until the principles are left to resolve, or not resolve their conflicts.

The score is haunting, the cinematography is especially beautiful, the story is timeless, which is what one expects from Larry McMurtry.

28 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A solid,if downbeat chapter in the magnificent series
jmcody13 May 2000
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.
36 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A truly great western, revolving around the stunning performance of James Garner
Steve Skafte17 October 2008
First of all, the vast majority of those giving "Streets of Laredo" bad reviews have no legitimate complaints whatsoever. People whine about the dark tone, the killings, the acting, et cetera. Rather, this film has much more in common with the real old west, to a greater degree even than series like "Deadwood". Of course, many of the immature, misguided western fans seem to want happy horse-riding hippies who talk hard and rough but don't live it. How stupid to expect such from the real killers of the west.

Woodrow F. Call (James Garner) is not a nice man. And he should not be pigeonholed as one, either. Garner plays him the way he should be, and is even more impressive than Tommy Lee Jones in "Lonesome Dove", the series which preceded this one. Indeed, despite the rabid fanbase of "Lonesome Dove" (of which I very nearly belong), this series is undoubtedly superior. First of all, the direction is a vast improvement. Joseph Sargent handles the scenery and actors with far more intelligence and grace than Simon Wincer, who proved his woeful inadequacies when he returned for the prequel "Comanche Moon" last year. That series was pure trash, horribly acted and directed despite the great actors involved.

There are many great performances beside Garner. Charles Martin Smith, Sam Shepard, and Sissy Spacek are pure class. Smith, especially, has always been an excellent unnoticed actor. This is perhaps his best performance since "Never Cry Wolf" (1983). He is sympathetic and identifiable as the nervous railman. Shepard and Spacek play husband and wife quite intuitively. Their character development is well-performed to the highest degree. This is also one of Spacek's best performances.

Larry McMurtry has a very intuitive writing style, and the film carries over much of his subtlety. There's no overblown dialogue or direction to be found in "Streets of Laredo", something that the original "Lonesome Dove" series sometimes slipped into. I would say, without reservation, that this is one of the very best and most realistic depictions of the true west. A great film, with stunning acting and direction. A must see for any true film fan - narrow-minded western fans looking for a 'Hollywood' west need not apply.

RATING: 8.5 out of 10
18 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Worth One Walk Down The Street
ccthemovieman-121 February 2006
Warning: Spoilers
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.
20 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The least good of the four movies
jbraptor31 March 2006
If you haven't seen any of the other "Lonesome Dove" movies, "Streets of Laredo" is a strong drama with an excellent cast. James Garner is arguably America's least appreciated actor because he was always so handsome and charismatic. News flash: He's a terrific actor, not just a movie/TV star. Sissy Spacek is always wonderful. And all supporting parts filled with fine actors.

Problem is, for those of us who've seen the others in this saga, much of this one doesn't make sense. We have no idea of the year. "Lonesome Dove" was set in 1877, a year after "Custer's Last Stand." Gus, Woodrow and Pea Eye were "old men" about 50 years old who'd been together for 30 years. Lorena was in her early 20s, shy and illiterate. Now Woodrow is perhaps ten years older, Lorena is much older, and is a strong, worldly schoolteacher married to a Pea Eye who's at least ten years younger than the original Pea Eye. They've been married for at least 15 years, and have five children. And Woodrow and Pea Eye have STILL known each other only 30 years.

We wonder why Woodrow is in Laredo instead of at his thriving ranch in Montana. We wonder how and where Lorena and Pea Eye got together, given she went to San Francisco while Pea Eye stayed at the Montana ranch.

The novel doubtless fills in lots of these gaps, but the movie shouldn't require reading the novel. Perhaps McMurtry, a true American literary treasure, just threw this screenplay together.

But even those of us who know and love "Lonesome Dove," still one of the three best things ever made for television (with "Gettysburg" and "Band of Brothers"), can detach "Streets of Laredo" from the other three, ignore its many flaws, and just watch it on its own. When we do that, we enjoy a lot of wonderful acting in a very good drama.
16 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Comparing Movies is like comparing fruit!
Gunn30 December 2008
One of the first things I do after watching a movie I really like, is checking reviews of others...professionals and amateurs, as listed here. It's very frustrating reading some of them. Why do people compare them? Why do they look for faults? Why do they not see and praise the positive aspects and ease up on critical commentary? It's like comparing apples & oranges & bananas & strawberries, etc. Comparing a film to the book or a previous film seems overly critical to me. It always bothered me when Siskel & Ebert & Roeper, et al. rated films as bad or good...thumbs up or down...see it or don't see it. Streets of Laredo is a perfect example. A lot of superb work was put into this fascinating sequel by the director, the cinematographer, the actors, the music composer, the art directors and more. It deserves more than comparisons with the equally superb mini-series Lonesome Dove and its fabulous other sequels. James Garner's Woodrow Call was terrific, so was Tommy Lee Jones' but is it fair to compare them? Cissy Spacek's Lorena was just as good as Diane Lane's as were Sam Shephard's and Tim Scott's Pea Eye interpretations. How do you rate cake and pie? Is one better than the other? Should you condemn it to thumbs down or tell others to avoid it? Maybe to some people this is the way. One constant in all the LD sequels is Larry McMurtry's brilliant characterizations. And don't complain about character development. It takes time to develop a character's nuances and profile. E.G Archie Bunker, Mary Richards, Barney Miller and friends. How long a movie do you want to watch? To wrap it up, Streets of Laredo is a superb film with great acting, directing, cinematography, and a stirring musical score and more. So was Lonesome Dove, Return to Lonesome Dove, Dead Man's Walk, Comanche Moon and the TV series. They're all different but great!
15 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A good western mini-series
mobotobo13 May 2006
Is this better than Lonesome Dove? Depends on who you ask. I think that viewed objectively it is indeed a better mini-series. Two things complicate this in many people's minds. First, when it comes to the books I think most people think Lonesome Dove is a better book. Second, the first mini-series was so one of a kind that it really left an impression with people. Really got in their heads. By the time this came out people didn't find a western mini-series as groundbreaking. But if you watch them back to back now I think this one comes out on top. It features some great performances and, as others have commented, is a bit darker in tone and feel than the previous mini-series. If you liked Lonesome Dove this is a slam dunk for you to like.
12 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Everything must come to a End.
bluesman-2020 January 2008
Streets of Laredo is just as compelling as the original the only difference is that James Garner now holds the reins as Captain Woodrow Call,One of the most legendary Texas Rangers ever. Times have changed and so has Call's West. Things are changing as the 20 century looms closer and the wild west becomes Civilied. Woodrow Call is now a feared Bounty hunter and one of the greatest bounty hunters of his age. Call is now older but no wiser in the ways of the world and when he's hired to track down a Mexican Bandit named Joey Garza. Call Drags his ever loyal Corperal Pea-Eye Parker to help him track down the killer despite Pea-Eye now being married and having a family of his own. Streets of Laredo is a study of loyalties and betrayals to old ideas. Garner is simpling outstanding as Call. he is rivaled by George Carlin in a dramatic role a first for Carlin This movie shows us how the tale Ends but to me it still leaves a lot out maybe to lead to another story in the Lonesome Dove universe about the Final Years of Woodrow Call. Superb acting and a strong script make this a highly recommended movie which is official Canon unlike the sequel Return to Lonesome Dove which wasn't. Streets of Laredo can stand along side Lonesome Dove as one of the very best wild west stories ever told.
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
All it takes for a great movie
FlottaGuidato23 June 2003
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.
15 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not on The Streets of Laredo
jeanie-newlife8 October 2006
Sorry, this movie abandoned the viewers. Loose ends? How many were there? Too many to count. I watched Lonesome Dove, too, and didn't really have any expectations for this movie, but I'd have to say it wasn't about the thread between movies or characters; how much Garner was like Jones, etc. It was, for me, about the lack of point of view. There are so many threads that do not get drawn together in a good way. Who really is the narrator? Why was Hardin's character in the movie? Why don't we see or learn more about Pea Eye whose close relationship with Call is given to us at the beginning? Why the guy who burns people down? So much time was spent on extraneous characters who perhaps in the book are interesting to the story but in a screen play become burdensome to the main story. I wished for more clarity, more development of the main characters. And, the movie did not really take place on The Street of Laredo.
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Astonishingly good casting
Scrivener30006 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Randy Quaid is about as unlikely a candidate to play John Wesley Hardin, that stone killer, as you could possibly imagine. Quaid presumably lives in an old trailer waiting for the next National Lampoon "Vacation" movie -- but he brings it off brilliantly.

Same thing with George Carlin as anything but a shriveled prune of an aging comedian doing conceptual humor ("Why do they call bread a staple? It doesn't have little sharp points. Weird.")But he, too, is perfectly cast.

As sequels go, this one is a welcome surprise. I've attempted to watch some of the other "Lonesome Dove" sequels, but had to give up after a few minutes. I assumed the problem was the absence of most or all of the original actors -- but maybe the presence of McMurtry himself as screenwriter made all the difference.

Yes, it would have been great to have Tommy Lee Jones back as Woodrow Call, but James Garner does a fine job. Sissy Spacek is also perfect as Lorena some years on.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The best of the "Lonesome Dove" series
pup-320 January 1999
Shown in two parts, "Streets of Laredo" is the best of the "Lonesome Dove" series. The casting is excellent, especially Sonia Braga and George Carlin, who by the way, is excellent at dramatic acting. The story line never lags, as it is played out. I highly recommend watching.
7 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Can't hold a candle to Lonesome Dove
unreconstructed22 July 2000
Streets of Laredo is a fine western. It's just that Lonesome Dove set too high a standard to compare any other western with. Maybe the problem lies with the story itself....can anyone who saw LD imagine Lorena marrying Pea Eye and having a passel of kids???? Recall that Lorena wouldn't have anything to do with Lippy and yet she marries Pea Eye. Diane Lane and Tim Scott, together!?! No way! Streets of Laredo simply inverts the visuals embedded in our brains from LD: now Pea Eye(Sam Shepherd) is actually better looking than Lorena(Sissy Spacek). That's just too much of a stretch. I never thought I'd criticize Sissy Spacek but she just doesn't have any of Diane Lane's elegance and sensuousness. Ms. Lane was charming and endearing but Spacek's Lorena just grates on the nerves. Also for a sequel we are left mystifyingly in the dark as to why the main characters are back in Texas. Newt, who was the actual "lonesome dove" in LD, is never mentioned. What happened to Call's cattle ranch in Montana??? No clue. I realize the novel probably answers these questions but hell, this was a miniseries! The screenwriters should have had time to develop what happened since the end of LD. I also don't like the introduction of historical figures Roy Bean and John Wesley Hardin who are used as stage props to prove how fearsome Joey Garza is. Garza was so tough even the Apaches grew to fear him. Give me a break! The character Joey Garza merely strikes me as a punk who can shoot well. As a rule I don't like villains with pencil necks, no upper body strength, and who don't shave yet; it's just too hard to take them seriously. He doesn't inspire fear, but rather seems a nuisance we wish someone would eliminate. On the positive side, James Garner is marvelous as Woodrow Call. He won't replace Tommy Lee Jones in my mind as Call but then again, who could? Garner seems more stoic, more matter-of-fact than Jones was. Jones' portrayal had a lot of quiet emotion churning beneath the surface, unfortunately Garner has no Gus to play off of. Still he shines brighter in this movie than anyone else. I guess the main test that ranks Streets of Laredo unfavorably with LD is the affect it produces with time. It doesn't stay with one like LD. Scenes are not memorable and unforgettable as they were with LD. The bittersweet irony is missing. I don't have the sense it will involuntarily become part of one's psyche with time.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A commentary
bobbobwhite14 July 2010
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.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Watchable western
akhilles8418 November 2001
Well,i didnt have high expectations for this one.It turned out to be better than i expected.It includes a fine cast led by James Garner and supported by Sissy Spacek,Sam Shepard and Sonia Braga,among others.

Garner did a fine performance,same with the three others.But who i didnt like much here was Charles Martin Smith and Alexis Cruz who played Joey Garza,the main villain of the show.Smith was unconvincing and way too hillarious to be taken seriously.And Cruz is just ridiculous.I dont know why anybody would hire him.He just cant play.

This show features some beautiful landscape and the story will keep you in your seat until the end.Too bad they couldnt get DiCaprio to play Joey Garza(ridiculous name by the way). 7 out of 10
5 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Too stereotypical for my taste
per-oqvist2 October 2006
I bought first the lonesome dove DVD and then the collection of Return to Lonesome Dove, Streets of Laredo and Dead man Walking I think it was.

I have seen all but the last now.

Streets of Laredo this is the worst of the three. I loved the first one and also enjoyed the second but this just got to much the same and too stereotypical.

Every women is a whore or used to be. Every character is so one dimensional. 95 % of the men are pigs whereas the last 5 % is gentlemen???. A lot of talk about children going bad but they don't reflect much about it... It's like they can't think ahead. It's like watching aliens.

Really don't like the Joey Garza character. and overall it was little in this mini series that interested me.
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
cabuesch9 April 2000
Tommy Lee Jones was outstanding as the captain as was John Voight. James Garner was just playing James Garner playing Captain Call. Also, dropping the names of real people such as Charles Goodnight and John Wesley Hardin and the names of characters from other movies such as R.J. Poteet from Centennial was kind of lame.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Larry McMurtry's Streets of Laredo is a non sensical sequel...
earpmorgan4 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
There appears to be little connection between this movie and the original other then several similar character names. Why did Call become a bounty hunter? Why did he abandon his Montana Ranch? Why is pea eye in Texas and why is Lorena married to him? I thought she was living her dream in San Francisco? James Garner is a great actor but he is not good as Capt Call. Even Jon Voight was a better replacement. I thought that Return to Lonesome Dove was the real sequel, not this poor attempt.

This would have been a good free standing movie if it was not advertised as a Lonesome Dove sequel and the characters would have had non-Lonesome Dove names.
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Possibly James Garner's best role
Chei Mi Rose1 August 2005
James Garner (to me) is the king of flippancy. He always has a cute answer or some nonchalant way of handling things.

I saw this after Dead Man's Walk and before Lonesome Dove. I had not read the books, so I feel my take on the acting is not jaded by expectations.

On first glance I felt the part was weak. Then, after seeing Lonesome Dove and Return to Lonesome Dove, I realized that Garner did right by the part of Woodruff Call. I have never seen him so serious or non-contrived. Even his voice had that slight whine that Tommy Lee Jones had. John Voight had it to an extreme.

On second watching I could see the loose ends that were tied, so I was pretty happy overall. I am not sure why such an inaccuracy as Judge Bean dying "not according to history" was allowed.

For the record, this movie is second to Dead Man's Walk and a tad above Lonesome Dove. I hate to stomp on those that think LD was the greatest mini-series ever made. I did enjoy it, but had to have some extra coffee to stay awake. That was not the case with Laredo or Dead Man's Walk.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
don't bother watching
normanqpr7 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
By Far The WORST Lonesome Dove Movie Ever .....Young Mexican Is Killing People. Mcall Is Hired TO Go To Mexico To Kill Him. The Boy Shoots Mcall In The Leg And It Has To Be Cut Off.

The People In The Village Kill The Boy . THE END.

My Copy Is Going Straight In The Bin I Could Not Watch That Load Of Rubbish Again.....Top Myself First....BORING BORING BORING YAWN ZZZzzzzzzzz. There Are 2 Episodes On The First Disc ,The Second Episode Is A Bit Hard To Find Bet There Are People Out There Who Have Not Seen Episode 2 ,LUCKY THEM. Don't Bother Watching This........ Cant Believe That Anybody Rates This Movie Trust Me Its Rubbish..
4 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Casting All Wrong
Captnvideo8 June 2002
I just read the book, and haven't seen the TV show for several years. But I have to say that the idea that Lorena would marry Pea Eye is ridiculous. Then having the coal miner's daughter play her is more preposterous. Cissy Spacek is a good actress, but has very strange looks, not the beauty Lorena is supposed to be, and was in Lonesome Dove. Pea eye is a goofy looking guy-you can tell just by his name. He wouldn't look anything like Sam Shepard. I like James Garner, but his shtick is that he is a large man who is basically a coward, and gets out of scrapes using his words. The exact opposite of Call. He's supposed to be a rather average size man, who is shrunken in his old age, yet still a formidable foe. Brookshire is a bookeeper who adapts sort of well to the west, but not the geek that is Charles Martin Smith. Yuk! Yet the book so enthralls, with all it's misery, that I think I am going to go out and rent this TV movie, if I can find it. "Twould be so much better with casting closer to the characters character. And looks.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
All Good Reviews are Liars
tubes51508516 July 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I gave this 3 stars only because I love a good western . But in comparison to the 'Lonesome Dove ' series this was just awful !! 'Return to Lonesome Dove' had much more flavor and even though was not written by Larry McMurtry - was still how I would of liked the series to end . ( If I had to choose ) . --- I do not understand where all these 9/10 star ratings are coming from ?!/! Are they just people trying to defend LM ?? I heard that LM was so hateful about 'RTLD' , that he intentionally wanted to destroy 'SOL' . That is pathetic !! ---- For all you 9/10 star fanatics --- I have questions .( SPOILER ALERT ) 1- Really ? Newt is Dead ??? 2- Lori married Pea-Eye ??? - Come on !!! 3- Capt. Call just had to loose a limb right ?? ( did LM run out ways to disable someone ) 4- Chasing after a 9th grade villain ?? You're killing me !!! -- LM could of at least made the villain somewhat scary ! 5- That villains mother was actually the biggest villain in the film ! I wanted to kill her more than I wanted to kill " JO-EY" !! 5- And what did Capt. Call ever do to Lori to make her bad-mouth him so much ?? Lori turned out to be a solid Bitch !! ----- Now 'Return" was just more pleasing to the eyes and ears . Much better way to end the series .
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A gritty, harsh look at life in the old west.
headhunter4615 June 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I have read enough books and talked to people who had grampas or great uncles who lived in the days of the "old west" to know this movie is closer to reality then most. Life was hard, some people grew up cold and mean. Wesley Hardin shot an unarmed man who annoyed him. There were some really nasty people back then. This movie can stand on its own even though it is a follow up to Lonesome Dove. That was warmer, more romantic, and more likable than this. Watch this for realism.

Capt. Call is retired and gets hired by the railroad to chase down a bandit for robbing numerous trains. Many people are changed by the events that lead up to the demise of the bandit. Some for the good, some to the grave. It portrays the harshness and difficulties of living in the 1800's west.

It is touching to see Capt. Call warm to the young blind girl and truly begin to show affection.

There are several heartbreaking moments that will tug at your emotions, and some curdle your blood.

This is a great movie but be prepared for some shocking moments that will leave you in disbelief.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Uexpected sequel
tfilm7810 February 2007
This was probably a different sequel than people expected. The sequel they expected was probably Return to Lonesome Dove. Why? Because Return to Lonesome Dove dealt with the threads left hanging by the original Lonesome Dove, mainly Call's relationship with Newt. I also dealt with the ranch set up in Montana. It's understandable that people would have expected that. But Return to Lonesome Dove was in many ways just a rehash. Robert Duvall is replaced by William Petersen, Danny Glover by Lou Gossett Jr., and Frederic Forrest with Dennis Haysbert. They are simply replacement characters. Once again, there's a cattle drive. It deals with Newt and Call's relationship, but thing brings in another paternity case. It just goes to prove that Lonesome Dove brought those story lines to their natural, if not their emotionally satisfying, conclusion. Newt and Call both know the truth, even if they can't admit it to each other. Without knowing for sure whether Call intends to return to Montana, we're left with the feeling that Newt has to make his own way in the world, and has reached a point where he's ready too. The other supporting characters don't really need to some back, as they were ranch hands, not major characters Given that, I wasn't disappointed not to see Newt or many other characters return when I saw the sequel or read the book. Though I was disappointed that McMurtry felt he had to kill off Newt. And it makes sense that McMurtry, who is from Texas, would want to maintain a connection to Texas rather than move the entire story up to Montana.

The deaths of Gus, Jake and Deets leaves only two Rangers alive: Call and Pea-Eye. The two of them are very similar in a way. Pea-Eye is task-oriented, like Call, not a joker like Gus, so that makes an interesting dynamic to explore. It's also a good way to show a contrast between them, which is why Lorena returns. Call had a chance to have a family with Maggie, a whore, but he turned his back on it. Pea-Eye, on the other hand, pursues that relationship and starts a family.

Though it is a sequel to Lonesome Dove, viewers should brace themselves for what is, in all other respects, a completely different movie. Were it not for the history that Call and the Parkers have, this could have been a story completely separate from the Lonesome Dove series. This, like the prequels, is a story were the work of a Texas Ranger takes center stage. You see Call and Parker in action, and you also see the pursuit from his quarry's point of view, and that of his mother, who has lost so much of her family to the Rangers. Unlike Lonesome Dove, which had a romantic sense of adventure, this film shows the harm that their work sometimes causes. It also shows the affect of civilization on the Old West. No date is specified, but this appears to be set in the late 19th or early 20th century, in which the Texas Rangers, and Call in particular, are becoming obsolete. As Woodrow and Pea Eye show, however, they still have work to do, and do it well. It's not quite the film that Lonesome Dove was, which had a great mixture of romance, darkness, adventure and excitement--it's a much darker film--but still worth a look.

Oh, and to correct one of the other reviews. Robert Duvall played Gus before, not Call. Tommy Lee Jones played Call, who is played here by James Garner. And there are two other constants: Lorena; played in Lonesome Dove by Diane Lane and here by Sissy Spacek; and Pea Eye Parker; played in Lonesome Dove by Tim Scott, and here by Sam Shepard. It took me a while to realize that too, since they look so different. But her mention of Blue Duck and her whoring life is enough to connect the dots, and Sam Shepard actually plays Pea Eye as a man with some intelligence though not much formal education, rather than the simpleton that we got from Tim Scott. A nice improvement, I think. He seems a more competent Ranger. It's also a shame that Tommy Lee Jones never returned to the role of Woodrow Call, though maybe at the age Call is in this story, it wouldn't have made sense. I must say Garner and Shepard both appear younger, mainly since their hair has turned grey from white.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews