Purely Joyful Movie!

A waste of 90 minutes of my life

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

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 .

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

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.

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.