Sam Elliot stars as Sam Houston, the visionary who nearly single-handedly forged the state of Texas into a powerful entity in its own right. Refusing to forget the Alamo (as if anyone could), Houston led the military in Texas' rebellion against Mexico. G.D. Spradlin co-stars as President Andrew Jackson, with Michael Beck appearing as Jim Bowie, James Stephens as Stephen Austin, and Richard Yniguez as Mexican General Santa Anna. Lensed on location in the Lone Star state, this sweeping made-for-TV film originally occupied three hours' screen time on November 22, 1986. Its title at that time was Houston: The Legend of Texas. ~ Hal Erickson, Rovi
Writer:Frank Q. Dobbs (story), John Binder (story), John Binder (teleplay)
Sam Elliot stars as Sam Houston, the visionary who nearly single-handedly forged the state of Texas into a powerful entity in its own right. Refusing to forget the Alamo (as if anyone could), Houston led the military in Texas' rebellion against Mexico. G.D. Spradlin co-stars as President Andrew Jackson, with Michael Beck appearing as Jim Bowie, James Stephens as Stephen Austin, and Richard Yniguez as Mexican General Santa Anna. Lensed on location in the Lone Star state, this sweeping made-for-TV film originally occupied three hours' screen time on November 22, 1986. Its title at that time was Houston: The Legend of Texas. ~ Hal Erickson, Rovi . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Alex r (us) wrote: Good war that is a bit too short, The Patrol manages to be quite effective in its short run with some pretty good performances, tense war scenes and good drama. I enjoyed the film for what it was, but it could also have been longer as we never do see any British war films, and personally I feel that we need a lot more because, they have some interesting topics to tell on film, especially when it comes to war films. The cast do a fine job here and each actor brings something unique to the screen, and the characters are quite interesting. The film has some riveting moments, with a good dose of drama and it shows the toll of war on the soldiers serving. The film isn't perfect, but it's quite a good war film for what it tries to do, and if you enjoy a war film with well written characters, good action scenes and tense drama, then this film is worth seeing. War films are often hard to pull off, but with The Patrol, even if it's not perfect, it shows what warfare is like, and makes the viewer appreciate what soldiers do. There are better war films out there, but The Patrol is a good effort that deserves to be seen for its tense war scenes, good performances and riveting direction. The Patrol delivers a good hour and a half of tense storytelling and effective action to delight genre fans, and thought it doesn't break new ground, it's one of the better war pictures to come out in quite some time.
Dustin N (us) wrote: I can't see anything.
Alan W (gb) wrote: Funny little Short about a Magic Show and a hungry White Rabbit. The Gags are good and the Animations are brilliant. One of the better Shorts.
John B (us) wrote: Ick! While the Venus of the film is great O'Toole is about ten years too old for this May December romance. The sparks are forced.
Luc M (gb) wrote: Captain America is one of my favorite heroes, I like your comic, as I also liked that film, he has an interesting story with a few different things from the comics, but we can not expect the film to be identical to the comic, after all Cinema is like an alternate universe, some scenes show good special effects, but there are other scenes that are a little strange, I thought Chris Evans as Captain was great, and overall this movie is good.
(us) wrote: DO YOU LIKE TO LIKE PUSSE
Anne F (es) wrote: Michel, his wife and their three tired small girls are on a long car journey when he meets Harry, an old school friend, who he doesn't remember. Harry invites himself to their holiday cottage and things go seriously wrong. The film really was a thriller - I knew something bad was going to happen and whilst some elements can be foreseen, the ending was to me quite unexpected. There is lot to think about on more than one level - why? how? was it really? 7.5/10
Stephen C (gb) wrote: Michael Haneke is widly regarded as one of the true masters of modern film.His films are always a challenge to the viewer and his widly celebrated works such as Amour and Cache and the works of a genius.Before the wider acclaim Haneke made several films which challenged the narrative conventions of cinema.This film is one of those and it is a ice cool study of a violent and random act and the lives of the people involved in that act chronicled over a period of two months.Right from the start Haneke has us on the backfoot with clips from news events from October 1993 including the war in Bosnia , the Unrest in Africa and Michael Jacksons child abuse allegations.These news clips continue through the film and Haneke allows them to become a Greek chorus as we buiild to the final act.Having the film cut away at key moments during the narrative sustains interest as we follow the various people including a Romainian child living on the streets,A couple trying to adopt a little girl,A security guard and his miserable life and a young man who will brutally knit all the narratives togther .Haneke never lets up in his desire to unsettle you and even at the films end we dont see events unfurl leaving us with more news clips before a cut to black.Challenging viewing then,but in these days of stupid Hollywood movies which flop badly this is a real find .
Christopher B (ru) wrote: Ferrara sleaze, plain and simple, but what great sleaze it is! Two co-owners of a strip bar decide to hunt down a serial killer who's been offing their employees. This is great stuff for those who are grindhouse fans, and I don't mean that friggin' Rodreguez and Tarantino shitheap.
cli o (au) wrote: no thanks not my kinda thing
Christina S (ag) wrote: Very good movie. I can see some bastard in Hollywood picking this movie up and thinking how great it would be to have it remade into a horror flick. Gramps will be a crazy neurotic old man that's obsessed with the paranormal, pud will be some EMO played by a teen and Mr. Brink will be played by some British actor who in the most climactic scene in the remake where he'll attempt to lure Pud's girlfriend into taking his hands, he'll reveal his true death form. Aunt Demitria will be changed to some random male relative who in the end gets pulled into the pit of hell opened by Mr. Brink when Pud uses a weapon that his crazy grandpa gave his towards the end before he's killed to use against Brink without touching him but in the end while trying ti get rid death, he himself get's killed. The ending will be him hearing his grandpa, grandma and girlfriend happily calling for him in a peaceful scenario rather like the conclusion of Nightmare on Elm Street, only to find out that they are all hideously mutilated, they melt into a bloody gory pile, Pud screams, the camera zooms out to reveal the peaceful land he found himself in has now transformed into the burning pit of hell, then the credits role, complimented by heavy metal. We will sit there thinking "wow, what a shitty remake of such a heartfelt film filled with characters that you will never see in any Hollywood film today." Pshhh...SPOLIER: Of course now that I think about it, it does seem a bit morbid that the only solution to the problem of this film, who will take care of little Pud was resolved by Mr. Brink taking both their lives so they can be together forever since Julian seriously didn't want his grandson being raised into a pussy by his aunt.
Justin T (ca) wrote: An unexpectedly pleasant surprise.