BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Kodie Bird True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

Tyreece Hulme One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

Benas Mcloughlin Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

classicsoncall A handful of reviews as I write mine tend to favor this film to one degree or another. It did strike me as a made for TV product and may be part of the reason I found it rather underwhelming. I lost some credibility in the story after Hugh Allison (Kris Kristofferson) attempted to rape the Indian girl Sana (Irene Bedard), but in an immediate turnabout, she decided to make her way with him and partner Son Holland (Scott Bairstow) on their way to hook up with Sam Houston's battle group in Texas. Even though the picture ran an hour and a half, it seemed to me like the film makers decided to leave the entire Battle of The Alamo out of it due to budgetary restrictions. It just seemed so abrupt an ending that it leaves one disoriented. At one point, Hugh says to Son - "Remember what I told you, huh? History's watchin'". If that's the case, they missed an awful lot.

bkoganbing Kris Kristofferson and Scott Bairstow play a pair of escaped convicts from a Louisiana chain gang in Two For Texas. When an unexpected chance at escape comes they take it and in the process walk into history in 1836. These two with a Tawanka Indian woman who was a prisoner of some Choctaws played by Irene Bedard where Kristofferson and Bairstow take refuge after their escape go to Texas because of Sam Houston's promise of 640 acres to those who will fight for Texas freedom. As it turns out Kristofferson knows one of Texas's most prominent freedom fighters, Jim Bowie who is played by Peter Coyote.This is hardly a historical docudrama, it's a historical novel. But Kristofferson, Bairstow and the rest of the cast do graphically portray genuine frontier characters. Tom Skerritt gives a nice portrayal of Sam Houston one of my favorite historical characters.Western fans should like this one.

AlamoJer To the average viewer, Two for Texas is an entertaining movie, but for those who know Texas history, it is a disappointing attempt at a docudrama. It does not accurately depict the facts and events of the Texas Revolution (aka, Texas War of Independence). Several of the historical events have been either modified or depicted out of sequence in an effort to enhance the story, but instead, leave one with a false impression of how things actually transpired. It was disturbing to me to watch this flagrantly flawed film that could have depicted events more accurately had the writers, producers, and directors cared enough to produce an accurate accounting of historical events.

dinky-4 While "Two for Texas" is more "outdoorsy" and more "1830's" than the usual TV movie, it still suffers from that form's limitations. It seems a bit tame and tepid and lacks the sweep and energy needed to elevate it above the routine. However, most aspects of the production are competently done and a couple are excuses are found to have Scott Bairstow bare his chest so there are some visual rewards to be found along the way.