This one threw me off a little at first. I've enjoyed all of the Lonesome Dove miniseries and Tv series, but this one takes place long after those. A lot has changed and there is little to explain all that has happened over the years, but I was drew into this story as things unfolded. I enjoyed this one. I like to think that Pea was Call's Deputy in the flashback because it was during the time mentioned in Return to Lonesome Dove when Gus and Woodrow weren't talking. I know that ain't what the author had in mind, but it's fun to pretend! Streets is worth a look if you can accept the unaswered questions about the missing years between this and the other Lonesome Doves.

Lonesome Dove is possibly the most brilliant western movie in history. Return to Lonesome Dove was a sequel that, while lacking in the chemistry between Gus and Call, continued aptly the story begun in the original. Having never read any of McMurtry's books, I understand his response to having no creative input into the sequel. Therefore, I was excited to see Streets of Laredo and McMurtry's version of what really happened. I have never been more disappointed in a movie since Halloween 3.

In his passion to distance the strory from Return, McMurry succeeds at destroying any continuity between Lonesome Dove and Streets of Laredo. I will list some of my disapointments between Lonesome Dove (LD) and Streets of Laredo (SL).

Here are some of the questions raised but not answered in SL.
1. What happened to the ranch in Montana? Why is there no mention why at Call is now a lawman in Texas or why others from the Hat Creek Cattle Co. now live in Texas?
2. Why do characters from LD now have radically different personalities? (Call no longer a visionary but a "killer" who makes careless and downright stupid mistakes, Pea a much younger and brighter family man, Lorie now a headstrong and overbearing wife with no dreams of San Francisco)
3. Why do flashbacks suggest that it was Pea, not Gus, that rode with Call some 20 to 30 years earlier?
4. Why is there a downplay of character interaction that occured in LD?

These are all I can mention without revealing plot points, however, there are many, many more. Possibly these questions were answered in the book (and I would hope so). If that is true, the movie's failure is again illuminated.

I truly wish there had been at least some consistency in characters and story between the two movies but there is not. Lonesome Dove is still a masterpiece and Streets of Laredo is a dismal failure

Streets of Laredo is a gem with a suprisingly good cast. I was skeptical about George Carlin but he shines and Randy Quaid is PERFECT as John Wesley Hardin. I've wanted to see a film version that got Hardin right (Rock Hudson's version was a total white wash)and was surprised to see Hardin in this and pleased to see him portrayed correctly. Take a look at this one Western buffs.

Some Lonesome Dove fans can be a pretentious lot and just don't have much of the charm of a character like Gus McRae so instead of enyoin things they rip em to shreds and moan and complain in the name of literary purity. Thus we get these type of folks complainin about Return to Lonesome Dove and complainin about the prequel and complainin about the sequel....
The truth is: what we got here is a dang good oater. I don't demand perfection in order to have a good time and the other Lonesome Dove movies and series are all fine Westerns that I have a great deal of affection for. Most folks who like a good Western will enjoy em too.

Lonesome Dove is the greatest TV miniseries of all time. In my eagerness to watch a similar work of pure genius, I was sorely disappointed by this offering. This production is plagued by a myriad of problems that made it difficult to watch.

The casting is almost all wrong. The actor who played Joey Garza is laughable. In one scene, Garza is at the barber getting a shave. Give me a break! This kid barely has two hairs on his chest. He has never needed a shave in his life. I know Joey Garza is supposed to be a boy, but I have seen several five-year-olds that look scarier than him. His weak scowl didn't suspend my disbelief a second.

Two other casting decisions I had particular problems with were Randy Quaid and James Garner. Randy Quaid is just not convincing as a gunslinger (maybe I watched too many National Lampoon movies). I couldn't take him seriously.

Now I love James Garner, but he did not capture the character of Captain Call. Granted, Tommy Lee Jones is an impossible act to follow, but surely someone could have come close to that performance. I don't buy James Garner as the somber, hard-as-nails ranger.

Casting choices aside, this DvD suffers most from an inept screenplay. As one reviewer has already properly noted, the Mox Mox side story was slapped together. Why did they even bother with it?

In one scene with Randy Quaid, he is shocked to learn that Captain Call has been sent after Garza, but not ten seconds later he informs us that Famous Shoes is leading Call to the killer. "Hey, I didn't know Call was coming, but I know that Famous shoes is leading him here!" Not only is much of the dialogue idiotic, but also many of the character's actions make no sense at all.

For instance, why would you carry so many men off with you to hunt down Garza only to have them sit while you run off to tackle a gang of bandits alone? Why would an affirmed coward march off to certain death instead of just hiding out for one more night? Why would two drunkards say nothing as Sissy Spacek walks off with a near full bottle of whiskey when she had only asked to share a drink with them?

I imagine Spacek needed that whiskey after she realized what a stinker she was involved in. If you are determined to watch this production, I suggest you do so with a bottle of whiskey. You will need it.