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.

I really like this movie a lot. Is it Historically accurate? Of course not, but the Battle of San Jacinto scenes were very well done . Whoat is different is the relationship between Scott Bairtow (Son Holland) and Irene Bedard. ( Sana). Spoilers ahead. These are two very damaged people, who have good reason to despise the other's race. His family was murdered by Indians, and she was kidnapped by Americans, traded to Mexicans, and to hostile Indians, and basically used as a slave. These two are basically made for each other, and there is a scene involving a rope on the leg that shows both what the other is all about. First,,, Son's friend, Hugh Allison ( Kris Kristofferson), tries to rape Sana, Son cuts the rope on her leg, giving her the first taste of freedom in many years. Then she saves Allison from drowning, by cutting the rope on his leg, as the horse was pulling him through the water, Sana is without question my favorite character. She is tough she stopped Hugh, from raping her by hitting him over the head with a piece of firewood, to stabbing to death someone who killed an Indian woman, without hesitation. Yet, when son you see how happy she really is and the goodness within her, when she is with Son. It is a very underrated movie, and a must for Western and (or) Bedard fans. 9/10 stars.

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.

The pacing of this thing is pretty languid, but by-and-large, it's an entertaining history lesson. The action -- particularly the final battle scene -- is a pleasant surprise.CONS: A few shenanigans with the historical facts, but nothing too glaring. Some suspicious time compression at the Alamo. (And Bowie's knife wasn't looted? Hmm...) Oh, and I think Tom Skerrit, although talented, was a questionable choice for the mythic (and 6'6") Sam Houston.PROS: The rest of the cast -- the two principals were thoroughly believable. ACTUAL Texas shooting locales. Practical ("real") SFX: when a cannonball takes out a tree, it's a real tree taken apart by real explosives. And best of all, Irene Bedard in her physical prime.