This was probably a different sequel than people expected. The sequel they expected was probably Return to Lonesome Dove. Why? Because Return to Lonesome Dove dealt with the threads left hanging by the original Lonesome Dove, mainly Call's relationship with Newt. I also dealt with the ranch set up in Montana. It's understandable that people would have expected that. But Return to Lonesome Dove was in many ways just a rehash. Robert Duvall is replaced by William Petersen, Danny Glover by Lou Gossett Jr., and Frederic Forrest with Dennis Haysbert. They are simply replacement characters. Once again, there's a cattle drive. It deals with Newt and Call's relationship, but thing brings in another paternity case. It just goes to prove that Lonesome Dove brought those story lines to their natural, if not their emotionally satisfying, conclusion. Newt and Call both know the truth, even if they can't admit it to each other. Without knowing for sure whether Call intends to return to Montana, we're left with the feeling that Newt has to make his own way in the world, and has reached a point where he's ready too. The other supporting characters don't really need to some back, as they were ranch hands, not major characters Given that, I wasn't disappointed not to see Newt or many other characters return when I saw the sequel or read the book. Though I was disappointed that McMurtry felt he had to kill off Newt. And it makes sense that McMurtry, who is from Texas, would want to maintain a connection to Texas rather than move the entire story up to Montana.The deaths of Gus, Jake and Deets leaves only two Rangers alive: Call and Pea-Eye. The two of them are very similar in a way. Pea-Eye is task-oriented, like Call, not a joker like Gus, so that makes an interesting dynamic to explore. It's also a good way to show a contrast between them, which is why Lorena returns. Call had a chance to have a family with Maggie, a whore, but he turned his back on it. Pea-Eye, on the other hand, pursues that relationship and starts a family.Though it is a sequel to Lonesome Dove, viewers should brace themselves for what is, in all other respects, a completely different movie. Were it not for the history that Call and the Parkers have, this could have been a story completely separate from the Lonesome Dove series. This, like the prequels, is a story were the work of a Texas Ranger takes center stage. You see Call and Parker in action, and you also see the pursuit from his quarry's point of view, and that of his mother, who has lost so much of her family to the Rangers. Unlike Lonesome Dove, which had a romantic sense of adventure, this film shows the harm that their work sometimes causes. It also shows the affect of civilization on the Old West. No date is specified, but this appears to be set in the late 19th or early 20th century, in which the Texas Rangers, and Call in particular, are becoming obsolete. As Woodrow and Pea Eye show, however, they still have work to do, and do it well. It's not quite the film that Lonesome Dove was, which had a great mixture of romance, darkness, adventure and excitement--it's a much darker film--but still worth a look.Oh, and to correct one of the other reviews. Robert Duvall played Gus before, not Call. Tommy Lee Jones played Call, who is played here by James Garner. And there are two other constants: Lorena; played in Lonesome Dove by Diane Lane and here by Sissy Spacek; and Pea Eye Parker; played in Lonesome Dove by Tim Scott, and here by Sam Shepard. It took me a while to realize that too, since they look so different. But her mention of Blue Duck and her whoring life is enough to connect the dots, and Sam Shepard actually plays Pea Eye as a man with some intelligence though not much formal education, rather than the simpleton that we got from Tim Scott. A nice improvement, I think. He seems a more competent Ranger. It's also a shame that Tommy Lee Jones never returned to the role of Woodrow Call, though maybe at the age Call is in this story, it wouldn't have made sense. I must say Garner and Shepard both appear younger, mainly since their hair has turned grey from white.

There appears to be little connection between this movie and the original other then several similar character names. Why did Call become a bounty hunter? Why did he abandon his Montana Ranch? Why is pea eye in Texas and why is Lorena married to him? I thought she was living her dream in San Francisco? James Garner is a great actor but he is not good as Capt Call. Even Jon Voight was a better replacement. I thought that Return to Lonesome Dove was the real sequel, not this poor attempt.This would have been a good free standing movie if it was not advertised as a Lonesome Dove sequel and the characters would have had non-Lonesome Dove names.

I just read the book, and haven't seen the TV show for several years. But I have to say that the idea that Lorena would marry Pea Eye is ridiculous. Then having the coal miner's daughter play her is more preposterous. Cissy Spacek is a good actress, but has very strange looks, not the beauty Lorena is supposed to be, and was in Lonesome Dove. Pea eye is a goofy looking guy-you can tell just by his name. He wouldn't look anything like Sam Shepard. I like James Garner, but his shtick is that he is a large man who is basically a coward, and gets out of scrapes using his words. The exact opposite of Call. He's supposed to be a rather average size man, who is shrunken in his old age, yet still a formidable foe. Brookshire is a bookeeper who adapts sort of well to the west, but not the geek that is Charles Martin Smith. Yuk! Yet the book so enthralls, with all it's misery, that I think I am going to go out and rent this TV movie, if I can find it. "Twould be so much better with casting closer to the characters character. And looks.

Granted, both the original Lonesome Dove novel and film are unique works of extremely fascinating classic story telling. Streets of Laredo obviously has a great deal to live up to and, when viewed or read in conjunction with Dove, it does suffer in the sense that our familiarity is slightly snubbed. Of course not much can measure up to the original, and so obviously this is something that cannot be helped. This sequel is far more brutal and violent that its predecessor. Violent death or at least the threat of it is an ever present character awash on Laredo's landscape much more than Dove.That said, Streets of Laredo as a film stands firmly upon its own merits which are quite impressive.Firstly, the cast is sublime. James Garner, always a vastly underrated actor, creates a stoic yet tragic Call. His final scene is at once heart breaking and resonating with strong quiet hope. His performance is all about what film acting aspires to become: he moves mountains without words.The rest of the cast is on equal footing with Garner. Playwrite Sam Shepard's Pea Eye, although losing much of Tim Scott's original Bentonesque forlorn rube, is filled with earthy heroism and and poetry. Sissy Spacek, as the whore re-incarnated as a schoolmarm Lorena produces the tough backbone needed to survive the Texas prarie. Comedian George Carlin's finely drawn panhandle scamp solidifies the theory that the border between comedy and tragedy is narrow at best. These are just a few of the excellent standouts in the sound ensemble.Secondly, there is the very narrative itself. It plays like a Sunday funeral dirge-ever aware of the passing of an era, yet peering into a glimmer future of simple optimism and hope. In McMurtry's frequently brutal world, everyone has a shot at redemption. Grace isn't free but it is availble to all willing to run the gauntlet, as long as they have a pure heart. In this film, pure of heart may not necessarily mean pure of deed, but at least evil is evil and good is good.This film bravely balances the aformentioned violence with scenes of wry humour and gentleness. In that regard, Laredo comes the closest anyone has come to honoring Peckinpah's greater works.The film, because it was produced for television is already mostly forotten by the minnions, but richly deserving of an audience. Enjoy and Savor.