The only reason I'm writing this is to counterbalance some of the positive reviews. I sat through this picture because I had read somewhere that it limned the Charles Goodnight/ Oliver Loving story; however, with the exception of the amputation (historically, Loving's right arm), there is nothing here that qualifies as history. There are so many pre-40s Westerns that are better than this--just look at practically anything Ford made. His Calvary pictures were accurate in every detail. Not so, Lonesome Dove. But that's a cavil. The problem is that the writing is mundane and the directing is mediocre and uninspired. Of course, condensing such a long book would have to be a challenge, if not an onerous task. And in many places (as is the case with the character--played in an 'over the top' manner--of Blue Duck), the script wanders away from the original source material. This is truly DuVall's picture; all eyes are on him. He has the best scenes, the best lines; when he's off-screen, everything suffers. To say this is the 'best' or 'greatest' Western ever made is to display a serious deficit of interest in the genre; it only serves to reduce the values of Westerns, as well as dumb down a potential audience. This was a television movie, a shaggy dog tale, a mini series that had to fill a niche. This is not great Art, much less is it great cinema.
Review of Lonesome Dove
