Ratings Critical response The media coverage about the series was somewhat negative, with some debate over whether or not the right blend between historical accuracy and poetic license had been reached - with some sources saying that a channel calling itself "History" invited greater scrutiny on the question. Review aggregator
Rotten Tomatoes gives the
miniseries a rating of 13% based on 15 reviews, with an average rating of 5.1/10. The site's consensus states, "Tedious and forgettable,
Texas Rising is full of offensive stereotypes and a messy multitude of unfocused characters and narratives."
Metacritic gives the miniseries a score of 52 out of 100, based on 12 reviews, indicating "mixed reviews". Days before the show aired, the
Associated Press' Lynn Elber wrote that, inspired by the success of the series "
Hatfields & McCoys" and "
The Bible", History channel lined up several impressive elements for the
Texas Rising series. Including shooting it in wide-screen CinemaScope and hiring Oscar-nominated Roland Joffe, "armies of extras [for use] in sprawling battle scenes, and getting Kris Kristofferson, George Strait and Jose Feliciano to add their own music along with the full symphonic score. In a review
Variety columnist Brian Lowry held that the show was "wonderfully cast and otherwise completely wooden". He maintained that it "juggles too many indifferently written, tough-talkin' characters, as if "
Lonesome Dove" had experienced a sharp blow to the head." Lowry held that the series did not live up to the level of History channel's previous series "Hatfields & McCoys". Lowry did hold that the concept of trying to fill in the gap for audiences of what happened after the Alamo was a good one, but that the series was unable to do so effectively. He held a major flaw was "the wholly one-dimensional way the Mexican are depicted and that the portrayal of Santa Anna invoked memories of the cartoon
Snidely Whiplash and the character
The Most Interesting Man in the World from the
Dos Equis advertising campaign. Lowry held that the show "pays more attention to the marketing campaign than the script". The
Washington Post reported that the series seemed more concerned with portraying those fighting for Texas's independence as if they were in
John Wayne's 1960 film "
The Alamo" rather than addressing the complexity of the actual historical events. An approach one might not suspect from a channel that is named "History". The Post held that it was "a love letter to the Lone Star State that some critics say broadcasts conservative politics and punctures History's educational veneer." The Post noted that "History" channel did offer other perspectives "including those of Mexicans, Native Americans and slaves" on the website created for the show but "some of these views didn't seem to make it into
Texas Rising." The
New York Daily News held that the show rekindled the excitement of the "Hatfields and McCoys", once you can identify all the players in the drama. They held that Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Olivier Martinez, and Cynthia Addai-Robinson gave standout performances. They recognized that some inaccuracies were included but even though "There's doubtless some dramatic license here. No matter. It's a classic campfire story, from a land that truly was the Wild West." Brian Moylan of
The Guardian was very critical of the series, complaining that the pacing was off with few battle scenes and too many shots of "dudes hanging around in grubby-looking clothing in front of tents talking about how awful Mexicans and Comanches are ... [and] a lot of dithering and boring discussion of military tactics". Despite this he did hold that it would appeal to the fans of History channel's "Hatfields and McCoys and "The Bible" because it displayed "libertarian and conservative sensibilities". He considered the other series superior to
Texas Rising criticising this series for "atrocious dialogue, poor characterization and mechanical acting" by comparison. Moylan held that the writing was bad as it failed to develop characters: "none of the characters exude any sort of individuality at all. In fact, by the end of the first two hours, you will hardly know anyone's name, their place in the hierarchy, or their contributions to the cause." And scenes attempting to establish character "are so heavy-handed that they will render more eye-rolls than engagement." Moylan also felt that the series suffered by lacking any "post-colonial reflection ... in the great scope of history. The line between good guys and bad guys is drawn as simply and thoughtlessly as it is in a backyard game of Cowboys and Indians." He held that his final verdict of the show was that it was "just dreadfully boring." On the positive side, Moylan viewed Adam Hicks' and Dillon Lane's performances as outstanding and also held that the "costumes, sets, and period details seem authentic and well rendered ... you don't doubt the period setting for a second." The
Inquisitr praised the series holding that due to the many dramatic representations of the fight itself the "focus on the aftermath of the 'Battle of the Alamo' was a brave one, and probably the best decision. Persons who were important to the Texas Revolution outside of that event will get their chance to shine." They also held that "the historical inaccuracies" were "a problem that's rather unavoidable". The Inquisitr held that complaints about the series' location backgrounds were unreasonable. Pointing out that Texas as a whole and San Antonio in particular does not look today like it did in the 1800s. The "landscape forever altered" - the city has "cars, paved roads ... [and] a population of nearly 27 million people". The Inquisitr admitted that the series had inaccuracies "such as [what] Texans believed about slavery prior to the Civil War and whether or not Sam Houston would have had a one night stand with the Yellow Rose of Texas." But held that the series should be viewed as within the genre of
Historical fiction. They maintained that it was unlikely "made with the intent of being 100 percent true to the times or the characters". They concluded that "it would be impossible for a well-produced and entertaining series to leave a unique mark on viewers by interpreting events exactly as history experts would want. Sometimes you have to shut up and suspend disbelief to enjoy something.
Texas Rising is meant to be entertaining and educational ... but mostly entertaining." ==Awards and nominations==