User Reviews

Sam Deeds is the Sheriff of Rio County, Texas. He lives in the shadow of his father and predecessor Buddy, something of a beloved local legend. After a skeleton is found in the desert with a rusted badge next to it, Sam investigates, certain that he knows to whom the bones and badge belong: the corrupt and cruel Charlie Wade, the Sheriff and scourge of Rio County before Buddy got the job. What Sam doesn't know is how much the investigation will change his life- and the lives of those around him- as long buried secrets are uncovered, reputations re-evaluated and histories reconstructed.

'Lone Star' is a smart, contemporary whodunnit western that is full of twists and turns one won't see coming. Helmed by John Sayles- a triple threat, taking up writing, directing and editing duties- the film is full of sharp dialogue and believable characters, as well as being a genuinely suspenseful mystery story. There is also an undercurrent of social commentary running throughout the picture- with particular regard to class, race and family- that is handled most efficaciously.

The narrative, partially told through flashbacks, rockets along at a fast pace; keeping the audience glued to the screen with attentions held captive. Sayles has allowed for moments of contemplation though; his editing is not overly brisk or brusque, suiting the tone of scenes adroitly.

Stuart Dryburgh's infallible and artful cinematography is really something to behold. His framing of images gives the film the feel of an 'epic,' as if David Lean had adapted a 'Zane Grey's Western Magazine'. His composition echoes the cowboy magazines and movies of the 50's, and you can practically feel the desert heat emanating off the screen because of his efforts.

Dryburgh was nominated for an Academy Award only once, for Campion's 'The Piano,' but his work in 'Lone Star' is arguably the best of his career; and should have gone recognized by the Academy- who instead gave the award that year to John Seale for his somewhat rudimentary work on 'The English Patient.'

Mason Daring's soundtrack and score is as atmospheric as Dryburgh's cinematography, using music from a variety of genres to highlight the melting pot of cultures in Rio County. His original compositions are most suspenseful, making already tense moments all the more emotionally taut. Dan Bishops' production design is rich, adding an aura of authenticity to the proceedings, as does Dianna Freas' set decoration and Shay Cunliffe's costume design.

The real star of the show is- appropriately- the star of the show: Chris Cooper, playing Sam Deeds. Cooper is one of the most understated actors working today, he disappears into roles like a chameleon of the silver screen. As Deeds, he brings wit, charm and resolve to the character that endears him to the audience immediately. You want his investigation to be successful and for him to find some balance in his life. Simply put: you root for the guy. Cooper made his debut in Sayles' powerful 'Matewan' in 1987, and the two have worked together numerous times (most recently on the hilarious 'Silver City' and 'Amigo'); 'Lone Star' may be their most entertaining collaboration.

The supporting cast are routinely excellent, from Elizabeth Peña as Cooper's love interest to Clifton James as the mayor and LaTanya Richardson as a young, confused soldier. There are two that are truly special, however: Ron Canada and Kris Kristofferson. Canada plays an embittered bar owner who never had a relationship with his straight-laced son, very well played by Joe Morton. Canada's layered, complex performance is one of much realism and depth.

Kristofferson plays the villainous Charlie Wade and clearly loves getting to play the bad guy for once. He struts around with a sinister gleam in his eye and an ever-present menacing grin, like an evil John Wayne for modern times. It is without question the best role he ever had and one of his finest performances as an actor.

'Lone Star' is a film that has a lot to offer. It is a delightful cocktail of a western, a whodunnit and a romance, featuring barbed social commentary and an exploration of family and fatherhood. To say it's Sayles' magnum opus would not be unfounded. A line from Kristofferson comes to mind when thinking about the film and its' characters: 'He's a walking contradiction, partly truth and partly fiction.' In the world of 'Lone Star', they're all walking contradictions; and the film is a remarkable piece of fiction.

In "Lone Star", a skull is found in an isolated part of a Texas border county which begins an investigation by the local Sheriff who must unlock a closet full of skeletons to solve the mystery. Critically acclaimed and a high scoring flick on this website, "Lone Star" is a film to be reckoned with. It features solid performances without the usual blockbuster star power, an engaging story, a real feel, and masterful editing which allows for a seamless presentation of the numerous flashbacks required to tell the story. You'll find little emoting or little reason to emote in this matter-of-fact contemporary film which ends with a kicker. Worth a look for just about anyone mature enough for the subject matter.

John Sayles is regarded as one of the best independent film-makers about and Lone Star is a film of a man in full throttle. Its a set of interwoven stories set in two time periods as Chris Cooper a border town sheriff who has returned to his home town where his father was a legendary Sheriff investigates a 40 year old murder that may have been committed by his own father. He also rekindles a romance with a childhood, Hispanic sweetheart that his father was very much against at the time.

The film is foremost a murder mystery but also deals with issues of police corruption, illegal immigration, justice, politics and racism. Sayles was rightly nominated for an Oscar for his screenplay.

Chris Cooper holds the film as the dogged sheriff. Kriss Kristofferson and Matthew McConaughey make effective cameos in flashback scenes. There is a strange cameo from Frances McDormand as Cooper's ex-wife who is dealing with mental health issues which probably led to their divorce.

The film is thoughtful, provocative and requires attention. Its not a slam bang or a slow burner. Many multiple stories come together as the past comes to haunt the present and relationships are made clearer.

The discovery of a skull and a sheriff's badge on a disused military firing range prompts Sheriff Sam Deeds to investigate. Sam has long lived in the shadow of his father Buddy, himself the sheriff at one time. However clues point to the fact that the skull may belong to Charley Wade, the corrupt sheriff who `vanished' to Mexico when Deeds challenged him many years prior. However when Sam begins to ask questions that go deeper than the legends, he finds secrets within the border town that hit very near home.

Having just watched The Hi Lo Country (a modern day western with a sprawling story but focused on one thing), I was put in mind to watch Lone Star again. Lone Star is easily the superior film and is a rich weaving of many characters and stories all around one event. The one event is the uncovering of an old murder (possibly) and this central investigation holds the attention easily. Within this investigation and the lives that Buddy affected we are shown a lot of subplots – some followed through, others just giving us enough background to understand the characters. All of these work very well and as a result you don't feel like the film is wandering when it moves away from the investigation by Sam. The subplots are so well translated that we are given a lot of back story to complex characters in a very short time.

For the script to be able to create so many characters that feel real and that have meaningful things going on is impressive. That it makes them all work is amazing and is due to Sayles both writing and editing. As director he is great as well, avoiding the washed out desert feel many `Mexico related' films have and instead goes for richer colours that reflect the rich mix of communities that are in his story.

The acting is faultless all round. No one actor stands out regardless of screen time simply because no one goes over the top and everyone realises they are playing part of a story – even Cooper (realistically the nearest thing to a lead actor) plays it down rather than taking the film over. Morton is good even if his character is the least connected to the investigation, McConaughey is strong despite being little more than a cameo, likewise with Kristofferson. McDormand has a small role but is very impressive as Deeds' ex-wife. Elizabeth Peña, so often dumped with almost token Espanic roles is given a real good part and works with it well. I could list them all, however if any one person stands out it can only be Sayles himself – he takes all the strands and brings them together. I watched a 90 minutes comedy earlier the same day that had dragged. At 130 minutes this simply flew – it is that engrossing.

Overall some will find it too slow, too character driven, sadly some will just not sit through a good story if that's all there is to it (all!). I think this was reflected in poor box office at the time (comparatively poor anyway). But those who have seen it will generally love it – if only more people would watch it! A final word on the film – the ending is shocking and sensationalist on paper and a lesser man would have made a big deal out of it. Sayles simply ends the film softly and leaves us the audience to take what we will from it. Low key from start to finish – I can't praise it enough.

I just bought this movie on DVD and watched it for the first time in a couple of years, and once again it amazed me. While most scripts stumble recklessly from one hackneyed plot device to another, "Lone Star" flows like a steady, winding river, never letting the viewer see too far downstream. The spine of the film is Sherrif Sam Deed's investigation into a thirty-year-old murder, yet this story is quickly absorbed by many finely scripted subplots and an overall theme on the futility of trying to escape history. While most directors can't help but show off when using flashy camera movement and jumps in continuity, Sayles employs such a subtle directing style that his leaps in time and location are seamless. Sayles fleshes out his script with subplots on racism, national pride, censorship, generation gaps, politics, social revisionism, and on and on. Most directors don't tackle this many topics in a career, yet Sayles juggles them all in one film without jamming them down the audiences' throats. If the subplots in Sayles' "City of Hope" were connected like a series of dominos, here they are gently woven together like a colorful, well-worn Southwestern quilt. The love story between Chris Cooper and Elizabeth Pena is both wistful and steamy. The film's social conscience is compelling. The father/son conflict between Otis and Delmore Payne (Ron Canada and Joe Morton) feels totally realistic. The dialoge is concise and insightful. Fate hangs over every character and every moment. Plus "Lone Star" has one of my favorite "final scenes", one that perfectly sums up the ironies of the film. It is simply one of the best movies I have ever seen.

I live in San Antonio and have been to Eagle Pass (where the movie was filmed) many times. I have watched this movie over a dozen times. It is a wonderful piece of film-making! John Sayles captures a lot in this film. His characters have depth and substance. His portrayals of the role racism has played in Hispanic and African-American lives are brilliant but not heavy-handed. The acting is incredible. The casting was perfect. Frances McDormand as Sam's ex-wife is unforgettable. I agree with another commenter that the camera work was exceptional when Sayles filmed flashback scenes using a single take. I especially liked the scene along the river with Sam and Pilar. I am sure there are some people who don't share my opinion, but this movie is one of my top ten favorites of all time.

... if ever there was one. Several trails, with their tails buried deep in the past and a few more recent, esoterically intertwined, slightly kinked and irregular, a little disturbing to boot. But that pretty much sums up what life really is, especially where many paths cross and are concentrated, amplified, with cultural differences, racial tensions, frictions.

This just ran tonight on HBO. I haven't watched it in a few years now. Lone Star has, if anything, improved with each viewing, which is really saying something because I remember how truly riveted and fulfilled I was on its first viewing in the theater. This is film-making at its very best.

This must be one of the all time greatest pieces of writing for the cinema. Period. So many characters are here and they're all richly developed and mined to make you think even more about the film's many themes. The story just hooks you right from the start and is utterly absorbing, and the layers of subplots and meanings reach dizzying heights of complexity and poignancy without sacrificing entertainment value. You practically walk away from the film saying "yes, for once someone has something to say and it's said so eloquently". To me, Lone Star is one of the masterpieces of American movies.

This has one of the greatest final lines that I've ever seen in a movie. That last line illuminates everything that has come before it in a way that is both shattering and ironic. The performances are uniformly superb, and you can just imagine what the cast was thinking, with the opportunity to perform this piece. All the technical aspects are first rate, which makes you truly wonder why movies cost so much in Hollywood. The music is outstanding. But at the end of the day, it's the incredible writing here that lingers. The second half of the movie pays off in spades due to the development of the many characters and sub plots that are so brilliantly interwoven. The movies Lone Star reminds me of most are The Last Picture Show, Chinatown, and Nashville. Take my word; if you like any of those pictures and haven't had the distinct pleasure of seeing Lone Star, please give it a chance. You will not be disappointed.

Sayles signs off the credits thus: Written, directed and edited by John Sayles. Most directors would have preferred to say the same in this order: Edited, written and directed by John Sayles. The last mentioned is often the substantive role. Sayles is not flippant when he makes these statements--he is aware of what he has contributed most in this work. It is the editing. The editing in this film is seamless and yet complex, switching from one era to another, one lighting to another with intelligent punctuation in cinematography (for example: tortillas covering banknotes) adding to the entertainment.

Sayles must be aware that he has achieved better milestones in direction than in "Lone Star." "Limbo" has a philosophical depth and maturity that overshadows the more earthy realities that lend color to "Lone Star." While individual performances in "Lone Star" cry out for recognition, the performances of the lead actors in "Limbo" are low key but nonetheless fascinating.

Sayles won plaudits for the screenplay and he deserved it. The social complexities that the screenplay presents interweaving three races and three families grabs the attention of the American social quilt. It's real and immediate. In "Limbo," the screenplay reaches out beyond America; it's more universal in appeal. The end scene of "Lone star" seems to have been the inspiration for the last shot of "Monster's Ball." While "Lone Star" will be remembered for individual personalities, Sayles' "Limbo" will be remembered for its brilliant philosophical, open-ended closing shot.

"Lone Star" was John Sayles' first look at a state, followed by "Limbo" (Alaska), "Sunshine State" (Florida) and "Silver City" (Colorado). This one focuses on a border town in Texas, and the influences of and conflicts between the white, black and Hispanic populations there. It starts when they discover the remains of racist Sheriff Charlie Wade (Kris Kristofferson), murdered under mysterious circumstances many years earlier; Sheriff Sam Deeds (Chris Cooper) leads the investigation. In the process of everything, we get to see - among other things - the battle over education in the Lone Star State: the school only wants to teach the white people's side of history, but Pilar Cruz (Elizabeth Pena) wants to teach it from the Mexican point of view. As it is, this town carries many secrets, many of which are about to blow open. This was, in my opinion, John Sayles' greatest movie ever. It is not to be missed.

Ive always admired Sayles as a writer and a filmmaker. His early films (Secaucus 7, Brother from Another Planet) even though they were rough and messy had wit and brilliant acting, but when he gets it right, he gets it right: Matewan and City of Hope are two examples of multi-layered stories with believable three-dimensional people in powerful situations. Lone Star is an amazing film: characters that are on screen for even a few minutes come of as real people, flesh and blood, no cardboard cut-outs here. Great performances from Chris Cooper, Kris Kristofferson, Elizabeth Pena, Joe Morton and many, many more. Taut, funny, thrilling and emotional. Great film by a great talent.

Kind of hard to review because it was an "easy" watch. Never lagged - BUT - it developed multiple threads and then threw most of them away without resolution. Why did Matthew McConaughey's picture show up at all? Because he phoned it in for a check. Maybe 10 minutes of screen time. We watch characters introduced, then forgotten and unresolved. The whole point was "who dun it?" That is given away almost at once, as well as being forgone that nothing will come of the final revelation. I think the whole movie rides on the authentic western feel, and some strong performances The story is pointless and all over the place, and the ending is - well, an attempt to be controversial? Nah, just another undeveloped theme. Watch it.

Mess of unwatchable subplots sloppily strung together featuring a lifeless ensemble. Literally facepalming by the 12th overused flashback transition. No efforts made to create interest in any of the characters. Title is indicative of rating.

John Sayles' direction of this film reminded me of Hitchcock in that I was always aware of the director's style and I enjoyed it every bit as much as the acting and the story. Like "Godfather," this is a tale of families and how the sins of the fathers cast their shadows over the generations. To illustrate the connection, Sayles will slowly track his camera from a conversation in one part of a room to another part of the same room where characters who lived 25 years earlier are conversing. The years have passed, we realize, but all the characters, even the dead ones, are in this together. The technique may sound strange, but it works magically. And another thing: I've always thought Kris Kristofferson was a better singer than actor, and a better songwriter than singer. But in this film he turns in an outstanding performance as a very very bad Texas border town sheriff who disappeared years ago and whose bones have just turned up in the desert. At least we think those are his bones, and to solve the puzzle, the current sheriff, son of the man who became sheriff when Kris disappeared, must dig further than he wants into the town's secrets. And once again, knowing how the film ends makes subsequent viewings just as fascinating as the first.

An entrancing yarn that takes place in a small, quiet Texas border town where the memories of two former lawmen, the crooked Charlie Wade (Kris Kristofferson) and the legendary Buddy Deeds (Matthew McConaughey) are slowly resurrected when the remains of Wade are found on an deserted Army firing range by Deeds' son, Sam (Chris Cooper), who is the current town sheriff. Throughout the movie, Sam visits some of the locals and asks each one if they knew what happened to Wade and if Buddy had a role in the murder. Writer-director-editor John Sayles serves up an unpredictable gem here with a great cast that includes Joe Morton, Elisabeth Pena, Frances McDormand, etc., and to me, it seems like nearly all the characters here make sense right up to the end.

This is the only film I've ever seen for the first time, and then rewound and watched straight through again without even getting up for a cup of coffee. I don't even know where to begin in listing its qualities. Few films succeed in addressing such complex issues as race; our relationships with our parents; the nature of our attitudes to history; and the way the past shapes our lives in so subtle a manner as this. Somehow, John Sayles has managed to touch on all of these questions, without at any point being didactic, and to deal with them realistically and with respect to their complexity.

Most amazingly of all, Sayles shows all sides of the various arguments running through the film and yet still manages to produce solutions, or at least the hope of solutions. That he is able to achieve this is a consequence of the humanity of his outlook. With the exception of Charlie Wade - the one straightforward character in the script - everybody in this film is complicated, realistic and, above all, sympathetic. The smallest cameo parts - the old lady playing a gameboy; the "as liberal as the next guy" bartender - are more interesting and plausible than the central characters in the majority of films.

All this in a film which is not ostensibly character- or issue-driven. A film which instead features an involving mystery and an affecting romance, as well as numerous subplots (all beautifully paced and integrated), and in which almost everything proves to be connected.

Great works of art shouldn't have to throw their message into the audience's faces. Instead, as the audience looks at their more superficial aspects of beauty or excitement, they should be drawn into their subtleties and more interesting depths. In Lone Star, everything - the arguments about race and the past, the tangible sense of a real community, the subversiveness of the film's ending - flows from what is at base simply a good story. This film is one of the outstanding achievements of 90s American cinema 10/10.

Cris Cooper (Sam), a Rio county sheriff is investigating a case of few decades old skeleton found in the towns border. As the investigation goes on Sam unravels many hidden truth regarding his father Late Buddy Deeds who was a Rio Town legend and the former sheriff Charlie Wade who was popular for his misdoing during his tenure and went missing 40 years ago.

This film also emphasizes on the treatment of immigrants from Mexico in Texas region during that time.

Surprisingly, you'll find McConaughey who plays Buddy Deeds in supporting role with limited screen time and Cris Cooper in lead role which he perfectly masters.

John Sayles' best film: amazing, epic story; beautifully told in elegant flashbacks, featuring Chris Cooper in one of his best roles. A film of stunning beauty and humanity - and also very entertaining. 9 stars out of 10.

In case you're interested in more underrated masterpieces, here's some of my favorites:

imdb.com/list/ls070242495

This film is not without redeeming features but, on the whole, is boring and meaningless. Maybe I just can't relate to life on the border??? In any case, there's no way it deserves the 8 it's currently running at. I noticed someone compared it to 'Age of Innocence', interesting, a hell of a stretch but they share one thing in common - they're both terminally dull (although AofI wins that category). If you want clever and cerebral film-making try somewhere else. 6/10

John Sayles is one of the best--and certainly among the most interesting--American directors working in film today. Self-financed on a small budget, using his large number of talented friends as cast and crew, Sayles crafts films that owe allegiances to no one but himself. Virtually never does he make the same film twice, and almost all of them are a great pleasure to watch.

"Lone Star" is Sayles' masterpiece. It succeeds on every level: as mystery, as romance, as social commentary. Set in a Texas border town, it creates a rich world peopled with characters and situations we understand and identify with.

There is plot, mood, color, drama, passion, suspense and even humor, but if pressed to explain what it really is about, I would say that the theme is how the present is a product of the past, and how people are given opportunities to be imprisoned by it or to transcend it.

"Lone Star" is one of only two American films of this decade (the other is "Schindler's List") to which I would give a '10'. It's been a long time since I have felt so thoroughly challenged, entertained and satisfied by a single piece of art.

John Sayles' "Lone Star" is, above all else, a film about the past, personal and historical, and its impact on the citizens of a small Texas town. The opening of the film sets up the theme quite nicely - we can imagine what kind of past Sayles is exploring here when two bullet collectors discover the skeleton of a corrupt sheriff. Surely, it's not a past of flowers and rainbows, but a dark and sordid one, full of conflict, greed and power struggles. Thus it comes as a surprise that a film about people who attempt to uncover the mystery and deal with the findings ends so neatly. In doing so "Lone Star" misses greatness, but it is hardly a bad film.

That's because Sayles understands the interaction between temporal ecstasies rather well. The past affects the present and vice-versa. He shows us that we derive our identity from the past, our sense of belonging and of community. We see this illustrated through the mosaic of stories, a form of narrative brought to its perfection in "Magnolia" or "13 Conversations About One Thing." There is the sheriff played superbly by the pre-"American Beauty" Chris Cooper who gets drawn into the mystery out of duty and because of his father, in whose shadow he lives. There is his former love interest, a Mexican teacher who attempts to justify teaching a more complex version of Texan history to the kids, only to be countered by the white minority of Rio County. And we have Colonel Delmore Payne played by Terminator-2-black-guy-who-dies-to-save-the-future Joe Morton whose misconception of the past prevents a relationship with his father.

The past affects the way these characters perceive themselves, others and it steers the choices they make. However Sayles' film would be incomplete if it settled for a one-sided relationship between the past and the present. Sayles is aware of this. The present, after all, also impacts they way the characters perceive the past. Cooper's Sheriff Sam Deeds is influenced by the image of his father in his investigation. The white parents of school kids carry certain biases which prevent them from understanding the complexity of the past.

These interactions are fascinating when they are unraveling. Relationships build, racial and generational conflicts emerge, perceptions change and choices are made. All this occurs against a large temporal backdrop, but it comes to a far too conclusive end. While you're watching "Lone Star," the atmosphere comes alive, but by its conclusion, it becomes clear that it's a neatly dissected tale about intersecting stories that were designed to come together. The film detaches itself from the viewer and says "all that was supposed to happen happened exactly as planned - you may go." The problem, of course, is that the issues presented by the film should not be entirely resolved. Yes, the mystery of the skeleton, which really occurs in the background (though it drives the story), should arguably be explained. But the rest - it seems like Sayles put a lot of effort into characters that aren't allowed to argue, conflict and interact after the credits.

Still, that's just me quibbling because I really wanted more. The truth of the matter is that "Lone Star" is a remarkably structured and directed film. It's got phenomenal performances by Chris Cooper (who always stars in *almost* great films - e.g. "Adaptation" or "American Beauty"), Kris Kristofferson as the skeleton before he becomes one and Matthew McConaughey (whom I generally don't like) as Cooper's father. "Lone Star" is worth seeing because it has the makings of a great film. It just isn't one.

The flashbacks with Kris Kristofferson are some of the most moving and brilliant scenes on film. He should have got an Oscar nomination. Chris Cooper and Elizabeth Pena have great romantic chemistry. There is so much more going on just besides the mystery of who killed Charlie Wade so many years ago. All the actors are wonderful, in a great setting, and great script. The ending is my favorite part, when the biggest secret of all is revealed. It shows that love can overcome anything. 10/10

Can someone please tell me what is wrong with me, because I don't consider this movie as being one of the best ever made? Sure it has some nice things to offer and yes I had some fun watching it, but overall it isn't all that special, making it deserve such a high score (a 7.7/10 right now). Perhaps it is because I'm not familiar with Texan small boarder town politics. I don't know, but when some small changes would be added to it, this would be a story that could have been told everywhere, not just in Texas or even the USA and that's also it's biggest problem in my opinion. Despite the location it wasn't too special.

When the 40-year-old remains of a dead man are found on a former shooting range, Sam Deeds, the local sheriff is called to investigate this murder. As he digs deeper into the past, it's getting more and more obvious that his father, the legendary former sheriff Buddy Deeds, has had a lot to do with some dark town secrets, which the older inhabitants prefer not to be revealed. While he puzzles out the long-past events, Sam also tries to restart a romance with his old high-school flame, but in a town where nothing is what it seems, that can be a very difficult thing to do...

What I liked most about this movie was the fact that the characters had some depth. What I fear most about many movies is that the characters are too easy to understand, making you know everything about them too quickly in the movie. That's certainly not the case with this movie. Even at the end of it, you'll get some surprising information about some people. I'm not going to tell you what that is of course, because I don't want to spoil the fun, but it sure works. But despite the fact that the characters have been well developed, it doesn't save the entire story of the movie. Somehow it all looked a bit too stereotypical and obvious.

Despite the fact that this movie doesn't have any real big names in the cast, the acting certainly is OK and the same can be said about the direction of John Sayles. What he did with this movie wasn't exactly the most original approach possible, but it worked and that's what counts. Overall I liked it enough to recommend it, but it just isn't worth the actual rating. I would rather like to give it a 6.5/10.

If you're looking for an underwatched gem like i was, this isn't it. There is no central plot and all the sub plot stories that actually fill in the run time.......they are pretty bland and not worth your time.

And no i'm not some rightwinger who's "triggered" by the "leftist" politics where the teachers are telling the white people "tell the kids the truth about our history and the Mexicans". It's just that i don't need such surface level/uninspired racial drama when i can walk outside and see the same crap in the real world.

If you're going to make it political/racial at least do it well.

So if you're here for the politics don't bother, if you're hear for the mystery about the death, don't bother.