One of the first things I do after watching a movie I really like, is checking reviews of others...professionals and amateurs, as listed here. It's very frustrating reading some of them. Why do people compare them? Why do they look for faults? Why do they not see and praise the positive aspects and ease up on critical commentary? It's like comparing apples & oranges & bananas & strawberries, etc. Comparing a film to the book or a previous film seems overly critical to me. It always bothered me when Siskel & Ebert & Roeper, et al. rated films as bad or good...thumbs up or down...see it or don't see it. Streets of Laredo is a perfect example. A lot of superb work was put into this fascinating sequel by the director, the cinematographer, the actors, the music composer, the art directors and more. It deserves more than comparisons with the equally superb mini-series Lonesome Dove and its fabulous other sequels. James Garner's Woodrow Call was terrific, so was Tommy Lee Jones' but is it fair to compare them? Cissy Spacek's Lorena was just as good as Diane Lane's as were Sam Shephard's and Tim Scott's Pea Eye interpretations. How do you rate cake and pie? Is one better than the other? Should you condemn it to thumbs down or tell others to avoid it? Maybe to some people this is the way. One constant in all the LD sequels is Larry McMurtry's brilliant characterizations. And don't complain about character development. It takes time to develop a character's nuances and profile. E.G Archie Bunker, Mary Richards, Barney Miller and friends. How long a movie do you want to watch? To wrap it up, Streets of Laredo is a superb film with great acting, directing, cinematography, and a stirring musical score and more. So was Lonesome Dove, Return to Lonesome Dove, Dead Man's Walk, Comanche Moon and the TV series. They're all different but great!