Benedito Dias Rodrigues
In my school's days l was quite often got high grades in History,but reading a lot of books and documentaries later l realize how the winners rigged those facts,just for one reason,the proud!!!They never explain in simple way how all war is awful for many points of view, the Alamo is one of them,what's could change the history if all texans retreat for a while and get help from Sam Houston of US's army to get Texas later???Why so many people had to die for almost nothing,like Col Jim Bowie who had thousands Texans acres and had another purposes to stay,beware with history tranferred to the movies,all them were poisoned by honor and proud,the Texas in that time was a free land who belonged by native indians,invaded by both nations,first by Mexico and later by USA,somehow by nature of power this huge territory will be american soon or later whatever were the result of Alamo's battle,the all men killed in these fight were unreasonable,the picture spoke for itself!!!Resume:
First watch: 1988 / How many: 3 / Source: TV-DVD / Rating: 7
Wuchak
Released in 1960 and produced/directed by John Wayne, "The Alamo" is a Western about the 1836 siege and fall of the famous Spanish mission-turned-fortress by Santa Anna's army of a couple thousand disciplined troops. The Alamo is defended by a ragtag assortment of roughly 200 soldiers, militia men and volunteers, including the famous frontiersman & politician Davy Crockett, loose cannon Jim Bowie and by-the-book militarist Colonel William Travis, the latter two regularly butting heads. Sam Houston (Richard Boone) is on hand as a significant peripheral character. As early as 1945 it was Wayne's goal to film a picture about the Alamo and James Edward Grant was hired to write the screenplay, but Wayne and the president of Republic Pictures, Herbert Yates, clashed over the estimated high cost and the fact that Yates only wanted John to star in the movie, not produce & direct. Wayne left Republic over the feud while the studio took the script and released 1955's "The Last Command," which I've never seen. Meanwhile, John started his own production company with Robert Fellows to forge "The Alamo," which came out five years later and naturally shares many elements of "The Last Command." The first two-thirds of "The Alamo" is a steady build-up culminating in the thrilling and utterly savage attack on the Alamo in the final act. The movie is surprisingly evenhanded with the events (considering it was 1960) and works despite inaccuracies, like the death of Bowie's wife, which actually took place a YEAR before Santa Anna's siege, not to mention the final assault, which took place in the dark of the pre-dawn hours. In the movie's defense, it does show the attack taking place at first light, which would make it only about 2-3 hours off from when it really happened. Wayne obviously made the decision to shoot in the daytime so viewers could actually SEE what was going on, rather than deal with the numerous negatives that come with shooting in the dark. As far as the story goes, it's all about the characters because, if we don't care about the protagonists, the final assault falls flat, despite the awesome action. Thankfully, Wayne as Crockett, Richard Widmark as Bowie, and Laurence Harvey as William Travis deliver the goods, not to mention the script. All three are phenomenal in their own unique way. They're doomed to die, of course, but when their deaths occur they're both shocking and moving. This version is just all-around more entertaining than the dreary 2004 version, although that rendition earns points for being way more realistic and giving Santa Anna considerable screen time, which this version doesn't do at all. Not to mention, the 2004 film ends with the humiliating defeat of Santa Anna & his army in a mere 18 minutes just six weeks after the fall of the Alamo. The rallying cry of Sam Houston & the Texian Army was naturally "Remember the Alamo!" Basically, Wayne filmed the Spirit of the Alamo with everything that goes with it, like big historical speeches, while the newer film tries for a more accurate telling.But keep this in mind: No movie has ever been made, or will ever be made, about the Alamo that's thoroughly accurate, except for the obvious gist of things. Why? Because ALL of the defenders were killed. Even the Mexican eyewitnesses who were there disagreed on the major events that took place. For example, there are those who claim Davy Crockett was killed in the assault, as shown in this version, while others say he survived the battle along with 5-6 others only to be captured, lined up, and executed, as depicted in the 2004 film. So any movie you see about the Alamo is going to contain a lot of conjecture.Dimitri Tiomkin's score is a dramatic, thrilling and tragic multifaceted piece that captures the slow build-up, eventual battle and aftermath. Carter Burwell's score for the 2004 version is mediocre by comparison; while certainly adept and adequate, it puts a dreary overcast over the proceedings. The short version of the film, which is the only one I've seen, runs 161 minutes and was shot in Brackettville, Texas. The long version runs 40 minutes longer, but 10 minutes of that consists of (unnecessary) overture, intermission, and exit music, which leaves 30 minutes of deleted scenes. Naturally, some of these scenes help make sense of certain sequences in the shorter version, such as a fight in the church where the arms are discovered and the leader of the non-patriots is killed; that is, the man who tried to force Mexican beauty Flaca (Linda Crystal) to marry him. In the short version he just seems to disappear into thin air. Another scene that should've never been cut is the death of the Parson (Hank Worden) because it ties into the earlier conversation that Crockett had with him: When Flaca leaves and the Parson asks Davy if he ever prayed Crockett responds that he never had the time. In Parson's death scene Crockett takes the time. Another significant cut scene involves the birthday party of Captain Dickinson's daughter, which I've heard is moving.Aside from Linda Crystal in the female department, Joan O'Brien appears as stunning blond Sue Dickinson, one of the surviving non-combatants who supplied one significant account of events inside the fort. GRADE: Borderline A- or B+ (7.5/10)
grantss
Overwrought, overly-macho take on a very historic event. Should have been simple enough: tell the story of the Battle of the Alamo with some good, epic action scenes and some character development. The action scenes are there, and are good. However, the character development is quite superficial: there are no shades of grey. Travis is a martinet, Crockett and Bowie are one-dimensional, anarchic, uber- hero adventurers. Moreover, director John Wayne and writer James Edward Grant add in several sub-plots which have no bearing on the story. Yes, some are there to add some colour to the characters, but they just seem gratuitous and wholly unnecessary. Acting is almost all of the over-the-top macho variety. John Wayne was always going to be the swaggering hero (that's all he knows), and, as he is director, now he has licence to crank up the swagger. Richard Widmark comes close to matching him in this regard. Only Laurence Harvey, as Travis, plays it straight. Too straight: he comes off as cranky.Surprisingly, despite all the hammy acting that abounds, this movie got an acting Oscar nomination. Chill Wills was nominated for Best Supporting Actor, for his performance as Beekeeper. Probably the most undeserved Oscar nomination in history. Apparently his marketing campaign in attempting to get the Oscar is worth a movie itself...This all said, this version is still far better than the one from 2004.
