SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Grimerlana Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Catherina If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

levistie First off, I must confess that I am an Alamo junky. So my review might be a bit skewed. I've seen most films dealing with the Alamo or the Texas revolution (The Alamo (1960), The Alamo (2004), The Last Command, Gone to Texas, Heroes of the Alamo (930 B.C.), Davy Crockett at the Alamo, Texas, etc.) I just watched this one all the way through today for the first time since I was about ten.I think this adaptation, despite it's flaws, probably ranks in the top three Alamo films. Strictly from a film perspective, it certainly has problems. The lack of budget makes for a handful of extras playing both armies. The Mexican army, which is suppose to number in the thousands, looks to consist of little more than ten soldiers the majority of the time. The battle scenes are laughable for the most part. Most of the footage, as has been noted many times, is lifted from the Last Command. The rest of the scenes feature rubber bayonets and men appearing to wrestle, rather than fight for their lives, in the background.That said, I think with some money behind it, this could have been a great film. While every review I have read seems to praise the actor who played Santa Anna, Raul Julia I believe was his name, I find his constant yelling to be a bit over the top. I actually thought Brian Keith was a wonderful Davy Crockett. His down home yarns and backwoods twang comes across as entirely genuine. Also, note his expression as he swings his hunting knife just before his death. It is such a convincing portrayal of a last stand by a man. It is a pity that he is about thirty years to old to play Crockett. My hat goes off to him nonetheless. The same can be said for James Arness. His massive build and piercing eyes gives him that sort of John Wayne screen presence, to a far lesser degree of course. Again, a bit too old for the role. Alec Baldwin actually makes for a very convincing Travis. He is much closer in age and does a brilliant job. Highlights would be his last speech to the men as well as his conversation with James Bonham before hand.I also thought the screenplay was very good. Minus some of the exchange between Daniel Cloud and his Mexican love interest. Although, it is more the acting and less the writing that hurts those scenes. The script moves the story along at a steady pace and is concerned more with telling the story and less with giving a history lesson, a flaw that haunts many Alamo films and period pieces in general.Overall, I think this is a good "Alamo" film. It is probably not a good "film" film. That is to say unless you like the Alamo, you may not enjoy this movie. As made for t.v. movies go, especially in the eighties, it is not that bad. You have two great icons in Keith and Arness playing lead roles, as well as the upstart Alec Baldwin. Not a bad cast at all for a low budget film. Burt Kennedy does a good job of directing considered what he is given. As an "Alamo" film, I would probably rate this as a 7 or 8 out of 10. But as a "film" film goes it gets about a 5 out of 10. With a bigger budget and a younger Brian Keith and James Arness, this could have been a great film. It might have won Oscars in the Golden Age of Hollywood!

theowinthrop The best film on the battle of San Antonio, Texas in March 1836, was John Wayne's 1960 epic THE ALAMO. In a one shot job as director producer, that temporarily financially strapped him, Wayne demonstrated that he was talented in movie making outside of his icon-like acting ability personifying the West.I have commented on that film in a review the other night, and I pointed out that Wayne and James Edward Grant (the screenwriter) tackled some points that were barely mentioned in earlier films about the battle. They did bring in the issue of slavery. They also finally discussed the contribution of local Mexican land owner Juan Seguin as an important leader in the War for Independence on par with Crockett, Bowie, Travis, Austin, and Houston. But there was one weakness (though well hidden) in the film. Wayne worked hard to cast it properly, thinking of many people for lead roles in it. But, he did not properly handle the leader of the enemy forces, General Antonio De Santa Anna. The role was played by an obscure actor, Ruben Padilla (on this board, his thread shows only three credits listed). Padilla did not have any spoken dialog (even in Spanish). And while he does have one of the last shots in the film, he just is shown as a silent tyrant, observing the burning of the bodies of the Americans and their allies.Despite several poor choices in the casting of this television movie (THE ALAMO: THIRTEEN DAYS TO CLORY), it is the best film in showing the man who was (from 1836 to 1854) a leading bogeyman to American policy makers. Raul Julia was a wonderful stage actor. I was fortunate to see him in a production (in the late 1980s) of ARMS AND THE MAN in Manhattan, as Sergius. He was never boring, and usually first rate in his acting.Here we see the egotistical monster at his worst. Nothing is acceptable that does not fit Santa Anna's wishes or activities. It can be the failure of an orderly in the army to bring some item he requested fast enough, or it can be the temerity of these "foreign brigands" (as he saw the Americans) in not knuckling down to himself, "the Napoleon of the West".Santa Anna was President of Mexico five or six times between 1830 and 1855. He claimed that he first got involved in overthrowing a President because that President did not live up to the country's constitution, but it was the power that kept him going year after year. It is a sad commentary that he was the leading Mexican historical figure in those two decades. No political figure or military figure would rise to override him until Benito Juarez did in the late 1850s. Initially he claimed great liberal ideals, but he once admitted that the people of Mexico were children who needed guidance for one hundred years before they could rule themselves (and thus he sounds like Gilbert Roland in CRISIS talking about the people he has helped lead against Jose Ferrer). The amazing thing about him was he managed to keep coming back. His policies were disasters. While we know about his attack on Texas (to put down a revolt there), he also tried to expand into Guatamala (and probably saw himself controlling much of Central America). He did win at the Alamo, but at great cost of lives. His massacre of Col. Fannin's men at Goliad was inexcusable (one might make a case for the destruction of the defenders of the Alamo who were fighting to the last, but Fannin had surrendered). Then came the disaster of San Jacinto, where his army was wiped out (he failed to take adequate precautions to watch for the American troops). He was captured, and humiliated, and forced to sign a surrender of Texas. Houston was kind to him: the troops wanted to string him up.Except for losing a leg in a battle against the French in 1838, he managed not to get wounded in most of his wars. He repudiated the forced surrender of Texas, but could not militarily undue it. Instead, he would lead Mexico into defeat in the war of 1846 - 48 against the Americans, leading to the Mexican Session. The U.S. was "decent" enough to pay Mexico $15,000,000 for the Southwest, but Mexico lost half of it's territory. He would be President for the last time in 1853, in time to give Franklin Pierce's horrendously bad administration it's one moment of glory - Santa Anna sold the border of Arizona and New Mexico (the "Gadsden Purchase") to the U.S. No other Mexican President (not even Porfirio Diaz) ever cost his country so much (Diaz did sell out to foreign business interests, but he built up Mexico's economic muscles doing so). He was exiled in 1855, and settled in Staten Island. There he managed to do his most creative work: he introduced chicle to the U.S., and it became chewing gum. Some achievement! Julia's Santa Anna is younger than the practiced cynic and schemer who became America's best land purchase agent. He is not going to stand for opposition and he jumps into furious tantrums at a moment's notice. Most of the time his chief aide, Col. Black (David Ogden Stiers, here a British born officer) holds his tongue - he does not wish to be in front of a firing squad as he could be. But Stiers is secretly less than enchanted by his boss. At the end, when alone with the newly widowed wives of the dead Alamo defenders, Stiers suggests that they tell the world what Santa Anna is really like. And they did!

frankfob Burt Kennedy used to be a very good director, but you'd never know it by this lumbering mess. Not only does this film look cheap, it IS cheap--most of the battle scenes are lifted from the far superior "The Last Command" from 1955, and that footage, shot 32 years previously, looks more contemporary than anything in this picture. The few action scenes that were actually shot for this movie are disorganized, confused and incompetent, looking just as shoddy as the rest of the picture. This has the look and feel of a bad student film (and the budget didn't seem to be a whole lot more). It moves like molasses, the acting for the most part is either over-the-top ham or under-the-top comatose--although Raul Julia comes off better than most of the rest of the cast--and it's chock full of annoying historical inaccuracies. On top of that, it's WAY too long. If you're going to make a boring film, do it in an hour or so and get it over with--don't stretch it out over three hours, like this one does. If you want to see a good movie about the Alamo, check out John Wayne's 1960 version, or even the 1955 film from which this movie stole its action scenes. Hard to believe it took six producers to make a movie this lousy. Skip it.

Zibi I loved this movie. It really captured what went on in the Alamo and made you really respect and honor those men who bravely fought. I even cried at the end, it was so sad. Watch the movie and learn a little history.