Alamo

Considering that THE ALAMO lost a ton of money when it debuted, I was amazed that despite its faults, the film is worth watching--though historically speaking, the film is far from perfect.

Let's talk about the historical problems with the film. It is true that General Santa Ana was indeed an idiot and one of the most inept leaders you could imagine (read up about "the Pastry War" and his leg's subsequent lavish funeral and you'll know what I mean). Nevertheless, one of the problems that Texans had with Mexican rule was that it would not allow slavery--not just that the General was a dumb dictator. This important fact was never mentioned and there was a rather insulting character of a slave who was given his freedom just before the Mexicans slaughtered everyone. In the film, he chose to stay and die and even went so far as to throw his body across his master's to try to prevent the master's death. While I suppose this could have happened, it is very doubtful. I think this was distorted because John Wayne (who bankrolled and directed the film) wanted to make a super-patriotic film and talking about the slavery debate would have definitely weakened his narrative--though I am sure the Black Americans who saw the film were offended. The Texans were patriots, but flawed as well.

An interesting contrast is how the Mexicans were portrayed in the film. Santa Ana's troops were portrayed as brave and loyal and Hispanics were humanized in the movie. In addition, John Wayne took quite a fancy to a lovely Mexican lady in the first half of the film. This sympathetic view is not surprising, though, as Wayne's real life wives were Mexican.

Despite the hyperbole and sentimentality that abounds in the film, you really do have to applaud the film for several reasons. The battle sequences are rather amazing and well-done. Also, some of the many little vignettes were rather moving and interesting. However, all these little touches did make the movie very, very long--probably about 10-20 minutes too long. Had it been tightened up a bit, it might have flowed better and prevented "butt fatigue" in the audience! The film just wasn't compelling enough during the first 3/4 of the film--though the movie did end on a very high note with the final battle. I actually love long films--but this one just didn't need to be.

I think overall that the film is a mixed bag--not nearly as bad as its reputation would suggest, is very exciting and has some excellent performances, though its rather one-dimensional view of the conflict and its extreme length have to be considered before you watch it.

I think that even people who love this movie have to admit that The Alamo is the ultimate self-indulgent John Wayne vanity project. It's a three hour film produced by, directed by, and starring the Duke alongside a cast of thousands.

The first half certainly lives up to the self-indulgent label with endless scenes of Wayne and pals getting drunk, mouthing off, and punching one another; Jim Bowie and Colonel Travis' constant bickering, leading to Bowie's quitting at least twice; and a fairly useless subplot with Davey Crockett romancing a pretty young Mexican widow. (She was pretty hot.)

Instead of all that, we should have rode a bit with Santa Anna and/or visited some of the other battles and skirmishes that led up to the siege at the Alamo.

I thought that Richard Widmark was miscast as Jim Bowie. My preference would have been that Widmark and Richard Boone switch roles with Boone as Bowie and Widmark as Sam Houston, though I'll admit that it would be awfully hard to see Richard Boone cry like a baby in the scene where Bowie finds out his wife has died.

The second half is much better with great scenes of macho speech-making and awesome battle sequences that put the climaxes to other films I recently watched (Custer Of The West, El Condor, Two Mules For Sister Sara) to shame. Overall, the second part makes the movie worth watching.

I would be doing a great disservice if I didn't mention the excellent score by Dimitri Tiomkin.

I have seen both the long Director's Cut and the short theatrical release.

The Short version is the DVD release, which was ok, the film goes much faster but it leaves many holes in the plot.

The Long Version helps to fill in the plot holes, watch this version if you really like long films and are into history quite heavely, otherwise stick with the short version if you just want entertainment value, plus it still manages to keep your attention.

This film is truly a masterpiece that will be enjoyed for Generations to come.

I'll come clean.. I really liked this movie.... O.K there will be those who decry it for historical accuracy and some of the liberties taken with the depiction of some of the characters etc...... but at the end of the day this movie is entertainment and I have sure seen movies a lot worse than this. Likely if all the events and persons were accurately presented , the result might well have been a boring lecture/travelogue. Instead there is the "Duke" John Wayne in true John Wayne style and his able cast giving us a rousing movie and with loosely enough facts to make it believable. Imagine the reaction of moviegoers of the day, if John Wayne was not the larger than life John Wayne in turn playing the even more larger than life Davy Crockett ! Movie-goers of the time who expected to see the style of John Wayne got exactly that. Likely in America where "remember the Alamo" is of much importance, any movie-maker would have his work cut out to please everyone - Wayne's effort should be judged on the attitudes of the time and his personal battle to get the movie made at all.

As purely entertainment in the western/action style this movie stacks up. There are those who mention the "slow" segments ... what do you want 167 minutes of cannon fodder and gore ? True the movie portrays events from the American viewpoint, yet Wayne does pay homage to the gallantry of the Mexican forces.

The musical score is also very memorable with a haunting main theme.

Big mythical heroes, big scenes, and big fun .. enjoy .

I love this movie as much as anyone, but the recently released DVD is inexplicably almost half an hour shorter than the version of this film that has been in release on video and laserdisc for years. Why, oh why MGM/UA did this, I don't know, but I know I am not keeping my copy of it. I got worried when this new version didn't have an overture...but I can live without that. However, when Richard Widmark's first scene occurred and over half of it was missing, I could only groan.

Shame on you MGM/UA. This movie is more than a classic for a good many of us. You should release the cut that you have been putting out for years now, the one that is 3 hours, 10 mins.