Rating: 
Summary: This Alamo or John Wayne's, enjoy them both.
Review: As with all historical films the makers of The Alamo have had to balance historical accuracy with entertainment value. To me they got the balance right. I know that other reviewers have criticized the accuracy of the film, but given that CNN was not arround at the time and that one side was wiped out how can we realy know the truth? In any event what ever inaccuracies there are in the film they are as nothing as compared with most historic blockbusters.
There is no need to compare this film with the John Wayne version ( as popular in Britain as in America ). You can enjoy them both, John Wayne was deliberately making an epic in line with the conventions of the time, soppy songs, hard drinkers and pop star drafted in to attract the teenagers. It appears to me that in this film the makers have tried to produce a film with a historic basis rather than a historical epic. In the Wayne version the Duke and Richard Widmark as brilliant as they are, are playing John Wayne and Richard Widmark. Billy Bob Thornton and Jason Patric are playing Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie. In the 1960 version a man proved he was a man by hard drinking, in this version Bowie forbids his men to drink.
THe main characters on the Texan side are well drawn and in this film Sam Houston is a major figure, Sadly the same cannot be said for the Mexicans. Apart from one shot of a Mexican soldier holding a dead comrade, the Mexicans are portrayed in no real depth. I do not know a lot about Mexican history but was Santa Anna really the cardboard villan he appears in this film? If the Mexicans had been treated with a bit more sympathy I would have given this film the full five stars. However at least it is made plain that some Spanish speakers did fight for Texan independence and that one of them, Juan Seguin, collected and buried the bodies after the battle.
The best reason to watch this film however is Billy Bob Thornton, if there is a better film actor on either side of the Atlantic he must be good. As Davy Crockett he plays the legendary hero as a man not sure if he can live up to his own myth. An Oscar nomination at least or there is no justice.
There are good performances from Jason Patric and Dennis Quaid as Bowie and Houston and for once the English are not the villans.
Rating: 
Summary: excellent and NOT a whitewash
Review: The reviewer who points out that the defenders of the Alamo supported slavery and then gives the film only 1 star because it doesn't tell the truth about the pro-slavery stance of Alamo defenders towards slavery must have missed much of the film. Slavery is not ignored in this film. IT'S IN THE MOVIE. SLAVERY IS INDEED A PART OF THIS FILM. Defenders of the Alamo are shown to be slave owners. The perspective of those humans who are enslaved is also given in this film and done well. Slavery is in no way left out of the equation. This film shows various perspectives and sides and doesn't hide the flaws of those involved. I liked that.
Rating:
Summary: The Alamo
Review: Absolutely one of the best historic films I have ever seen. It brought tears to my eyes. This one is right up there as one of my top 10 favorites!
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Film!
Review: After reading all the comments saying how disastrous this film was going to be I was worried maybe it was going to be a disappointment. It was not. 'The Alamo' is really a great film. Patrick Wilson is very good as Travis, Jason Patric makes an interesting James Bowie, and of course Billy Bob Thorton steals the show as Crockett. I thought Quaid did a decent job as Houston. And I really liked the characterization of Santa Anna. Some reviews said he was too 'cartoony'. Santa Anna was really an outsized figure and this came out well through the film. The battle scences were great, music was very good. I just wish it could have been three hours like John Lee Hancock, the director, planned on it being. It would have been nice to see Bonham's ride or more battle scenes but I think this will be corrected in the DVD. Again I loved it and wished it could have been an hour longer, filling out things such as the Battle of San Jacinto and Santa Anna's capture. But what was there is an A+.
Rating:
Summary: Well you just don't really know, do you?
Review: Historically, we tend to infuse a little drama in all of our "event-catastrophes" don't we? Whether it's Custer or the Alamo, we tend to know what happened, but why and how and what the participants thought at the time often is shrouded in mystery. Maybe it's better that way.
What is impressive about the Alamo as an historical occurence is that like so many other tragedies it is this force that coelesces men and women to rally around the flag. Whether it's Custer or a High School fooball game, we rally around wrongs with righteous indignation. And often as Americans, with harsh consequences. So "Remember the Alamo" really is the clarion call that makes a state, creates a new nation and has men and women of differing visions put aside those views and join together.
Billy Bob Thornton is great as the bemused Davy Crockett. Jason Patric also as Jim Bowie, riddled with drink and illness. The final scene of Colonel Bowie, barely conscious, facing off the aggresors from a bed from which he can't arise, was particularly well done. It was a great deal like the Richard Widmark portrayal, 40 years earlier.
The subtlety with which we come to realize that these men and women weren't necessarily the ones you want to bring home to mother, was also well done. I sensed as in most great conflicts, they found themselves in a place not of their choosing, kind of frustrated by that, kind of resentful of that, but willing to make the best of it. If you recall that extraordinary expression on the face of another great, Steve McQueen in "The Sand Pebbles," it was like that. 'I guess the time has come and I wish I could tell you how I got here.'
Good job by all. Quaid's role as Houston is not up to par for him. But that may have been all he had to work with. Worth seeing nevertheless. 4 stars. Larry Scantlebury
Rating: 
Summary: Once Again
Review: I asked myself a question when I was watching "The Alamo" in the theater: Why am I watching a TNT original movie in a multi-plex? Then it dawned on me that this was not a TNT movie, but a film that has made a wide theatrical release. The Alamo is allegedly a historical war film that thinks it is special and unique enough to join the mega-blockbuster herd, but is really a television movie of the week blown up onto the big screen using a lot of half truths and lies. My Chicano brothers and sisters braced for its release. There is scant comfort in the fact that Mexican forces won the 1836 battle of the Alamo: The movie closes with the Battle of San Jacinto one month later, which Mexico lost - along with Texas. Within a dozen years, Mexico went on to lose most of what later became California, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada and Arizona. An audience at the Mexico City premiere gasped at the final scenes of the Mexican army defeat at the hands of Texans - "in 18 minutes," according to the film. "It was very much filmed from an American point of view. It didn't have very much good to say about the Mexican side. The real struggle in The Alamo is between historic revisionism and Hollywood notions of sacrifice, and it's not much of a contest: Hollywood wins, as it usually does especially since patriotism is blended with post-9/11 flag. Although the battle for the Alamo has taken its place as a sacred chapter in American history, the movie deals with the fact that it all came down to one thing: Mexico owned Texas. According to the hoopla, the defenders of the Alamo fought for "liberty" and "freedom" and--as their noble commander says in a film clip-- to "show the world what patriots are made of. The perpetuation of this myth of the Alamo is a dishonest exploitation of our history. The fact is that the defenders of the Alamo fought for white supremacy and slavery. This latest Hollywood edition of the Alamo story is not much different than the last half dozen or so Alamo movies, such as the 1937 "Heroes of the Alamo". The most recent Alamo film saga was John Wayne's lumbering effort in 1960, complete with a ponderous musical score and a cast of thousands. All of these films inevitably fall into a category known as White Man Movie Fiction. WMMF, as it is more commonly known, does not allow a non-white actor in a movie unless the character is a servant, a comedian, or a criminal. The result is that the white man is always the central focus, or hero, of whatever action or event is being portrayed, regardless of historical fact. The first western movie, the all-white Great Train Robbery of 1903, set the tone for this fictional mythology of America's story of the Frontier. We know that-in the Old West trail drives--at least one out of every five cowboys was black. Yet hardly any black characters have been portrayed in the thousands of western films made during the past 100 years. Have you seen any black guys on horses with Gene Autry, Roy Rogers, John Wayne, Jimmie Stewart, or Gary Cooper. You get the drift. So what was the Alamo standoff really about?
The Alamo defenders fought and died for the constitution of the Republic of Texas which declared in Sections 6, 9& 10: "All free white persons who emigrate to the republic...shall be entitled to all the privileges of citizenship.' "All persons of color who were slaves for life previous to their emigration to Texas, and who are now held in bondage, shall remain in the like state of servitude... Congress (of Texas) shall pass no laws to prohibit emigrants from the United State of America from bringing their slaves into the Republic with them...nor shall Congress have the power to emancipate slaves; nor shall any slaveholder be allowed to emancipate his or her slave or slaves...no free person of African descent either in whole or in part shall be permitted to reside permanently in the Republic without the consent of Congress." "All persons, (African, the descendants of Africans and Indians excepted,) who were residing in Texas on the day of the Declaration of Independence shall be considered citizens of the Republic and entitled to all the privileges of such."
Contrary to popular mythology and the spurious history of White Man Movie Fiction, the story of the Alamo is not a story of a fight for freedom. It is the story of a fight for slavery. It is important for us to look honestly at our cultural and historical mythologies so that we can learn from them. By perpetuating the old myths, we create a stagnant and dangerous platform which prevents our cultural and artistic growth as a society. Forget the Alamo as it's portrayed in this movie, but never forget what really happened.
Rating:
Summary: Can't wait until it plays here in the UK!!
Review: I'm giving the new version of The Alamo five stars based on the mostly good things I'm hearing about it, especially Billy Bob Thornton's down-to-earth and simplistic portrayal of David Crockett. I'm an American living in England, who grew up a great admirer of Crockett, Bowie and Travis and the whole story of The Alamo. For that reason, I can most certainly understand why many people are upset and even outraged by the "tearing down" of the heroic images of these three men. It does seem to be increasingly popular among historians to believe that Crockett did not die swinging his empty rifle in the battle, but rather less heroically, executed at the hands of his Mexican captors. Although, there is no existing evidence of General Santa Anna confirming his presence at such an event, as depicted in the film. This would seem somewhat strange, especially considering Santa Anna's reportedly huge ego and craving for power. Wouldn't he have gloated over having personally witnessed and supervised the execution of such a celebrated American hero as Crockett? Also, that Bowie may have been too ill to have offered any resistance from his sick bed. It had long been known that Bowie was a slave owner and trader and moved in some shadowy circles. Travis also had been previously documented as having lived a somewhat checkered life before he arrived in Texas. It is quite a change-of-pace to present these three noted men in perhaps, a more realistic light than ever before. That is, that they were human, flawed and made mistakes. I lament the fact that this new film underwent such a dramatic cutback in it's running time (shortened by more than half an hour at least, by most reports), and changes in director (originally to be Ron Howard), screenwriter (John Sayles) and star (originally to be Russell Crowe, as reportedly either Crockett or Sam Houston, although I personally can't picture him as Crockett). There will probably be a deluxe version on multi-DVDs that may fill in at least some of the missing footage, maybe an R-rated version, ala Pearl Harbor? Although it won't have the same impact as on the big-screen. Unfortunately, the film was originally slated to be released here in the UK on Friday, the 30th of April, but has now been postponed until Friday, the 3rd of September!! I'll be eagerly waiting to see it at the first given opportunity.
Rating:
Summary: Great Film Overall, but a few historical flaws
Review: Let's look at what is great about the film
1- portrayed both the Alamo AND San Jacinto battles (missing in the John Wayne epic)
2-Dennis Quaid, Billy Bob Thorton and the rest of the cast fit wonderfully into their parts (except the Jim Booey character)
3- special effects were cool, particularly the first person perceptive you get when a cannonball blasts into the mission
4- Santa Anna- you couldn;t get a more vile personality than they protraye in the filmFlaws
-The battle of the Alamo was fought from dawn to early morning and they handled this well, but SAN JACINTO was never fought during the day- the reason why the Mexicans were thrashed was because Houston launched a brillinat night attack
-The Travis character was killed so early in the battle, that should be examined, and I thought the Mexicans attacked the mission once (the first time they were repulsed and the second was the grande finale) In any event great film, starts off kind of boring but accelerates rapidly and you should go see it at least for the battle scenes!!
Rating:
Summary: Intense, neutral, balanced, sad... A very good movie!
Review: Man, what a surprise!! This new version of the Alamo is a great movie. It's not overdramatic, it's not corny, but still has a lot of grip, of tension and emotion and, giving the natural controversy surrounding the subject, it's even moderately historically accurate.
All the lead actors give credible performance, Billy Bo Thornton being the best of them. Even Jason Patric (will he ever suceed in recovering from SPEED 2? I think he will after all!)does a very good job as Jim Bowie. I found it funny that Marc Blucas (the Riley from BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER) plays a very, very small role as James Bonham...
Highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: One magical scene worth waiting for in this ALAMO
Review: Seeing that John Lee Hancock's THE ALAMO was released just before the summer of 2004---too far off for this movie to be seriously considered for any of the major movie awards---I usually wouldn't have made it a priority to see it. Still, as a staff member for the Daily Targum---the newspaper of Rutgers University---I was assigned the task of writing up a review for this movie. The advance buzz on this movie was not promising: it was originally supposed to be released at around Christmastime last year, but was pushed back for further recutting. That, and an apparently troubled production history, spelled out a possible disaster of a movie. As it turns out, THE ALAMO is hardly a disaster. It might not be a first-rate historical drama, but it has some elements to it that makes it special.
My biggest reservation about THE ALAMO is that much of it seems rather stodgy, more like a history lesson than a real flesh-and-blood movie, with historical figures and incidents that are depicted onscreen but never really dramatized in a way that draws us into this historical period and the sticky situation these poor Texians find themselves in, having to defend their state all by themselves, without anything resembling reinforcements. THE ALAMO often seems workmanlike rather than truly inspired---a respectable movie but not always a genuinely compelling one.
And yet, there is at least one thing in this movie that I think make it worth seeing at least once. Three words: Billy Bob Thornton. His portrayal of Davy Crockett is the standout performance of the film, one with the kind of sympathy and imagination that is somewhat missing from some of the other performances. This Crockett is one that struggles to maintain his legendary status, rather than one that revels in it, and Thornton brings out the man's underlying humanity in a way that lights up the screen whenever he's around. And, as the title of my review suggests, there is one scene involving Crockett that is I think is worth waiting for. It comes about 2/3s of the way through (I recall): it is dusk, there is a lull in the action, and Crockett, hearing a Mexican band performing on the other side, decides to take out his fiddle and play along. Okay, it doesn't sound like anything special, the way I describe it...but once you see it, you won't forget it. In its own way, that one poignant scene makes as powerful a statement against war as, say, all of APOCALYPSE NOW or PLATOON or other classic anti-war statements. For that one brief moment at the Alamo, differences are placed aside and the enemies simply revel in the power of music. Perhaps they are also reflecting on what Roger Ebert, in his review of the movie, describes as "the innocence they have lost."
While THE ALAMO is undoubtedly well-made, with some striking cinematography by Dean Semler and some well-filmed battle scenes, the drama remains somewhat earthbound through a good deal of its 137 minutes. It is only whenever Billy Bob Thornton appears on the screen, and during that one magical scene, that THE ALAMO rises to greater heights---and I think those moments are enough to recommend the movie.
|
