The Alamo movie? Thoughts?

[Knuckles]

I was thinking of renting the DVD (I didn't see it in the theaters because it was almost universally critically panned).

Any thoughts on the authenticity of the details (i.e. guns, saddles, etc)?   

I know any discussion as to the "what truly happened" would be purely academic and conjecture, so I'm referring only to the "material culture" represented in the film.


BTW, True West magazine has an interesting bit on the film on their site:

http://truewestmagazine.com/westerns/western-gung-ho-alamo_05_04.htm

[RowdyBill]

It reminded me of one of those revisionist Westerns of the 1970's.  The kind where Wyatt Earp is depicted as being 5' tall and a coward, that sort of thing.  The Alamo roles were well-acted, but made so that Bowie and Crockett were overblown figures.  Not too sure about Crockett, but Bowie had some impressive military victories in his career that almost make me think had he not been ill, the Alamo would have been a different battle.

Main letdown of the film was the failure to allow that Bowie knife to get into action.  They had Bowie waving it around every other scene, but when the time came to use it, the blade never cleared the scabbard.

[T.J. McSuds]

  Who knows if the movie was historically correct? I do think it was a lot more accurate than any of the earlier movies. I think some of the charactors were portrayed as more human than the other films. As a movie, the battle scenes and special effects are very good.
  One interesting note, quite a few of the extras are direct decendants of the men they portray in the movie.

[Queasy Dillo]

I saw the new Alamo...and I can't say I liked it.  The characters were okay, somewhat more believable than the supermen depicted by previous movies. 

Trouble is, there ain't much developement.  This is like the Reader's Digest super-condensed version.  Part of the trouble is that they shot something like six hours of film and could only about two and a half.  So basically some of their major characters were cut down ot bit parts and some of them removed altogether.  I hear the diirector's cut (all six hours) should be better - if you can sit that long.

As it is, the entire movie builds up to a relatively short and unremarkable final battle.  Then they tack a super-condensed version of San Jacinto on for good measure. 

Like I said, I'd wait for the director's cut.

[RowdyBill]

I saw the new Alamo...and I can't say I liked it.  The characters were okay, somewhat more believable than the supermen depicted by previous movies. 

Trouble is, there ain't much developement.  This is like the Reader's Digest super-condensed version.  Part of the trouble is that they shot something like six hours of film and could only about two and a half.  So basically some of their major characters were cut down ot bit parts and some of them removed altogether.  I hear the diirector's cut (all six hours) should be better - if you can sit that long.

As it is, the entire movie builds up to a relatively short and unremarkable final battle.  Then they tack a super-condensed version of San Jacinto on for good measure. 

Like I said, I'd wait for the director's cut.

I'd like to see the director's cut, too, and maybe for Gods and Generals, too.

[Second Creek Sam]

Historical accuracy? Some.
Historical revision to meet new PC guideline? Some.
Great cinema? Nope.
Watch/Not Watch? Definitely yes, but wait till it's in the cheap section.

For enjoyment, watch "Gone to Texas" with Sam Elliot instead.  It is more fun to watch.

[Harley Starr]

Historical accuracy? Some.
Historical revision to meet new PC guideline? Some.
Great cinema? Nope.
Watch/Not Watch? Definitely yes, but wait till it's in the cheap section.

For enjoyment, watch "Gone to Texas" with Sam Elliot instead.  It is more fun to watch.

"Gone to Texas"

Now that's one of my favorites. Wish it would come out on Blu-Ray. As for the 2004 variant, I can't look at the Alamo compound without cringing. Moving the chapel up to being almost parallel with the long barracks? They could have done it so much better. Check out Mark Lemon's book "The Illustrated Alamo 1836", it's a remarkable piece of work.

[Dr. Bob]

I was fortunate to have the chance to participate in a private living history event at the John Wayne Alamo in Brackettville, Texas in the late 1990's.  I read several well researched books and really enjoyed the expedience.

Even if Bowie had been healthy, the end would have been the same.  Way too many Mexican soldados and the Alamo was a church with an enclosed courtyard, not a fortress.  To properly defend that much wall, there would have to have been about 500 Texians at least.  [I have studied the use of fortifications and can say with confidence that even 500 Texians would have been insufficient to repel the size force that Santa Anna commanded.]

IIRC, Thirteen Days to Glory is one of the books that is backed by a lot of historic research.  Since only a few women survived a lot of what happened immediately prior to the battle is pretty much conjecture.  Glad that I wasn't there for real!!

[Jake MacReedy]

As to historical accuracy, Dr. Steve Hardin and Col. Alan Huffines did a pretty credible job of "getting it right", given the time that has elapsed since the actual events.  I, too, would like to see the Director's Cut version...all 6 1/2 hours of it!  I've spoken with Steve Hardin about the movie, and he did an amazing amount of research to try and get the details correct.  Is it perfect? No.  but it may be as close to the actual events as we may get.

Jake

[Shotgun Franklin]

I liked it. It wasn't deep and nope there wasn't a bunch'a chacter developement but then it's hard to condense 2 weeks into 2+ hours. There were some good fight scenes  If it had been a mini-series like 'Lonesome Dove' they could have done more with it. We really know very little of what happened inside the Alamo and this version/guess was as good as any.