Customer Reviews

The Alamo [VHS]

5 star:		(77)
4 star:		(50)
3 star:		(13)
2 star:		(17)
1 star:		(16)

 

 

If you want history, read some books. Let's get that out of the way first. There are many fine histories written on the battle of the Alamo, and disputing ideas about what exactly happened there. It is likely that, like Custer's Last Stand, the exact story of what went down at the Alamo will still be disputed by historians long after we all are dead.
This movie is about mythology, not history. While the battle of the Alamo was a historical event, it long ago entered into the realm of American Myth. It is our Iliad. If we cannot win, this is how we want to die - not shirking our duty, but finding something heroic inside ourselves to rise to the occasion. That was portrayed well in this film. The principle players, Bowie, Crockett, and Travis, are not born heroes here. Instead, they are strong men with flaws and quirks of character like all the rest of us. When they are confronted by crisis, we see them rise beyond their flaws, their doubts, even their fears, and in their last moments truly become the heroes of the legend. This was captured powerfully in this film.
An early scene shows Sam Houston speaking to Davy Crockett about Texas at a ball in Washington, near the end of Crockett's term in congress. Seeing the two together, an observer whispers to another man that either of those two might once have had a chance to be president, but no more. It is a nicely done scene accomplishing several things at once. First it allows us to see the two as men who had risen to a certain level of success and power, with some reason to expect more to come. It then shows us that before the fighting in Texas, both were men whose star was in decline, and who may have faded out of history had they not cast their lot with the Texicans. Finally, it establishes from the beginning that Davy Crockett was more than a coonskin hat-wearing cliche hero, and prepares us to see him played as a fully dimensional character. This is just one example out of many of how efficient and well made this movie is.
The whole cast did a great job with their roles, but I thought that Billy Bob Thornton as Crockett delivered a particularly outstanding performance; one of the best of his career. The role gave him many opportunities to shine, and he rose to the occasion. Chills ran down my spine when his Crockett stood like a chuckling Prometheus to answer the murderous music of the Deguello with his defiant fiddle. And in his death scene, he created a powerful alternative take on how a hero can die. Though it is one of the most controversial scenes of the film, I believe any man could be proud if they were able to meet death with such courage and defiant humor.
The film has some flaws - much was edited out, and it leaves the story and character of Dennis Quaid's Sam Houston feeling choppy and incomplete. But taken as a whole, this is a powerful new take on a great American legend, not replacing, but adding to what went before. It has many layers and much nuance, and is a film which bears seeing more than once to take everything in. While not perfect, I can't give four and a half stars, so I give it five.

Theo Logos

For serious students of history of the Alamo, director John Lee Hancock's "The Alamo" can't be beat. Every phase of the battle (a night battle which lasted about 90 minutes) is accurately depicted. The movie shows how outlying sentries, sleep deprived after days of shelling, were bayoneted during the initial charge, how the Mexican battalions first scaled the north wall where Travis was killed, shot between the eyes, how defenders retreated into buildings lining the walls where terrible close-quarters fighting took place, and how the last defenders, including David Crockett, retreated into the chapel at the end.

The film presents the view that some defenders, including Crockett, were captured and executed shortly after the battle. This controversial scenario is taken from the diary of a Mexican officer, Enrique De La Pena.

I would have preferred that there be more middle and far distance scenes for those of us who love the history and are interested in military tactics. But director Hancock chose mostly close-ups of the action. This, I presume, was an artistic choice to maximize dramatic effect and my wishes to the contrary are but minor quibbles. (Boy, would I love to see the outtakes!) All in all, the film is a great achievement, the best Alamo film ever made.

The politics which led to the war are skillfully presented. The script courageously includes the fact that the Mexican people were betrayed by the Anglos to whom they had given lands in return for oaths of allegiance. Another uncomfortable truth portrayed here is that the Texian rebels fought, against Mexico, for their freedom to continue the institution of slavery.

The courage of both the Mexicans and the Gringos is shown. We see the Mexican army marching through the snow in the terrible winter of February, 1836, with rags tied around their feet to redeem the honor of Mexico. This is no John Wayne; "There was 10 of us and a million Mexicans" Alamo.

But what makes any war story great is the human portrayal. This is not lacking here. The writing is delicious. On arriving in San Antonio, Crockett makes one of his famous "Prettiest wife, ugliest dog, meaner than a snapping turtle..." speeches. A listener says; "Gosh, Davey, now that yer here, Santy Anny won't dare attack!" Crockett replies with a sick grin: "I understood the fightin' was over. Ain't it?" Crockett had come, hopeing to become the first President of the Republic of Texas.

The counter-intuitive choice of Billy Bob Thorton to play David Crockett was brilliant. Thorton captures Crockett's humility and compassion for the common man (Crockett opposed Jackson's removal of Native Americans from the east, realizing that these people were more like the people Crockett knew than the politicians who wanted their lands). Thorton shows us how Davey really must have felt. And Thorton manages to even look like the few extant drawings and paintings we have of Crockett. This is good acting because Crockett was alot better looking than Billy Bob!

Jason Patric smoulders and exudes danger as Bowie and Patrick Wilson's youthfulness truly illucidates Travis' courage. Emilio Echevarria's Santa Anna is at once sympathetic in his ideals and detestible in his arrogance and cynicisim. He says: "What are the lives of soldiers but the lives of so many chickens?" Santa Anna ignored the tenants of Napolianic theory of warfare which held that artillery should breach a fortified position before infantry advance. Santa Anna ordered his men to attack the fort with ladders and "Sappers" carrying axes to dismantle fortifications. The Mexican soldiers did their duty.

The Alamo is America's Thermopylae. The story must be told again and again. No matter if the heroes' flaws are exposed. They are greater in the imperfections of their humanity. It will be a long time before this story is better told.

I agree with all the other reviewers have written so I won't repeat. I saw the John Wayne film when it was released (many years ago - I was only 7!) and loved it but was very upset that Davey Crockett, who was a hero of mine, had died. I knew nothing of The Alamo and it's history and was shocked by the ending. Since then I've always had a fascination with everything-Alamo. I was excited about the new film and thought it excellent, very well filmed and acted and just a fantastic movie.
My only challenge is the way the Crockett character was written. I thought Billy Bob Thornton stole the show, was brilliant as Crockett and the violin scene and his death scene are exceptional pieces of film that stay with you a long time. No, my point is that where I agree and liked the way his character was portrayed (multi-dimensional, flawed, down to earth) I disagree with how he seemed, at all times, to want to dispel his legend and make out that he really wasn't how most people thought of him. Well, he WAS like that when younger. He ended up at The Alamo by chance not realising the seriousness of it all but to try and tell an audience that he wasn't who he was is misleading and irresponsible. Well, that's my only negative point but this in no way interfered with my enjoyment.
I loved the film and recommend it 100%.

I bought this recently for a son's birthday. We watched it all together as a family and were pleasantly surprised. It was SOOOOOOO well done and the extras that were added helped to make the people come to life. You felt as if you went to that time and place and lived it. Also, all the hard work that went into it to make it historically acurate is amazing. I still have the awesome feeling that we experienced as a family watching when I think of it now. I grew up with an American History teacher and didn't really like to have to learn dates and times and all that stuff even for my dad's class, but if all the important events in American History could be presented like this, well then, I would love history and not forget much at all! It is a moving piece of story telling and the photography is just so undescribable. I would recommend it to anyone who wants to live the story and "feel" like they were there. There is nothing like it! I have kids 21, 15, and 10, boys and a girl and they hardly breathed through the whole thing. It was just great.

The viciousness of the invective that has been hurled toward this film has been stunning. Many reviewers seem to struggle to balance their ignorance with their arrogance, unfairly maligning this fine film. Roger Ebert seems one of the few professional critics to have understood the film.

This is a wonderful disk, with outstanding picture and sound transfer. Most notable among the extras is the commentary by historian Hardin and military advisor Huffines - particularly useful for those who cannot wrap their minds around the differences between popular culture, history, and art. The deleted scenes are a definite plus, but there is so much more that could have been included that this creates hope for a future expanded edition.

As for the film itself, while it is the most historically accurate version of the Alamo story, there is still much to nitpick over. But, as is the responsibility of a popular culture interpretation of historical events, Hancock fully captures the spirit of what was going on in at that particular time and in that particular place. Lovingly recreated is the world of 1836 Texians - American and European immigrants, as well as native Tejanos - uniting in revolt against an oppressive regime in an effort to gain independence. The principals, the fiery Houston, the celebrated Crockett, the fierce Bowie, and the young, unproven Travis, are portrayed as real humans rather than as demigods. Each has his obstacles to overcome, and each shows significant growth as their fates are played out. The actors, particularly Thornton in an Oscar-worthy role, as well as Patric, Wilson, and the marvelous Emilio Echevarría as General Santa Anna, are to be commended for their interpretations of these enigmatic characters.

Hancock has provided us with a thoughtful, intelligent, deliberate, and often subtle film, certainly an explanation for the film's lack of box office success. Even Burwell's score suffers from these "shortcomings." Comparisons to John Wayne's 1960 The Alamo are as inevitable as they are pointless, but it's like comparing 2004's The Passion of the Christ to 1961's King of Kings - they are not remakes, but variations on a theme, each with their distinct points of view, merits, and shortcomings.

I abhor criticizing a film for what it is not rather than what it is, but, knowing how much was cut from this film, I sincerely hope that a director's cut will be forthcoming, so we can see Hancock's vision as he intended. That's when I will give it its fifth star.

After reading many of the other reviews I think a bit of background is in order. Mexico achieved its independence from Spain and set up a Republic and elected its first President. This man served out his term and then Antonio de Lopez Santa Ana was elected President. He then threw out the constitition and the elected government and declared himself absolute ruler of Mexico.

A policy of encouraging immigration was established by Spain and continued by the new nation of Mexico. If a settler would convert to Catholicism they would be granted Mexican citizenship and be allowed to own land and start businesses. In this way Mexico hoped to attract entrepreneurs, business people, and money to the Provinces. James Bowie, for example, was a Mexican citizen when he died at the Alamo.

By throwing out the constitution and siezing power Santa Ana provoked widespread opposition to his rule. The defenders of the Alamo wanted to restore the constitutional government of 1824. That is why the flag that flew over the Alamo was a Mexican flag with the date 1824 emblazoned on it.

The movie production was troubled from the start with Ron Howard turning over the directors chair to John Lee Hancock who wrote the script. A magnificent set was built for this movie that exactly replicated the Alamo and San Antonio De Bexar. John Wayne did the same thing for his version of the Alamo and built his set in Brackettville, Texas. This the town where I am from and as a young man I was able to watch the construction of this set and the work on the film, a great experience for me at that time. The location people from the new movie visited the Wayne set and studied it for possible use but eventally rejected it as they felt that they surrounding terrain was not enough like San Antonio so they built their new set outside of Austin. They may have come to regret this as bad weather, torrential rain, and even snow plagued the production and caused significant delay.

The movie was beautifully photographed and more than 100 hours of film was shot. This large amount of film contributed to delays in the editing process.

I think that the cast was quite good and that the work by Patrick Wilson and Billy Bob Thornton was outstanding. The actor who played Santa Ana, Emilio Echevarra, was positively brilliant and he should have had an Oscar for best supporting actor.

The costuming was excellent but the battle scenes could have been a bit better.

Many of the men who died in the Alamo were in fact locals who had families and businesses in the area. One fact overlooked in the movie was that the settlers already had their hands full with marauding Indians and bandits and it was a hard decision for these people to leave their homes to defend the Alamo. Most of these were Anglos who were Mexican citizens. The 33 men who rode in from Gonzales all left behind families and most knew that they would not return.

Originally the Alamo was garrisoned by Mexican Army troops who were driven out by the locals. When they returned to Mexico proper Santa Ana was so enraged that he marched immediately upon the Alamo, losing many of his soldiers in the forced winter march. This was accurately portrayed in the movie. The Texans were taken by surprise when the Mexican Army showed up in the early spring before defensive preparations were complete. The actor that played Col. Neale, the Alamo commander before Travis, commented "........as you can see it was not designed with miltary intentions in mind."

One scene that really sticks out is when Crockett, sitting with other defenders around an evening campfire, describes his Indian fighting days and tells the story of the potatoes that he ate that were soaked in grease from burned human beings (the Indians).

Another good scene is when Crockett mounts the wall and plays fiddle along with the Mexican Army Band as they play the Death Song, "Deguello."

The movie carries through to the Battle of San Jacinto where Santa Ana is defeated and forced to cede Texas.

Between the 200 or so defenders at the Alamo and the 400 prisoners shot down like dogs at Goliad a lot of Texan lives were lost, especially considering the relatively small population. There was much grief and sorrow after it was all over.

A must have for those interested in Alamo lore.

All in all this was a very good film that could have been a great film. Worth the price.

I have this thing about Disney films, that they are going to be flawed by too much Hollywood crap. The Alamo isn't Hollywood. It is a sincere effort to do the historical homework and translate the real story to screen. It worked. I only wish that it had been appreciated enough to be a success at the box office. Hopefully as a DVD it will justify its existence and gain a "cult" following. The people involved in the film certainly deserve at least that much.

Some intriguing details about this movie: there was evidently an effort made to select actors who resembled the historical people that they play (although Santa Ana is too old, a quibble); it was discovered that some of them are the actual descendants of those characters. There are no fictional roles, though a few are composites. The uniforms and all the details are spot-on, even down to showing zapadoris (Mexican sappers whose task was to demolish the walls of forts with their heavy axes): somebody was obviously a huge fan of the period and the story, to go to such lengths for visual authenticity.

I thought that Billy Bob Thornton stole the show. Whether or not Davy Crockett actually serenaded the Mexican military band with his violin from the wall of the Alamo doesn't matter to me: he should have, and that scene alone was a jewel.

This movie goes into my collection soon....

Don't believe the negative hype. Some folks on here gave it a negative review without even seeing it! LOL!
The Alamo is an entertaing version of the legendary tale. Billy Bob gives an extremely winning performance and the entire cast is quite good. Well done!

This new version of the often told story certainly holds up well as far as historic accuracy, though it is by no means perfect in this regard. The look of the movie is impressive, owing in large part to the fine art direction and Dean Semler's excellent photography. If the acting had been better, and the film had had fewer "dead" spots (such as moments of conversation that really don't progress the story), I might have been kinder with my rating. The one bright spot is the performance of Billy Bob Thornton as David Crockett, far more human, yet intelligent, than often portrayed in other films. The low spot is the acting of Patrick Wilson as William Barret Travis, a portrayal that should make viewers wonder how he could have ever been given a command.

John Lee Hancock's direction is more than adequate, but I will go to my grave wondering what a Ron Howard directed movie would have looked like had Disney given him the "R" rated okay. My guess is that Howard would have done a superb job keeping the attention of the audience, as his other films have proven so well.

In comparison to the John Wayne epic from 1960, the new film falls short in terms of outright entertainment, while the acting in the Wayne movie is certainly no better. But, at least, Wayne knew how to make a thirteen day siege seem exciting. Where the battle, as depicted in the new film, shows scared men doing the best they can to stay alive, the 1960 Wayne film shows a more heroic stand, men selling their lives dearly. The viewer will have to decide which version is the more "entertaining".

Having given a "thumbs up" to the art direction and cinematography in the new film, the 1960 movie also sported great work behind the camera, most notably William H. Clothier at the camera, perhaps an unsung hero in the film world. Alfred Ybarra's art direction was masterful, presenting a set that brings to mind just how isolated the men in the Alamo really were.

One thing Ybarra did that haunts me to this day: the image of the Alamo church (known to fans as "The Waynamo"). Where production designer Michael Corenblith decided to move the church forward in the 2004 version (putting it in line with the rest of the fort on the east side), Ybarra left the church in its rightful place, back and seamingly away from the rest of the mission, with low walls on either side of it. This created a powerful silhouette against the brilliant Texas sky. Cameraman Clothier knew that the church was one of the most famous icons in America, and made sure it loomed in the background in as many shots as possible. To me, and others, this image of the burned out church WAS the Alamo, an unconscious reminder of the sacrfice good men on both sides made for their beliefs.

Being a native Texan, a Texas history buff, and having visited the Alamo and read Lon Tinkle's "Thirteen Days of Glory" when I was about 12 years old, I got real kick out of this film. I liked the fact that they made a good faith effort to accurately depict the seige and battle, without fear or favor.
The only real inaccuracy I noted was that Emilio Echeverria was too old to play Santa Anna, who, if I recall correctly, was only about 42 when the battle took place. (After being captured at San Jacinto and held for several years, Santa Anna returned to Mexico and had a long political career, including becoming president again.)

I loved the way Billy Bob Thornton played Davy Crockett as someone trying to live up to his own out-sized legend, but not always enjoying it. I also liked the attention paid to Sam Houston and the depiction of the brief but decisive battle of San Jacinto. Everyone remembers the Alamo, but not many remember that Houston won the war by refusing to be drawn into a battle prematurely. Texans owe their independence from Mexico to Houston's cool and prudent leadership.