Customer Reviews

Alamo-thirteen Days to Glory (The Original Unedited Mini-series)

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

When you're from Texas and have spent many years studying and knowing about the Alamo, it gets pretty hard to stomache some of the more historically inaccurate videos. (i.e. the John Wayne version, et al.) They simply don't sit right with you. The TV version of the Alamo we have here isn't the best movie ever made. Nor is it the worst. Far from it in fact. This version manages to get rough historical facts in order. The siege lasts the right number of days, the attack happens at the right time, Wm. Travis isn't a 50 year old man, D. Crockett isn't Fess Parker. Seeing as how so much of the Alamo legend is, in fact, myth, demanding that a film remain true to hard fact is ludicrous. Sure, parts are embellished. Parts are skipped over. Sometimes it's overly sentimental, but hey--we're talking about a pretty sentimental subject in the eyes of some. It's not perfect, but it's sure a step up from what we're used to. And until someone gets together and makes Steven Harrigan's new novel into a movie, I think it's probably my best bet for a "pretty good movie about the Alamo". If you're an Alamo buff, I'd certainly suggest you see it. It's well cast and weaves a pretty good emotional plotline, including a lot of points from Travis' supposed life. Alec Baldwin does very well in the role, as do the rest of the major supporting cast. If you're not an Alamo buff, then you're probably not reading this review anyhow. I say we all probably take what we can get, and this certainly could be a whole heck of a lot worse.

The Alamo: Thirteen Days to Glory is a significantly better representation of the historic battle than its better known namesake. The production values are quite good, considering that a substantial amount of the fighting during the siege, including the climactic final attack, were at night, a fact accurately depicted in this film.

There is still a good deal of cliched heroism of dubious accuracy, and the acting is little more than mediocre, but the producers and the director allow the event to be the star of the show, minimizing the effect of these shortcomings.

Somewhat understated in tone and a bit slow to develop, the movie's seeming early weakness becomes its greatest strength as the events slowly build to their finale. The final battle is brilliantly filmed, using a variety of camera angles, quick cut-aways, and the blinding flashes of gunfire in the pre-dawn darkness to give the viewer a sense of the confusion and terror the befell the defenders during the terrifying attack.

Thirteen Days to Glory may not be Academy Award material, but it is a very noteworthy attempt to accurately portray the events at the Alamo as they actually happened. The result is a fine mix of valid history and entertaining filmmaking. Recommended for anyone interested in this stirring saga of Texican history.

To be honest, I can very well say that this was my favorite movie, as a matter of fact today I have already owned it for 5 years. Although this movie was based upon one of the bloodiest battles of history, it has very little blood which makes it a good movie for young children, but does have a lot of action and adventure. What's good about this movie is that most of the charectors are based on true people, which in my opinion is great. Now I am not saying that this movie does nothave weakness's because it does. In some scenes it gives mexico a very bad name. As I am told hispanic children are tought to think thatmexicans are bad people, which is not true. For parents, and Children I urge you to get this movie, It's scenes are unforgetable, and it gives you a very warm feeling.

Yes, this has faults, many glaring. But it was created for the Texas Sesquicentennial celebration and was aired during the time of year of the battle (if I remember correctly). It was made to be entertaining and appeal to the young people (Alex Baldwin; the young lovers-the girl was played by a former Miss Texas, I think; the marvelous Raul Julia, who practically stole the show), who have to study Texas history twice before they graduate there. As a fifth-generation native Texan (currently exiled in Georgia) I love the Alamo story and its various conflicting legends, understanding that because of the veil of history and the way that Santa Ana tried to obliterate the battle site we may never know the entire truth of the matter. What we can know are certain specifics. The actors portraying Bowie and Crockett were too old for the roles (characters aged 40 and 50, respectively) although they were old favorites of mine. One easily verified mistake both in this version and the John Wayne version is the age of the baby. She was too old in the JW version and too young in this one. Only in the Alamo IMAX version have I seen the child the correct age. I wish THAT version was available for purchase, as I would like to see it again and compare details. All in all, it is more historical than the Wayne version, which in one glaring clunker of a scene inverted the order of Alamo and Goliad--I suppose to give Wayne's son an extra line. If you want history, get a documentary. If you want something to show the spirit of the Alamo legend, try this--if you can find it.

james arness is jim bowie,brian keith is davy crockett,alec baldwin is will travis,and in a move that most films about the alamo never do the late raul julia is santa anna.much smaller in scale than the movies,and useing footage from the film "the lost command",this is more about the effect of the seige than just the battle. it is a little slow ,but as the title says it lasted 13 days,and really i found it quite good. one draw back and the reason for only 4 instead of 5 stars is the over use of stock footage and the reuseing of some of the same footage over and over again,travis kills the same soldier at least 3 times and it is clear that it's just the same shot used again.
with just that one little problem i have to say that this is a fine film and i do recommend it.

It was filmed on the same set as John Wayne's "The Alamo," it uses stock footage from "The Last Command," and it reshows the same action scenes over and over again to flesh out the rather weak looking battle. There was not much of a budget for this movie.

Yes, this movie is more historically accurate than virtually all the other cinematic Alamo versions. (Is that really saying much?) But artistically it is at the bottom of the barrel. Acting wise, the only real bright spot of the movie is young Alec Baldwin's Travis.

Watch for Ethan Wayne, the Duke's youngest son, in a bit role as an Alamo defender. (He is wearing a coonskin cap that is identical to the one his father wore in his Alamo movie.) Also James Arness, who plays Bowie, was the Duke's first choice to play that same role in "The Alamo." Arness had to pass due to prior commitments.

This is the most accurate version of the events of the Battle of the Alamo. A TV Miniseries can go into far more detail than a feature film and this show is very detailed down to the finest historic points of interest. I have done extensive research on this event and this movie does not overly embellish the facts that were gleaned from several recorded "eye witness" accounts. Without being "too Hollywood" the interesting and tragic story is presented intelligently with a minimum of historical "docudrama" inaccuracies. We are given a chance to feel along with these heroes their final moments. Although we can only speculate the words that were spoken, this film presents a truly moving tribute to these brave, doomed men.

I love this film, particularly gorgeous Alec Baldwin playing gorgeous Will Travis (one of my all time favourite heroes) although I do think Alec's Travis is a 'bit too nice'. Will himself, although a handsome, red haired, dashing man, was a rake and a scoundrel with a reputed bad temper, none of which is evident in this portrayal of him. I found the film a very good adaptation of Lon Tinkle's book, which I also own and thoroughly enjoyed. James Arness as Bowie and Brian Keith as Davey Crockett are also well cast - far superior to the gross miscasting of these two important figures in the original Alamo film of 1960. Action sequences are great and the film is a basically factual representation - although I have not in all my reading on this subject, been able to discover a British officer serving with Santa Anna as did "Colonel Black" in this film. Travis' death (as usual in movies) is also incorrectly portrayed; I don't think he wore a uniform either (the Laurence Harvey portrayal of Travis in the 1960 version is probably more accurate here). I'd love to see a film of the life of Travis either - pity Mr Baldwin is getting a bit old for the role as he really is very good in this film. I'd recommend the film to anyone with a love of American, particularly Texas history. And yes, I'd love to see a film version of Stephen Harrigan's "Gates of the Alamo".

I found this to be an overall disappointing movie despite some added historical accuracy towards the subject than earlier efforts (eg, the attack began before dark, etc) and also more from the Mexican point of view. The stream of on screen deaths were Hollywoodish to say the least at the end. It's a bit saddening to me that in ended this way. It was a good cast (for a TV movie) but the climax was weak. I was surprised that through all the casualties the Mexicans took, you saw very few actually fall!

I was impressed with the movie based on the story of the Alamo. It was one of those stories based on adventure and fighting for a particular way of life.There is a contest of wills and there is finally a showdown that has the most spectacular battle scenes that are just breathtaking and daring.If you like a hero or a villain this movie has all of those elements and it will leave you wanting more and expecting a final victory from our brave heroes.