The Alamo: Thirteen Days to Glory

THE ALAMO: THIRTEEN DAYS TO GLORY, James Arness' variation of his mentor John Wayne's 1960 classic, attempts to present the famous 1836 Texas siege in human terms, utilizing the more 'intimate' medium of television to make the story of the defenders more understandable. Eschewing the 'living legend' portrayals of the earlier film, a sincere effort is made to make the famous personalities of the battle more realistic, with both good and bad qualities, thus making their heroism more personal, and ultimately profound.

While this is certainly an admirable intention (it would also be the motivation behind the 2004 ALAMO), the TV-film fails, and isn't held in high regard by either Alamo historians or fans of the small collection of films concerning that pivotal moment in Texas history.

A major problem is that THIRTEEN DAYS TO GLORY is seriously miscast. Other than the inspired choices of Alec Baldwin as William Barret Travis, and Raul Julia, who nearly steals the film as Gen. Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna (offering what is probably the most accurate portrayal of the 'Napoleon of the West', ever), virtually every actor is wrong for their role. Arness, at 64, lacks the dynamic, corrupt vitality of the historical Bowie, 40, prior to his physical collapse at the start of the siege (caused, historians now believe, by advanced tuberculosis, or another fatal lung disease). The filmmakers choose, rather, the LAST COMMAND approach to Bowie, injuring him during the battle, instead, and giving him enough energy to cling to a lamp and wall, and to die 'on his feet', his famous knife in his hand. Arness' portrayal is closer in spirit to his outdoorsman 'Zeb Macahan' in the TV "How the West Was Won", than the charismatic swindler/slaver. Even worse is Brian Keith, 66, as 49-year old David ('Davy') Crockett. The frail-looking, silver-haired Keith, while correctly emphasizing Crockett's heritage as a politician, appears acutely uncomfortable in the physically demanding role, and totally lacks the magnetism that made Crockett legendary. As for 68-year old Lorne Greene as 43-year old Sam Houston, the less that is said, the better. In trying to be more 'honest', the film chose acting 'legends', forgetting that performers of legendary status tend to make their characters 'larger-than-life'.

Shot at the '60 ALAMO movie set in Brackettville, Texas, in the 110-degree heat of late summer, the cold dampness of March, 1836 was never achieved. Compounding the problem was a budget that was too small to hire the 'army' of extras required to give lopsided battle some scope. Instead, the production liberally 'lifted' shots from 1955's THE LAST COMMAND, filmed at yet another location (with budget restrictions of it's own), and the differences of the sets, and the film stock, are occasionally jarring.

THE ALAMO: THIRTEEN DAYS TO GLORY, for all of it's ambitions, is, ultimately, no more than a 'B' movie with higher aspirations!

When John Wayne filmed his Alamo story he had built a complete Alamo set in the town of Brackettsville, Texas which is still there and quite the tourist attraction. As long as that stands, we will have a set for future Alamo interpretations for the screen. One such with Dennis Quaid and Billy Bob Thornton was done in this century.

But I would say The Alamo: Thirteen Days To Glory is the best Alamo story filmed I've seen. John Wayne's film is a good one if over-hyped, but it's a John Wayne film with the story redone to fill parameters of screen character of John Wayne. Brian Keith plays Davy Crockett here and gives a fine interpretation of the rollicking frontier character he was.

It's a lot closer to Professor Lon Tinkle's book on The Alamo than the Wayne film was and having read the book years ago I can attest to that. Tinkle's book is listed as the source in both films, but Tinkle who was alive back then when the Wayne film was done and he was not pleased with the result.

Alec Baldwin was around the right age for young William Barrett Travis, the idealistic freedom fighter who incidentally was a slave owner. Back in the day no one saw the ironic contradiction in that. One thing that was not explored and hasn't been was Travis's hyperactive sex drive. He was the Casanova of the Southwest, he even kept a salacious diary of his libidinal conquests.

But the man who always gets the whitewash is Jim Bowie, played here by James Arness. He was a hero at the Alamo to be sure, but his career before the Alamo was that of a scoundrel. He was a smuggler, a slave trader, an all around con man selling land he had questionable title to. But his heroic death certainly redeemed him. No hint of that is in Arness's portrayal nor any others I've seen of Bowie on the screen. And of course he did design the Bowie knife, done to his specifications. That man needed such a weapon.

However the main asset that The Alamo: Thirteen Days To Glory has is a full blown portrayal of Antonio De Lopez De Santa Anna, the president of Mexico who comes up personally to put down the rebellion stirred up by the North Americans who've come to settle in Texas at Mexican invitation. Unfortunately those Americans came with some pre-conceived notions about liberty that just hadn't made it that far south, at least liberty for white people. Raul Julia plays Santa Anna who remains an even more controversial figure in Mexican history. He was also quite the scoundrel, but he was the best Mexico produced until a genuine reformer named Benito Juarez came along.

This film was the farewell performance of Lorne Greene who appears briefly as General Sam Houston. Greene's not quite my conception of Houston, he really was way too old for the part, Houston was in his early forties in 1836, he was not yet the patriarch of Texas. But within the limits imposed on him, Greene does a fine job.

For a romantic telling of The Alamo tale by all means see John Wayne's version, but for historical content I recommend this film highly.

O.K.,so this retelling of the alamo story may not boast the biggest budget,the most visible actors,and may be a bit on the long side BUT it is a decent flick that makes an effort to present a reasonable retelling of the actual alamo saga...in the film which john wyane put out in the'60s the unrealisticl super-patriotism seemed to get in the way of the story,reducing it almost to a parody of actual events...don't get me wrong here,I did enjoy that flick,but the rather stilted dialouge and the "Hollywood"production values seemed to make the whole enterprise(excluding the final,climactic & well photographed battle scenes)seem a tad two-dimensional..."13 Days to Glory"used a lot of B-level and unknown players,presented a more realistic storyline,and,contrary to what some may think,did well combining battle footage from a previous production with footage shot specificly for this film...I have heard that the new alamo flick,set to be released in April,will present an even more realistic portrait of the defenders and the mexican army,warts and all...this,to some degree,was what"13 days to Glory"attempted,and if they did not bring forth a masterpiece they at least managed to give us a good flick...not great maybe,but a good flick

First off, I must confess that I am an Alamo junky. So my review might be a bit skewed. I've seen most films dealing with the Alamo or the Texas revolution (The Alamo (1960), The Alamo (2004), The Last Command, Gone to Texas, Heroes of the Alamo (930 B.C.), Davy Crockett at the Alamo, Texas, etc.) I just watched this one all the way through today for the first time since I was about ten.

I think this adaptation, despite it's flaws, probably ranks in the top three Alamo films. Strictly from a film perspective, it certainly has problems. The lack of budget makes for a handful of extras playing both armies. The Mexican army, which is suppose to number in the thousands, looks to consist of little more than ten soldiers the majority of the time. The battle scenes are laughable for the most part. Most of the footage, as has been noted many times, is lifted from the Last Command. The rest of the scenes feature rubber bayonets and men appearing to wrestle, rather than fight for their lives, in the background.

That said, I think with some money behind it, this could have been a great film. While every review I have read seems to praise the actor who played Santa Anna, Raul Julia I believe was his name, I find his constant yelling to be a bit over the top. I actually thought Brian Keith was a wonderful Davy Crockett. His down home yarns and backwoods twang comes across as entirely genuine. Also, note his expression as he swings his hunting knife just before his death. It is such a convincing portrayal of a last stand by a man. It is a pity that he is about thirty years to old to play Crockett. My hat goes off to him nonetheless. The same can be said for James Arness. His massive build and piercing eyes gives him that sort of John Wayne screen presence, to a far lesser degree of course. Again, a bit too old for the role. Alec Baldwin actually makes for a very convincing Travis. He is much closer in age and does a brilliant job. Highlights would be his last speech to the men as well as his conversation with James Bonham before hand.

I also thought the screenplay was very good. Minus some of the exchange between Daniel Cloud and his Mexican love interest. Although, it is more the acting and less the writing that hurts those scenes. The script moves the story along at a steady pace and is concerned more with telling the story and less with giving a history lesson, a flaw that haunts many Alamo films and period pieces in general.

Overall, I think this is a good "Alamo" film. It is probably not a good "film" film. That is to say unless you like the Alamo, you may not enjoy this movie. As made for t.v. movies go, especially in the eighties, it is not that bad. You have two great icons in Keith and Arness playing lead roles, as well as the upstart Alec Baldwin. Not a bad cast at all for a low budget film. Burt Kennedy does a good job of directing considered what he is given. As an "Alamo" film, I would probably rate this as a 7 or 8 out of 10. But as a "film" film goes it gets about a 5 out of 10. With a bigger budget and a younger Brian Keith and James Arness, this could have been a great film. It might have won Oscars in the Golden Age of Hollywood!

This made for television version of the legendary stand against hopeless odds is more objective, more realistic than earlier filmed versions of the events, though the one movie made after this went perhaps too far in humanizing the figures of Sam Houston, Bowie, Travis and Crockett.

The focus here is on Jim Bowie, played with sharp, cynical detachment by James Arness who passed away in 2011 at age 88. Then 65, he made a comeback to acting after years away from the screen to do this part.

Puerto Rican-born Raul Julia humanizes Gen. Santa Ana as no one since J. Carol Naish back in '54 had done. However, the Mexican dictator is portrayed as a lecherous, vainglorious popinjay--gaudier uniforms have never been seen before or since. He receives excellent advice from the European officers he has hired but, convinced of his own infallibility, he does not heed it. He also ignores the warning from one of his own staff officers that it is not "prudente" to divide one's army in the face of the enemy. The result is the disaster of San Jacinto.

Alec Baldwin is the one actor whose age is appropriate to the character he plays: Col. William Travis. His portrayal is earnest. He is almost in awe of the older men who share command with him.

The one jarring note was Brian Keith as Crockett. In a coonskin cap and carrying Ol' Betsy, he stumbles about as if he had wandered in from another movie. With no conviction in the portrayal, the character is reduced to a few stage conventions.

The script reveals some historical facts overlooked or suppressed in earlier film versions. We learn that Jim Bowie was, in the person of Santa Ana, fighting his own brother-in-law. The Mexican soldiers performed poorly in part because they were armed with rifles left over from the Napoleonic Wars a generation earlier. "Santa Ana likes a bargain." Bowie wryly explains. The whole project of defending the former Spanish mission as a fort was courageous but militarily ill- advised--a fact explored in greater depth in the 2004 film "The Alamo".