The Alamo

I first saw "The Alamo" in 1960 and loved it. I loved it for several reasons, one was because like countless other kids {I was 11} I had been raised on Fess Parker's treatment of Davy Crockett and was fascinated by the story and two I've been a John Wayne fan since I can remember. I have copies of both the theatrical and the uncut versions. I prefer the theatrical because I feel that the scenes that were cut were unnecessary and in some cases tedious and painful to watch. Historically speaking the movie was a hit and miss affair but that's okay with me because as a package it was a direct hit on the action sequences and since that basically was what the Alamo was about I can forgive the inaccuracies. Some of the most glaring; the battle was over just before dawn on a rather cold day {the temperature ranged between the 30's and mid 50's and was probably on the low end of that spectrum at that time of day} and yet the movie shows up bright blue cloudless skies and the participants in less than cold weather attire,; the film portrayed Bowie as being in bed because of a leg injury suffered in a fall from his horse later aggravated by shrapnel during a bombardment when the truth was that he was sick. He had practically drunk himself to death for 3 years because of the loss of his wife and children to cholera and probably had TB. On that note the movie shows Bowie receiving the news during the siege. Another case of license. On the other hand the film was accurate in a lot of cases too, for example, the locations of Travis and Bowie at the times of their deaths and depending on whether you believe that Crockett fell where Suzanna Dickinson and several others said they saw him or that he survived the battle with five others only to be executed we may be able to make a case for his actual location too. But the most wonderful example of historical fact is in the location of the filming. This was a painstakingly assembled replica of the area and is breathtaking in its realistic appearance. There was one fact that was mistreated, though, that took me some time to accept as dramatic license. James Butler Bonham {Patrick Wayne} reports to the garrison that Col James Fannin and his men will not be reinforcing them because the were "ambushed, murdered". This is sort of true but not until after the Alamo had fallen. The fact was that Fannin had started out to reach the Alamo but while still within view of his own garrison at Goliad he had a wagon break down and some oxen run off and by the time he repaired those problems he changed his mind about going and returned to his command. He and his men were captured and about 600 of them, including Fannin, marched into a river and shot down. All things considered though I can still watch this movie again and again 39 years later. Besides, who can deny that the opening credits complete with some of the most beautiful music in cinematic history {Dimitri Tiomkin} constitute one of the most unforgettable movie beginnings of all time? I think I'll go watch it right now.

Many people say this movie is terrible. I disagree 100 percent. John Wayne went through a lot of trouble to make this movie, much due to the cost of production. Wayne had to sell some of his property to make this. Despite of the production problems, Wayne turned out a great movie. I'm not sure how accurate it is, but it's good enough. It was nominated for a Best Picture Oscar and that's good. Why all the bad critisisim? It could have done worse, and Wayne has turned out movies that are terrible compaired to this. The supporting cast was good and the sound effects were great for it's time. All of the battle sequences are excellent and Dimitri Tiomkin's music score is good and was nominated for an Academy Award. Give this movie a look, it's worth it.

I have seen both the long Director's Cut and the short theatrical release.

The Short version is the DVD release, which was ok, the film goes much faster but it leaves many holes in the plot.

The Long Version helps to fill in the plot holes, watch this version if you really like long films and are into history quite heavely, otherwise stick with the short version if you just want entertainment value, plus it still manages to keep your attention.

This film is truly a masterpiece that will be enjoyed for Generations to come.

Viewed as history, John Wayne's epic production of 'The Alamo' is as full of holes as Swiss Cheese (the final battle actually lasted less than an hour, in the pre-dawn darkness of March 6, 1836; current scholarly consensus is that the historical Crockett attempted to surrender, at the end of the furious onslaught, but was executed), but just as Wayne mentor John Ford never let 'the facts' interfere with a good story, first-time director Wayne wanted to tell a tale of larger-than-life heroes, taking a stand for what was right, and being willing to die for that cause. It was a firm belief in these truths that pushed Wayne into investing over ten years of his life, and much of his personal fortune, in telling this story, and 'The Alamo' was, and is, a triumph.

The film can really be broken into two distinct parts; the first part introduces the characters, providing insights into their personalities, and tells a melodramatic tale of a beautiful woman (the radiant Linda Cristal), being forced into an unwilling relationship with an evil, profiteering Texan, who is rescued by the plain-spoken and heroic Davy Crockett, as portrayed by Wayne. The story bears similarities to 'The Fighting Kentuckian', a Wayne vehicle of twelve years earlier. In this version, however, Wayne doesn't 'win' the girl, but gives her a rather preachy speech about patriotism, and doing what's right, and sends her on her way.

Despite a terrific fight scene between a bunch of the Texan's henchmen, and Crockett and Jim Bowie (portrayed with easy charm by Richard Widmark), this first part drags, a bit, and seems contrived to allow Wayne to air his political beliefs. Bear with it, though, because when the action moves to the mission/fortress of the Alamo, for the second half of the film, Wayne's talents as a director truly shine.

The story of the 13-day siege between the Alamo's 187 defenders, and General Santa Anna's 6,000-man army, has NEVER been told on a grander scale than in the John Wayne version, and the uncut edition of the film is presented in a wide-screen format, which allows the viewer to really share Wayne's vision. With a nod to the fact that the Mexico of today is a staunch ally (several characters make a point of saying how 'proud' they are of the Mexicans, even as the two forces are killing each other!), the story flows between exciting 'victories' (stealing the cattle, spiking the Mexican cannons), and an understanding of the inevitable conclusion (defined by Lawrence Harvey, as Travis, in the memorable 'sword in the sand' scene). Harvey's Travis is the best-realized of the film's many characters; he brings a humanity to the complex, driven commander, growing from someone insensitive to others, into a leader who earns everyone's respect.

Wayne used thousands of Mexicans as extras in the film, which gives the viewer a far greater sense of the magnitude of the siege than Republic's 'The Last Command' or Disney's 'Davy Crockett' ever could. The battles, particularly the final one, as row after row of Mexican foot-soldiers overrun the pockets of defenders, are unforgettable! Each character is allowed to die heroically, and is given a lingering moment to make a final gesture (Travis breaks his sword over his knee as Mexicans surge past, Bowie fires his unique gun, a brace of pistols, and swings his famous knife, Crockett, bayoneted to a door, still manages to pull free, and torch the magazine). The film's climax, alone, would make the film a 'must' for any action fan.

The cast includes many well-known character actors and long-time Wayne friends, including Ken Curtis as Lt. Dickinson, Travis's adjutant; Chill Wills as the most outspoken of Crockett's men; Guinn 'Big Boy' Williams, Denver Pyle, Chuck Roberson, and many others, as defenders. Wayne's son, Patrick, has a small but visible role as James Butler Bonham, the famous Alamo dispatch rider, and his daughter Aissa plays the Dickinson's child, Angelina.

'The Alamo', for all it's faults, is a magnificent spectacle, monumental in scope. It is a fitting tribute to it's star/director, and an ESSENTIAL part of any John Wayne collection!

Considering that THE ALAMO lost a ton of money when it debuted, I was amazed that despite its faults, the film is worth watching--though historically speaking, the film is far from perfect.

Let's talk about the historical problems with the film. It is true that General Santa Ana was indeed an idiot and one of the most inept leaders you could imagine (read up about "the Pastry War" and his leg's subsequent lavish funeral and you'll know what I mean). Nevertheless, one of the problems that Texans had with Mexican rule was that it would not allow slavery--not just that the General was a dumb dictator. This important fact was never mentioned and there was a rather insulting character of a slave who was given his freedom just before the Mexicans slaughtered everyone. In the film, he chose to stay and die and even went so far as to throw his body across his master's to try to prevent the master's death. While I suppose this could have happened, it is very doubtful. I think this was distorted because John Wayne (who bankrolled and directed the film) wanted to make a super-patriotic film and talking about the slavery debate would have definitely weakened his narrative--though I am sure the Black Americans who saw the film were offended. The Texans were patriots, but flawed as well.

An interesting contrast is how the Mexicans were portrayed in the film. Santa Ana's troops were portrayed as brave and loyal and Hispanics were humanized in the movie. In addition, John Wayne took quite a fancy to a lovely Mexican lady in the first half of the film. This sympathetic view is not surprising, though, as Wayne's real life wives were Mexican.

Despite the hyperbole and sentimentality that abounds in the film, you really do have to applaud the film for several reasons. The battle sequences are rather amazing and well-done. Also, some of the many little vignettes were rather moving and interesting. However, all these little touches did make the movie very, very long--probably about 10-20 minutes too long. Had it been tightened up a bit, it might have flowed better and prevented "butt fatigue" in the audience! The film just wasn't compelling enough during the first 3/4 of the film--though the movie did end on a very high note with the final battle. I actually love long films--but this one just didn't need to be.

I think overall that the film is a mixed bag--not nearly as bad as its reputation would suggest, is very exciting and has some excellent performances, though its rather one-dimensional view of the conflict and its extreme length have to be considered before you watch it.