The Alamo

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.

Corny? At times long-winded and stilted? Touching, poignant and inspiring? John Wayne's "The Alamo" is all of these things; and, of this, I'm certain John Wayne would agree. For, unlike the lessor men who make up most of Wayne's critics, Wayne was fair. This is clear even in "The Alamo," in his depiction of Santana's army. Wayne believed in the basic nobility of men, much like those heroes depicted in "Rio Bravo". That his life and memory is treated more like that of Marshal Sam Kane's in the Wayne-despised "High Noon," or even in Wayne's own "The Shootist" is testimony that Wayne HOPED men were better than they are.

I'd never seen the full-length version of "The Alamo" until it was released on VHS in the early 90s. I realized then the greatest scene in the movie is "The Birthday Party," which was cut from the general release version of the film. NOTE: For those that don't remember, during the 50s and 60s, Hollywood would release long, big budget movies as reserved seat attractions. The film would show at a "roadshow" theater for several months before general release. Since "roadshow" theaters showed the movies only twice a day, running time was restricted pretty much to the patience of audiences. However, when the same film was shown general release, time restrictions became important, so films were cut to maximize theater owner profits. It still happens today, except now the "director's cut" reaches the home audience via DVD. In any event, the short version of "The Alamo," while impressive, is still a pale shadow of the Wayne's original cut. Most importantly, to see "The Alamo" is to understand John Wayne as a man, not an idol or actor. Wayne generously gave virtually all the big scenes to his costars. Certainly, Lawrence Harvey, Richard Widmark, Ken Curtis, Joan O'Brian and Richard Boone get better scenes. Also certainly, Chill Wills, Jester Hairston (Jethro) Hank Worden (Parson) and Veda Ann Borg (Blind Nell Robertson) have showier ones than Wayne. The scenes between Wayne and Linda Crystal in the first hour seem out of a different movie, though neither Wayne's nor Cristals are as big or showy as the ones I've mentioned. One thing I hope to suffer again was the "reunion" video attached to the VHS. The same old garbage about Wayne not being able to direct actors (by his SON, no less), that he really wasn't a very good director (Wayne's action scenes will match or beat anybody's in Hollywood). Especially rude was Richard Widmark's idea of impressing Wayne by insisting Wayne call him "Richard" and not "Dick" during their first meeting. Widmark came across as a pompous ass. However, the rudest cut was from Ken "Festis" Curtis. Curtis never had a better, more respectful part in ANY movie, but he didn't miss an opportunity to try to soil Wayne's memory.

Forget that "The Alamo" is a topnotch, if not entirely historically accurate historical western. Forget that Wayne directs action better than his mentor, John Ford, or that Chill Wills got an Oscar nomination, the only of his career, thanks to this "lousy director/actor". Remember this, Wayne risked EVERYTHING on "The Alamo" and lost. He was broke for years afterward. Wayne's continued success on the "A" list was by no means assured. He was 54 years old and raising a second family. Wayne had recently been swindled by a business manager and recently lost a best friend to suicide (Grant Withers). Wayne had to take a role in "The Alamo" to secure financing, and "The Alamo" is probably STILL the biggest movie ever directed by one of its stars. During filming, Wayne had to contend with interference from mentor John Ford and a murder investigation of one of his actresses. That same year Wayne's house was severely damaged by fire. Yet Wayne took continued carping by lessor men, those "artists" in Hollywood who ridiculed his acting and his directing. I'm sure they sneered in satisfaction when "The Alamo" failed to break even. However, it's reported the movie eventually made a small profit, probably part of it through sale of "Alamo Village" in Bracketville, Texas.

Wayne continued to make fine movies for sixteen more years after "The Alamo." In 1969 he was finally awarded by his peers an Oscar for "Rooster Cogburn." However, by then, Wayne had P.O.d them again with "The Green Berets". War service or not, NOBODY can say the man ever ran from a fight.

I'm not sure I would have liked John Wayne had I known him. I'm not a drinker and I'm not obsessively patriotic about this country, particularly since we started picking fights in the Middle East. However, as Wayne proved with Lawrence Harvey and Rock Hudson, Wayne didn't have to agree with someone's lifestyle or even their personal views to treat them with respect. I most certainly would respect him better than the "friends" he gave jobs in "The Alamo;" at least, those who slandered him.

Oh, and by the way, "RICHARD Widmark never won an Oscar."

I give "The Alamo" a solid 8.

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.

I love this movie as much as anyone, but the recently released DVD is inexplicably almost half an hour shorter than the version of this film that has been in release on video and laserdisc for years. Why, oh why MGM/UA did this, I don't know, but I know I am not keeping my copy of it. I got worried when this new version didn't have an overture...but I can live without that. However, when Richard Widmark's first scene occurred and over half of it was missing, I could only groan.

Shame on you MGM/UA. This movie is more than a classic for a good many of us. You should release the cut that you have been putting out for years now, the one that is 3 hours, 10 mins.

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.