Alamo Movie

[Woods Dweller]

What do you think of the newer Alamo movie with Bill Bob Thornton ?
There were a lot of things I did not like. Here they are.

The Church building was built in the wrong place.
Digging a trench inside a building to fight from.
Having Lunette's build outside the walls of the Alamo with just a few men in each one to defend in them.
Crockett was made out to be a cowered. [Crockett said; “I thought the fighting was over” - leaving one to think: Crockett a cowered]
Crockett telling a story of his past fight with the Indians, that would have lowered morale of the people he was speaking to.
Travis picking up a hot just fired cannon ball.
Travis being afraid of a bully Bowie.
Santa Anna speaking of the future, of Mexican children begging for food from the U,S,A.

What do you think of the movie?

 

[necchi]

I think it was made by Hollywood for entertainment.
Not a Historical Documentary.

A lot of the stuff we as even part time History buffs have come to know get's trumped by movie makers fantasy stuff, all in the name of mass entertainment and the $$.

 

[Billnpatti]

Somewhat entertaining but takes a lot of liberties with the truth. Hollywood is well known for taking the truth and stretching it beyond all recognition and then painting it some pretty odd colors. Think of it as a fairy tale based on an historical event. It's history as told by the Brothers Grimm.

 

[hawkeye2]

I didn't care much for the movie, if I'm still around in 15 or 20 years I may watch it again to see if I missed anything. I actually liked the John Wayne verson better, at least I knew that it was for entertainment only and not enlightment.

 

[tenngun]

It was made to be PC and not correct,all the basics were there. Americans were the bad guys,our heros had feet of clay.We robbed Mexico of Texas. The people it was made for didn't wast the truth, they just wanted an anti american myth.

 

[Snakebite]

It is Hollywood for sure, but I liked it much better than the John Wayne version. (Sacrilege, I know). Richard Widmark as Jim Bowie?? Please! With his multi-barreld rifle. :barf:

I think the characters in the new one were closer to whom they played. I thought Jason Patric as Bowie and Jordi Molla as Juan Seguin were very good. I think the way the set was set up was much better than in the 1960s movie and the weapons and costumes were so much better.

Not a big Billy Bob fan and, yes, Sam Houston did drink, but I don't think he was the drunkard he was portrayed to be. So I didn't like that part.

And dad gummit, my wife, who's great great great uncle, Thomas Hogan, fought at the Battle of San Jacinto, my wife says Davy went down swinning Ole Betsy, she doensn't care what some Mexican soldado says! And having been married to her for 38 years, I know better than to disagree. (In fact, she won't watch the new movie just because they show Davy being captured)

Anyway, that's my :2

 

[pargent]

The new one is lightyears ahead of the old version in every respect :thumbsup:

 

[Billnpatti]

Yes, lightyears ahead and yet so far short of the truth. Well, that's Hollywood for you.

 

[outdoorman]

I read a newspaper article a few years back because of some anniversary concerning the Alamo or Texas independence, where a lady related to David Crockett said the family figured he tried to talk his way out because he didn't much like to fight.

It was the first I had ever heard of such a thing, so I don't know if he was a coward or not. I do know this: Being outnumbered as they were and still making a stand to fight, there was not a coward among the defenders of the Alamo.

I believe nothing that is in any movie can disprove that fact.

Outdoorman

 

[Wes/Tex]

I'm with your wife Snakebite! Although there are actually a couple other sources that mention a couple Texans being captured and executed, only de la Pena's very questionable "journal" mentions any name and de la Pena was educated and would never have made such a slop of the name of a famous person.

Generally, the movie tried to fill in some holes but created others in the effort. Too bad Hollywood never thinks about consulting a few competent historians before turning their writers loose on a new project. At least the new movie managed to miss contrails and yellow school buses in the background! :haha:

 

[pargent]

What is not correct in the new movie ? Iam refering to real factual stuff :idunno:

 

[tenngun]

Acording to a mexican officer attacking the palasade between the wall and the church a tall man named "Crocky" shot down 8 of his men before they stormed the wall. He said they bayonetted him there.
Dickerson reported seeing Crockets body at the dirt palisade.
Two voices contridicting la Pena,both recorded right after the the event. Of corse hollywood to the story line that made crocket look bad

 

[Cowboy2]

I appreciated the movie a whole lot more on the second, and later, viewings. I think it was doomed at the theaters because of timing. The country was more or less divided down the middle politically, and if you were on the Left, you hated everything Texas, and on the Right, you simply hated everything Hollywood was doing. I'm a big student of American and Southern history, and if I didn't show up to see it (I didn't), well, you're target audience was missed by a mile.

All that said, the more I've read up on the Alamo, the more I've come to appreciate the movie (despite its many flaws). Travis wasn't some meek kid, he was a certified hell raiser. Bowie was as tough as they came. Crockett, he was a likable guy that found himself caught up in something he didn't have any intention of walking into. I don't think its evidence of cowardice on his part that he managed to walk into a fight that he thought was long over. The fact is, he stuck around when the you know what hit the fan, and by all accounts, did so admirably.

I don't say any of that to cast dispersions on the men involved. These were real people, on the ragged edge of the frontier- they wanted to live, and they did the best they could as honor would allow. I don't mind the warts and all being shown, because when push came to shove, those men did more than I think could be demanded of any man. It truly is a heroic story. These were regular men with families, hopes, and dreams, cast into extraordinary circumstance, and to say they measured up beyond common reckoning is an understatement.

I can tell you, having stood in the Long Barracks a couple of times, this cowboy got chills down his spine each time. Those last few days, they knew what was coming, and they faced it, and fought it, like men.

To me, they myth is well worth telling, and has a world of value. Its an odd thing that perhaps the most American of battles took place in a land that wasn't actually American at the time. But the human story, the weaknesses and fears the individuals must have faced and manned up to, to me, that's the more inspiring story. Those guys weren't Greek gods, they were just a bunch of country boys standing in the way of a army. They had wives, kids- all the stuff your averaged man has to concern himself with. They weren't very different than you and I- yet they did something precious few of us would have the balls to do.

To me, that is the real, the truly heroic, story.

 

[Billnpatti]

That is one of the best and most insightful comments I have read about the men at the Alamo. You are, in my humble estimation, very correct in what you have to say about this incident. It is also applicable to all of the battles fought in Texas. These were real, common men, not phony Hollywood super heroes, doing extremely courageous things. I am sure all were afraid, some stood tall and fought and I am sure that there were a few who ran and hid. It was, after all, real life, not Hollywood and not a comic book. Every name on the monument disserves our respect.

 

[Supercracker]

In the special features they have the option of watching it with the commentary from the Historical consultants turned on.

They say pretty much the same thing you did. Crocket accidentally got caught up in something he didn't mean to. Houston was immensely frustrated by the politics and this probably made him even more abrasive and drunk than normal. In real life Bowie was the 19th century equivalent of a hell raising biker and probably not a terribly likeable person to most people but the ones who do like him are really drawn to him. etc.

They also complain about trying to tell all this to the producers and directors and getting vetoed in the interest of making a movie for non history geeks. lol

 

[wattlebuster]

anytime I watch a movie/dvd I already KNOW its gonna be full of :bull: and I don't expect anything less. I did enjoy looking at all the flintlocks and that's why I watch it in the first place :idunno:

 

[jimbowie1]

COWBOY2
VERY WELL SAID. If ever we needed heros now we NEED them more then ever.

 

[satx78247]

Cowboy2; All,

Frankly as a proud Texican (YEP, that's the correct/official spelling, by act of the Republic of Texas Congress.), I enjoyed the John Wayne MYTH and didn't particularly care for the Billy Bob Thornton version.

While BOTH movies are dead wrong in a hundred ways (they aren't documentaries.), at least the John Wayne version is FUN to watch.

yours, satx

 

[jimbowie1]

THE LAST COMMAND was a good movie about the alamo. STERLING HADEN ? - jim bowie and ernest borgnine was also in it. It was a good movie even though it was not historicly correct. I enjoy it have it on dvd. also the IRON MISTRESS with alan ladd as JIM BOWIE but it ends before he gos to texas.

 

[satx78247]

jimbowie1,

I've thought for years that the real love story of Ursula de Veramendi & Bowie would make a great "chick flick", tear-jerker & would earn $$$$$$$$$$.
BUT writing (or trying to write?) a book/screenplay on The Second War Between The States, set in 2020-2026 is all the screen project that I can handle.
(Writing is HARD work.)

yours, satx