FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Steineded How sad is this?

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Janis One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

kz642 For anyone who deems this movie accurate, it has many small inaccuracies. But it has one big inaccuracy that someone from Texas will recognize.It talks about Fannin's men being ambushed and not coming. The Alamo fell on 3/6/1836 and Fannin's men were trapped between Goliad and Victoria on March 20, 1836 and then executed on March 26, 1836. Fannin was portrayed as the relief to the Alamo and they were never planned to be.When the soldiers stormed Santa Anna at San Jacinto, their battle cry was "Remember the Alamo, Remember Goliad". They were referring to two massacres and in the order that they happened.

Wuchak Released in 1960 and produced/directed by John Wayne, "The Alamo" is a Western about the 1836 siege and fall of the famous Spanish mission-turned-fortress by Santa Anna's army of a couple thousand disciplined troops. The Alamo is defended by a ragtag assortment of roughly 200 soldiers, militia men and volunteers, including the famous frontiersman & politician Davy Crockett, loose cannon Jim Bowie and by-the-book militarist Colonel William Travis, the latter two regularly butting heads. Sam Houston (Richard Boone) is on hand as a significant peripheral character. As early as 1945 it was Wayne's goal to film a picture about the Alamo and James Edward Grant was hired to write the screenplay, but Wayne and the president of Republic Pictures, Herbert Yates, clashed over the estimated high cost and the fact that Yates only wanted John to star in the movie, not produce & direct. Wayne left Republic over the feud while the studio took the script and released 1955's "The Last Command," which I've never seen. Meanwhile, John started his own production company with Robert Fellows to forge "The Alamo," which came out five years later and naturally shares many elements of "The Last Command." The first two-thirds of "The Alamo" is a steady build-up culminating in the thrilling and utterly savage attack on the Alamo in the final act. The movie is surprisingly evenhanded with the events (considering it was 1960) and works despite inaccuracies, like the death of Bowie's wife, which actually took place a YEAR before Santa Anna's siege, not to mention the final assault, which took place in the dark of the pre-dawn hours. In the movie's defense, it does show the attack taking place at first light, which would make it only about 2-3 hours off from when it really happened. Wayne obviously made the decision to shoot in the daytime so viewers could actually SEE what was going on, rather than deal with the numerous negatives that come with shooting in the dark. As far as the story goes, it's all about the characters because, if we don't care about the protagonists, the final assault falls flat, despite the awesome action. Thankfully, Wayne as Crockett, Richard Widmark as Bowie, and Laurence Harvey as William Travis deliver the goods, not to mention the script. All three are phenomenal in their own unique way. They're doomed to die, of course, but when their deaths occur they're both shocking and moving. This version is just all-around more entertaining than the dreary 2004 version, although that rendition earns points for being way more realistic and giving Santa Anna considerable screen time, which this version doesn't do at all. Not to mention, the 2004 film ends with the humiliating defeat of Santa Anna & his army in a mere 18 minutes just six weeks after the fall of the Alamo. The rallying cry of Sam Houston & the Texian Army was naturally "Remember the Alamo!" Basically, Wayne filmed the Spirit of the Alamo with everything that goes with it, like big historical speeches, while the newer film tries for a more accurate telling.But keep this in mind: No movie has ever been made, or will ever be made, about the Alamo that's thoroughly accurate, except for the obvious gist of things. Why? Because ALL of the defenders were killed. Even the Mexican eyewitnesses who were there disagreed on the major events that took place. For example, there are those who claim Davy Crockett was killed in the assault, as shown in this version, while others say he survived the battle along with 5-6 others only to be captured, lined up, and executed, as depicted in the 2004 film. So any movie you see about the Alamo is going to contain a lot of conjecture.Dimitri Tiomkin's score is a dramatic, thrilling and tragic multifaceted piece that captures the slow build-up, eventual battle and aftermath. Carter Burwell's score for the 2004 version is mediocre by comparison; while certainly adept and adequate, it puts a dreary overcast over the proceedings. The short version of the film, which is the only one I've seen, runs 161 minutes and was shot in Brackettville, Texas. The long version runs 40 minutes longer, but 10 minutes of that consists of (unnecessary) overture, intermission, and exit music, which leaves 30 minutes of deleted scenes. Naturally, some of these scenes help make sense of certain sequences in the shorter version, such as a fight in the church where the arms are discovered and the leader of the non-patriots is killed; that is, the man who tried to force Mexican beauty Flaca (Linda Crystal) to marry him. In the short version he just seems to disappear into thin air. Another scene that should've never been cut is the death of the Parson (Hank Worden) because it ties into the earlier conversation that Crockett had with him: When Flaca leaves and the Parson asks Davy if he ever prayed Crockett responds that he never had the time. In Parson's death scene Crockett takes the time. Another significant cut scene involves the birthday party of Captain Dickinson's daughter, which I've heard is moving.Aside from Linda Crystal in the female department, Joan O'Brien appears as stunning blond Sue Dickinson, one of the surviving non-combatants who supplied one significant account of events inside the fort. GRADE: Borderline A- or B+ (7.5/10)

SnoopyStyle It's 1836. Generalissimo Santa Anna is sweeping north across Mexico and the settlers rise up to oppose his tyrannical rule. General Sam Houston needs time to organize his men. He orders Colonel William Travis (Laurence Harvey) to defend the small mission despite Travis' misgivings especially about Jim Bowie (Richard Widmark)'s drunkenness and ties to Spanish aristocracy. The two men don't get along as Bowie tries to explain their poor situation while Travis hides that he knows exactly how poor their situation truly is. Davy Crockett (John Wayne) arrives from Tennesee leading his men.It's a great opportunity for a grand war story. However it gets bog down by sentimentalism and traditional acting. John Wayne is worst of all playing his big character for all its worth. They even have singer Frankie Avalon as some kind of mascot teen heartthrob. Director John Wayne is making a part comedy and part romanticized sentimental war movie. It is full of idealism. It is too long. It's much too slow and takes far too long to get to some action. It has too much of John Wayne's touch. It is too light and not realistic enough. It plays best for lovers of traditional John Wayne. One can't deny that this is a massive movie. The grand scale of the Mexican army is impressive. The battles are well done when they come. It's the inbetween that I have some problems with.

denis888 So many people used to tell me this was The best version of Alamo. I was procrastinating long enough to watch it, and was right to do so. The newer version stands out to me as a great and thrilling movie, despite box-office bomb and much derision. But then, I watched the 1960 version. Just for fun. For the record. I didn't like it. Why? Well, first of all, John Wayne was Not a good director or even a very strong actor. His speeches are long, right-wing skewed, trite, banal and never exciting. He himself is not a very attractive man to be sexy or cool on screen. His playing is at best basic and very very formulaic. Other actors did almost the same average job - they're god but not great, OK but not excellent, lively but not very much alive. The Mexicans are the weakest link here and their portrayal is very bland, gray and vapid, especially Santa Anna - he is almost non present in the plot. Heh. The battles scenes are very simple and very caricature too, as we see the obvious goofs with stunts, or the exaggerated faces of those dying. The effect is not achieved and the film is viewed as a sort of some joke, joke that never worked out. I am of a strong opinion that this movie is not a success.