Forget "The Alamo" (Watch the 1960 Classic Instead Alert!)

Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 04/13/04 | Joseph Farah

[goldstategop]

The tag line says it all at the end: "Better rent the 1960 classic." You'll have a more authentic understanding of the events in Texas and the sacrifices American heroes made on behalf of freedom. Send Disney a message: you don't want American history remade to revile her past and besmirch her heroes. REMEMBER THE ALAMO!!!

[Dahoser]

"'Alamo' is expected to deal with many of the historical complexities – including the Mexican point of view – that were glossed over in John Wayne's 1960 film," Variety reported. "Alamo heroes William Barret Travis' serial marital infidelities...will also be addressed"

When Sony makes Dick Clarke's work of fiction into a movie, will they address Bill Clinton's serial marital infidelities?

[captbarney]

saw the picture yesterday. Americans bad, drunk, divorced. Houston,5'8".(real life 6'3"- 6'5". Terrible movie. PC at it's worst

[Ron H.]

Don't go see this movie. Don't let your kids see it. Don't rent it. Don't buy the DVD or the video.

Haven't seen the movie and don't intend to but have read the many various critical comments on its (lack of) historically documented accuracy for months now. That's more than enough for me. I'll just keep my money in my pocket on this one.

[johnny7]

One unforgiving rule about creating a movie based on fact is that you have to take it in context with the times... not through the eyes of a current day reporter immersed in the fluctuating sentiments of the present.

Another rule, even more important is that the moviegoer views the movie with some knowledge of the subject. If both are not followed, the end result is a 2 hour waste of time.

Given the back seat that history has been assigned in our public schools for over 30 years one might ask... why bother trying.

[Dr. Scarpetta]

This is really pathetic. It could have been a huge hit. I will NOT see it. Thanks for the post.

[LadyDoc]

according to fansite rotten tomatoes, the film was boring...that's the bottom line...

You can be politically correct and have a hit if the film has humor and heroism (the Deer Hunter and Robin Hood prince of thieves come to mind). But a movie needs to be entertainment...

And Farah has not right to criticize a movie he hasn't seen.

Personally, the clips of BBThornton's portrayal of Crockett makes me want to see the movie. Crockett's autobiography was full of irony, as are the clips-- both almost make fun of his heroism. But as the line in LOTR goes: Pippin: Man!, Indeed not. I am a hobbit, and no more valiant than I am a man, save perhaps now and again by necessity..." "Many a does of great deeds might say no more", (replied) Ingold...

When Crockett in the clips said he might go over the wall, but "not that Davy Crockett fellow", it is being interpreted as if he was a coward forced to fight by his reputation. But he was merely being ironic. After all, he had proved his courage in Indian wars, and he proved his political courage in defending the Indians from Jackson's policy of forcing Indians off their land and moving them to Oklahoma...for this courage he lost his seat in Congress...

No, this was the irony of a man who chooses to fight but doesn't want to brag about his own heroism so makes a joke about it...

[GailA]

BOYCOTT holywierd they'll have LESS money to give to hanoi john

[Dante3]

I read of some people who would have wanted to see "The Alamo" but didn't because of their resentment of Eisner.

[Redbob]

Disney's PC flop is it's own reward, and there's talk it will be the final straw that brings down Michael Eisner as well.

Good!

[Doctor Stochastic]

No, I haven't seen the movie. Nor do I intend to see it.

At least the guy's honest. He criticizes a movie without having seen it. (This may even be the norm for critics.)

[Cincinatus]

Although I love The Duke and appreciate his political sentiments, the 1960 version of "The Alamo" is an awful film, riddled with historical inaccuracies. The best version of the story I've ever seen is the 40-minute IMAX movie that is shown across the street from the Alamo. I don't think it's available on tape or disk, but it strives to be both historically accurate and moving. It succeeds.

[Mr. Jeeves]

It failed. It failed miserably. And I have to believe the American people showed some good judgment.

I have to believe the average American movie-goer these wouldn't know what the Alamo was unless Britney Spears gave a concert there. They probably thought the movie was about a breed of dog from Alaska. ;)

[Redbob]

Sam Houston, life-size.

[shield]

Knowing hollyweirdo of today, I knew these creeps would rewrite Texas history. I posted on another thread to rent John Wayne's ALAMO.

My relatives died in the battles for Texas Independence. There was NO doubt there were a FEW mexicans fighting for Texas Independence too. However, not the way I've heard Disney portrayed them.

Thank God this movie is a real bust.

[normy]

The fact that no one has seen it and is boycotting it is ridiculous. I have seen it twice and loved it. Yes Crockett is captured and killed but he dies heroicaly and fights heroicaly. I thought it was a great Crockett. Yeah he is just a man, yes he is aware of his status as a legend and knows he must live up to it for the sake of the men in the Alamo. He also fights hard, insults Santa Anna, and dies heroicly. Travis is very good also but his shortcomings are told but are not even close to the point of the movie. Bowie is great and so is Houston. The Battle of San Jacinto is awesome and so is the Alamo battle.Santa Anna is portrayed as an animal but the soldiers are not.

The movie is told in a very good way and is not a cartoon of these men. Hey face it these guys fought and killed people in bars (Bowie), left their wives (Travis), and were politicians who were also legends (Crockett). They were what they were but this movie portrays every one of them as heros.

The only part that someone might not like is that Crockett is portrayed as an ex-congressman who is ready to retire to Texas with his militia aquired 640 acres of his choosing, given by the Texas gov't. He winds up at the Alamo and the situation becomes something he was hoping not to have to deal with. He never allows the men to see it and he fights to the death. He goes out in style, as does Bowie.

A little word of advice, pay attention to the actor who plays Crockett in the PLAY at the begining. He is practicing his lines and he says something that the real Crockett refers to later. I missed it the first time but caught it when I went back to see it again.

[Sans-Culotte]

normy: I'm with you on this. I halfway expected the new Alamo movie to be PC crap, but I was very impressed. I am a Texan and armchair Alamo historian from way back, and this is easily IMO the best Alamo movie yet.

Apparently, half the people not seeing it are avoiding it because it is "too patriotic", and some misguided freepers are avoiding it because it's "not patriotic enough"!

I've read a lot of posts on various message boards by people condemning this movie, while they heap praise on John Wayne's hokey version from 1960. That was easily the least accurate Alamo movie ever (though it had moments of great spectacle).

The only problem I had with the movie is that it is apparently truncated from a 3 hr running time to a little over 2 hrs. It never struck me as cut, but apparently, a fuller version would have fleshed out a few characters and details a little better.

Yes, Bowie and Travis each have a slave in the movie, but little is made of the fact that they are slaveholders. It's just depicted as something that happened in those days. The idea of Crockett attempting to start over in Texas after his recent failed congressional campaign seemed perfectly plausible to me, and from what I have read, is basically what happened. the Mexicans are not made out to be heroes, and Santa Anna comes off as cruel and arrogant. A few of his officers are depicted as noble, and resistant to Santa Anna's cruelty, but apparently a few of his officers were gallant and brave and merely cursed with serving under and odious dictator (it reminded me of how it would have been for officers under Stalin). The now-revealed Crockett death was powerful, and the audience I saw it with reacted favorablly to it (though Crockett is bound and on his knees, he is defiant and heroic).

You guys can boycott it if you want for whatever reason (Quaid being too short has to be the lamest one I've heard yet). I think Eisner is an arsehole, too, but I'm not boycotting a movie because of him.

[Sans-Culotte]

II don't know why Farah wrote this crap. The Creek Indian massacre he refers to is not shown, but is recounted by Crockett in a converstion about his Indian fighting days. It is well documented, and the particulars of it can be found in Crockett's autobiograpy. This article appears to be based on groundless pre-release rumors, and is obviously written by someone who has not seen the film. The Clayton guy quoted by Farah apparently did not see it either.

[okie01]

The tag line says it all at the end: "Better rent the 1960 classic."

Or better yet, dredge up The Last Command -- a 1955 film starring Sterling Hayden (as Jim Bowie). It was a low budget "B" movie -- by Republic Pictures, as I recall.

But damned if it I don't remember it more favorably than the John Wayne epic.