The Alamo (1960) User Reviews

John Wayne's Massive Tribute to Texas Terrific!

[cariart · 8/10 · 18 November 2000]

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!

The 'Battle Cry' that broke Santa Anna's back!

[Nazi_Fighter_David · 8/10 · 2 July 2000]

John Wayne's directorial tribute to the struggle for "The Alamo" symbolized the spirit of resistance of a small group of determined fighters for Texan independence from Mexico...

Texans established a provisional government in 1835 and appointed Sam Houston (Richard Boone) commander in chief of their army... There followed a seesaw battle for control of San Antonio, including the ill-advised defense of the Alamo by a force of fewer than 200 Texas volunteers... General Antonio Lopez De Santa Anna was determined to take this key location in order to impress upon the Texans the futility of further resistance to Mexican ruler...

After a 13-day siege, every fighting man perished under the onslaught of 7,000 Mexican troops... Among the fallen defenders were Cols. William B. Travis, James Bowie and the legendary Davy Crockett... Only Mrs. Dickinson (Joan O'Brien), her little daughter and a black boy survive to provide the eyewitness story of the Siege and the Battle of the Alamo...

John Wayne portrays Davy Crockett, a frontiersman and politician, who saw the future of an independent Texas as his future and he loved a good fight... Crockett and his brave combatants - the Tennesseans, expert marksmen, held their position until death...

Richard Widmark is cast as Colonel Jim Bowie, a reckless adventurer, known for his famous 'Bowie knife'. Bowie has come to fight for Texas independence with a small force of volunteers. He had strong personal friction with Travis which threatens to develop into a private war... The difference in their personalities resulted in the two men sharing a somewhat antagonistic competition for command of the entire garrison... On one point they did agree: "The Alamo" is the most important stronghold of Texas...

Laurence Harvey plays Colonel Travis, "the grand Canyon of Texas," who arrives with 25 men to establish the first line of defense against Santa Anna... Travis is a disciplinarian officer who commanded the Texas defenders during the siege and battle of the Alamo, a genuine hero who anticipated a battle to the death, a polite gentleman who gave the men an opportunity to retreat with honor the ill-fated garrison but explained how important their defense of the Alamo is... His appeal from the Alamo of reinforcements becomes an American symbol of unyielding courage, heroism and self-sacrifice... Travis high moment in the film was when he fired his answer to Santa Anna with a cannon blast: Victory or Death!

With its seven Oscar nominations, including the Oscar-nominated hit song "The Green Leaves of Summer" and a superb score written by Dmitri Tiomkin and song-writer Paul Webster, and featuring some of the most spectacular battle sequences ever seen, "The Alamo," - a sacrifice on the altar of liberty - becomes the 'Battle Cry' that broke Santa Anna's back...

If You Really Want to Know John Wayne, See This Legacy

[Bob-45 · 8/10 · 16 February 2005]

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.

Historical perspective

[sticks-8 · 15 July 1999]

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.

While not exactly accurate and a bit overlong, it was far better than I expected

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 1 October 2008]

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.

A Mixed Bag

[FightingWesterner · 7/10 · 2 September 2009]

I think that even people who love this movie have to admit that The Alamo is the ultimate self-indulgent John Wayne vanity project. It's a three hour film produced by, directed by, and starring the Duke alongside a cast of thousands.

The first half certainly lives up to the self-indulgent label with endless scenes of Wayne and pals getting drunk, mouthing off, and punching one another; Jim Bowie and Colonel Travis' constant bickering, leading to Bowie's quitting at least twice; and a fairly useless subplot with Davey Crockett romancing a pretty young Mexican widow. (She was pretty hot.)

Instead of all that, we should have rode a bit with Santa Anna and/or visited some of the other battles and skirmishes that led up to the siege at the Alamo.

I thought that Richard Widmark was miscast as Jim Bowie. My preference would have been that Widmark and Richard Boone switch roles with Boone as Bowie and Widmark as Sam Houston, though I'll admit that it would be awfully hard to see Richard Boone cry like a baby in the scene where Bowie finds out his wife has died.

The second half is much better with great scenes of macho speech-making and awesome battle sequences that put the climaxes to other films I recently watched (Custer Of The West, El Condor, Two Mules For Sister Sara) to shame. Overall, the second part makes the movie worth watching.

I would be doing a great disservice if I didn't mention the excellent score by Dimitri Tiomkin.

The Academy was blatantly unfair to this epic

[farleyconsulting · 10/10 · 16 October 2005]

I have read many of the comments about this movie and have researched the actual event as extensively as I can. I find it difficult to understand how people could deem this movie categorically inaccurate in any way. It is indisputable that no one really knows the exact way the main characters died although Bowie in the infirmary with a bad leg is, perhaps, the only clear inaccuracy. Susannah Dickinson (one of the 3 survivors) testified that she saw Crockett's body in the compound within 20 minutes of the end of the battle with his "peculiar hat" next to him. This makes it unlikely that he was lined up and executed. It is also indisputable that these men could have run, but chose to stay, clearly understanding their probable fate. Reading Travis' letter to Houston just days before the final battle can leave no doubt of the heroism of these men. Is it not, therefore, infinitely more believable that perhaps Crockett did discuss the meaning of the word "Republic" with Travis (possibly the most emotional scene in the movie)? John Wayne researched the actual event and location meticulously. The actual original plans of the mission were used to ensure the Alamo Village was correct. Costumes were identical to those depicted in every book of Mexican military history I have seen.

I have seen "The Apartment"-winner of the 1960 best picture academy award. Its clear that Groucho Marx and the rest of the voters made a decision to scoff at Wayne in particular and patriotic historical epics in general. For, in my opinion, "The Apartement" is inferior. The Alamo should have won 5 Oscars (best score; best song "Green Leaves of Summer"; best supporting actor-Chill Wills; best movie and best sound).I also think Laurence Harvey should have been nominated for best actor.

I do agree with all of those that lament the deletion of certain scenes from the DVD version. How could MGM leave out the scene of the 32 Tejanos arrival at the Alamo. It is central to the movie and the actual historical event. The death of the Parson should also have been included.

It will always be one of my favorites.

The Fort That Was A Mission

[slokes · 6/10 · 14 February 2014]

This review is for the shortened, two-hour, forty-one minute version.

John Wayne threw everything he had into making this film, at the apex of his stardom, and just for that, and the sacrifice it honors, I want to celebrate it. I just can't.

"The Alamo" presents the story of the heroic last stand of some 180 Texas irregulars against the massed might of Santa Anna's Mexican army, featuring Wayne both as director and actor (playing Davy Crockett, one of the defenders at the siege.) It's full of great images, solid performances, and affecting scenes. Also, it's terribly long (even the edited version I saw runs over two-and-a-half hours) and weakened by a tendency toward preachiness and lazy sentiment.

Is it entertaining? I say yes, albeit intermittently, even though it doesn't adhere to the facts and feels rather underbaked in the story department. Print the legend, as Wayne's patron John Ford was often quoted as saying, however spuriously, and "The Alamo" sort of does that, pushing the story as an exercise in rah-rah sentiment which strangely veers into liberal platitudes about republicanism and respecting one's foe even as he's bent on killing you to the last man.

Reading the reviews here, you get the sense more than you do with IMDb takes on other Wayne movie how much he attracts negativity from people who see him as an avatar of American imperialism. Yet "The Alamo" is the last film of Wayne's which deserves such opprobrium. The film soft-soaps the viciousness of Santa Anna, whose no-quarter approach to riot control did him in as an effective ruler, and sets up the title edifice as a kind of coming together of multi-ethnic harmony. Even given the context of legend-building, this plays way too good to be true.

The script, by Wayne's favorite writer James Edward Grant, pushes buttons without mercy or subtlety. This is the film where Denver Pyle, as one of the Alamo's defenders, marvels about the Mexicans bent on the slaughter of him and his comrades: "Even when I was killin' 'em, I was proud of 'em."

Wayne took a lousy part, a character already brilliantly defined on TV by Fess Parker, and did what he could with it. As director, he selflessly ceded the stage to his co-stars, especially Richard Widmark as a tough, no-nonsense Jim Bowie and Laurence Harvey as Col. William Travis, the most interesting character in the picture. Harvey, burdened somewhat by an on-and-off English accent, gives Travis a veneer that makes him likable, even as he plays loose with the facts in keeping his men in the fort. Harvey at least is clearly enjoying himself, and for that his scenes have real color and vim.

Some reviewers here say the film is cheated when cut a half-hour from the version first released in roadshow form. Certainly what I see here felt compromised by the absence of a resolution to a story arc involving a bad-guy American named Emil Sand and the woman he seeks to pressure into marriage. But it wasn't like I wanted this movie longer.

The finale at least is terrific. Call it "Wild Bunch 1.0" for the way Wayne shoots the battle itself, all quick cuts and grisly deaths with hardly a dollop of sentiment. It's visceral filmmaking, and shows Wayne could shoot action, however lacking Widmark and others found his direction in terms of character development.

Ultimately, "The Alamo" works okay as cinematic entertainment, aided greatly by William H. Clothier's cinematography which gives every shot that epic feeling that came so naturally in the 1960s and rarely thereafter. It's not entirely empty otherwise, Wayne's affable performance is on par with his later work and Grant manages to write some good dialogue here and there, like when Bowie learns the fate of his wife. But for such a legendary moment in American history, one is left wanting for much more.

The FULL Version is Great, The Cut Version is Awful

[dbborroughs · 9/10 · 13 September 2004]

This grand, over blown piece of Hollywood historical fable making is one the old Hollywood's last gasps. Its an old Hollywood star vehicle done at the start of the modern film era. Its far from realistic, but its a hell of a fun ride. In its full form its a grand epic that may not be one of the greatest films ever made but certainly in the second ring.

When the film was originally released this ran well over three hours. MGM wasn't thrilled, and hacked 40 minutes out of it for general release, despite numerous Oscar noms. Much of the subtler shades to the story went leaving a huge bloated and wrong headed tale of heroism at the Alamo.I can't really recommend the shorter version because its not very good. This is the version that was the only one you could see for years and its colored many peoples feelings towards the film which is a shame since its not a fair depiction of the events at the Alamo or the intentions of John Wayne.

The footage was thought lost until a print was discovered about ten or fifteen years ago and released to video and laserdisc. To see the full version is to have a night and day experience. Here in the full version we have real characters and not cartoons. The events suddenly have a weight missing from the shorter version. This is the version that should be seen, however the current DVD release of the Alamo by MGM is, the short release version of the film. That's a shame since since the missing minutes are the difference between a 9 out of 10 and a 6 out of 10.

If you can manage to see the full, uncut version do so, its worth the investment of time and popcorn.

The Spirit is There

[ragosaal · 7/10 · 28 October 2006]

There has been many film versions about The Alamo's 150 Americans heroic stand against the Mexican army of General Santa Ana in San Antonio de Béjar, Texas and I've seen most of them (perhaps all of them). This 1960 John Wayne intent is not a perfect movie and it has its weaknesses, but in my opinion it's the one that better catches the epic spirit and the sense of greatness of the myth.

Some sequences (the rescue of the powder by Wayne's men at the start, the night mission to silence Santa Ana'a cannons and the friendly competition of Crockett with one of his men hiting each other at the "cantina") could have been cut off for better for they appear too common "westernly"-like and extend the film unnecessarily. On the other hand, the final charge by the Mexicans and the desperate final resistance are visually outstanding and has big impact and strenght.

Wayne (Davy Crockett) and Richard Widmark (Jim Bowie) are good as the famous defenders that rendered their lives for the cause. Laurence Harvey looks a bit wooden as William Travis. The supporting cast is excellent and shows fine performances out of Chill Wills, John Dierkes, Denver Pyle, Ken Curtis and Richard Boone as Sam Houston, among others. The sort of romantic touch is brought by Argentine actress Linda Cristal who gets slightly involved with Wayne.

If you're interested in the subject or you enjoy epic spectacular films this is one you shouldn't miss. Good for Wayne in his only direction work.

John Wayne Directs.

[AaronCapenBanner · 5/10 · 7 October 2013]

John Wayne both directs and stars in this recreation of the famous battle of the Alamo, where greatly outnumbered forces led by Col. William Travis(played by Laurence Harvey) are ordered by General Sam Houston to defend their Texas outpost in 1836, where the Mexican army under the command of General Santa Anna are rampaging. Joining them in support are Wayne as Davey Crockett, and Richard Widmark as Jim Bowie, who are uneasy allies, but vow to stay and assist until the end, even if it costs them their lives...

Surprisingly mediocre film goes on far too long, with needless sundry subplots that drag. Though the climatic battle is exciting, it's not enough to save this disappointing film.

One of the best of the best!!!!

[jckalar · 10/10 · 24 March 2004]

John Wayne did an outstanding job on this film. It was overlooked at the Academy Awards and unjustifiably so. It was beautiful, costumes were outstanding and very true to type. The actors were wonderful and I believe should have been more acknowledged for the great job they did in protraying those truly brave men at the Alamo! I have this on DVD and watch it probably at least twice a year. The music, just to listen to the music, is an experience; beautiful and haunting. The horses were beautiful, the scenery was beautiful. Everything about this movie was beautiful. John Wayne, an American institution, a lover of this country and a true patriot deserved an academy award for directing this great film. I cant say enough great things about it. One of my favorites of all time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Remember the Awesome Climactic Battle

[Bogmeister · 7/10 · 15 May 2006]

The version to see is the 202-minute one, restored to this length about a dozen years ago and which I have on Laserdisc (oh, those were the days). It doesn't really make for slower going, instead adding scenes which add some texture to the group of Texacans, among them Tennessee-man Davy Crockett (Wayne), his cohorts, and Jim Bowie (Widmark). Yes, it's a long while until the actual fighting begins, almost a full 2 hours, but you get to see how Crockett & Bowie meet, verbally spar with the snooty Colonel in charge (Harvey), and listen to Wayne wax poetic on the meaning of such terms as 'Republic.' Corny? Maybe. But, it touches on some basics related to the human spirit, which, when faced by a definite kind of totalitarianism, represented by General Santa Anna, will not simply bow to superior numbers. Numbers play a big role here: the odds are similar to the famous battle depicted in "Zulu" - about 185 banded Texacans against an army of 7000 Mexican soldiers. No matter how well they fortify the mission which they occupy, the small band is obviously doomed before the battle begins.

I've marked the spoilers box, so for those unfamiliar with this historical battle, you may want to stop here, but I don't think it's any secret to anyone by now about who does or doesn't survive. This filmed depiction of history becomes a somewhat unique film role for Wayne. He plays the role with his standard (interchangeable) easygoing Wayne persona but, at a bit past the 1-hour mark, a poignant point is impressed on the viewer. Crockett, after all, ambled over all the way from Tennessee to partake in this defense - it almost comes across as a death wish. Wayne, as Crockett, makes another long speech about himself to explain: he had the choice of whiling away his remaining years in a pointless manner or take a meaningful stand on something. It's not so much courage that seems to drive him as a fear of just wasting away slowly. And it's genuinely disturbing to watch him die during the battle - Wayne rarely died in his films - as if you're losing that big uncle you always looked forward to seeing about once a year.

When I was younger and acquired this film on VHS tape, I made a point of watching the big climactic battle over and over, usually neglecting the rest of it; at that time, it was the final battle which was unforgettable to me and the entire build up was rather tedious and plodding by comparison. I did like Boone's scene near the end, playing General Houston, when he vents his frustration at not being able to help the men at the Alamo. I was also intrigued by Harvey's character who, on the surface, seems like just a stiff upper-crust in-charge bore, but, if you look closely, has more guts than even all the other wild men under his command. As I got older, however, I found it more gratifying to watch the whole thing, getting to know these brave or foolhardy men, depending on your mood, who were doomed before it even began, but who fought like the toughest bastards north of the border.

Overwrought, overly-macho take on history

[grantss · 5/10 · 24 May 2014]

Overwrought, overly-macho take on a very historic event.

Should have been simple enough: tell the story of the Battle of the Alamo with some good, epic action scenes and some character development. The action scenes are there, and are good. However, the character development is quite superficial: there are no shades of grey. Travis is a martinet, Crockett and Bowie are one-dimensional, anarchic, uber- hero adventurers.

Moreover, director John Wayne and writer James Edward Grant add in several sub-plots which have no bearing on the story. Yes, some are there to add some colour to the characters, but they just seem gratuitous and wholly unnecessary.

Acting is almost all of the over-the-top macho variety. John Wayne was always going to be the swaggering hero (that's all he knows), and, as he is director, now he has licence to crank up the swagger. Richard Widmark comes close to matching him in this regard. Only Laurence Harvey, as Travis, plays it straight. Too straight: he comes off as cranky.

Surprisingly, despite all the hammy acting that abounds, this movie got an acting Oscar nomination. Chill Wills was nominated for Best Supporting Actor, for his performance as Beekeeper. Probably the most undeserved Oscar nomination in history. Apparently his marketing campaign in attempting to get the Oscar is worth a movie itself...

This all said, this version is still far better than the one from 2004.

If you love the uncut version, then DON'T buy the new DVD

[patrick.hunter · 12 December 2000]

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.

Better than you might expect, but falls short of greatness.

[MBunge · 7/10 · 26 August 2011]

This movie is a lot better than many give it credit for, but it still falls short of the greatness at which it was aiming. John Wayne proves here that he learned from John Ford how to make a beautiful looking film. He unfortunately didn't learn how to tell a great story.

Based on the 1836 battle where less than 200 men fought to the death to defend an old Spanish mission from Mexican general Santa Anna and 7000 of his soldiers, The Alamo is a heartfelt, high-minded and surprisingly cheerful production. It's also really long. The DVD version I watched was 162 minutes long, which apparently leaves out 20 to 40 minutes of footage. Despite it's length, The Alamo never feels slow or ponderous. It just takes a lot of narrative digressions along its way which are entertaining but only kill time between setting the stage and unleashing the movie's big finish.

Though it has a huge cast, the story focuses mainly on three men. Colonel William Travis (Laurence Harvey) was the leader of a small band of regular soldiers from the budding Texas army. He was officious, rigid, imperious and willing to sacrifice almost anything for Texas independence. Jim Bowie (Richard Widmark) was a legendary knife-fighter and leader of a large band of volunteer militia at the Alamo. He was a rough and ready adventurer who found himself a home in Texas and wasn't willing to live under the dictatorship of Santa Anna. Throughout the entire film, Travis and Bowie clash like Mr. Spock and Dr. McCoy from Star Trek. Standing alongside and between them was Davy Crockett (John Wayne). A former Indian fighter, congressman and worldwide symbol of the American frontier, Crockett led a couple dozen of his fellow Tennesseans to Texas to join in the fight. Crockett was a silver-tongued son of the backwoods who liked to hide his intellect but could never disguise his love for freedom and righteousness.

Wayne had dreamed for years of making this film and when he finally got his chance, he jammed it full of everything he could think of. There's music, comedy, action and more than a bit of speechifying about duty, liberty, God and the glory of individualism. Wayne was also ridiculously high-minded and somewhat heavy handed in this storytelling. There are a few too many scenes in the film that ring false, like when the defenders of the Alamo remark on the nobility and courage of their Mexican attackers. Wayne tries a little too hard to be fair and respectful of both sides of the battle, something that flies in the face of his ultra-conservative image. However, in cutting out the cruder, jingoistic aspects of the tale, he whitewashes away much of the pathos and tragic glory of the Alamo. The movie 300 tells a similar story, but that one positively revels in both the sadness and crazed bravado of the Spartans at Thermopylae.

Its lack of emotional depth leaves The Alamo more entertaining than touching. But strong performances by Wayne, Richard Widmark and Laurence Harvey along with some good action sequences, genuinely funny gags and magnificent imagery make this a good movie. It's not all that Wayne wanted it to be, but he still deserved to be proud of what it is.

Redeemed by battle

[malcolmgsw · 6/10 · 16 May 2019]

I saw this on its west end showing in 1960,presumably in 70mm.I remembered the music and photography.They hold up better than the film which is only memorable for the battle scenes.Amusing that reviewers want the full version.How much verbage can people take.The first half is very talky and slow.Wayne was clearly out of his depth as a director.

Director's cut on video is a different film

[magbo · 10/10 · 2 March 1999]

The video release of this film contains approximately 30 minutes of footage excised from the version shown at the Los Angeles premiere in 1960. The story is that the studio wanted a shorter print in circulation so more screenings could be fit into a single day, thus increasing the box office receipts. Art sacrificed for money is nothing new, but the dilution of "The Alamo" is extraordinary. It is remarkable how much the deleted scenes add to the narrative. Character development is deeper, motivation is clearer, the viewer is much closer to the story and its impact, particularly after the finale, is potent.

As it was, the studio-butchered print that circulated for years was a wonderful tribute to the struggle for Texas freedom in 1836. Releasing the original version, or director's cut, makes it an even more wonderful tribute.

The film has had a generally more appreciative following among Western-movie aficionados in the United Kingdom through the years, perhaps because the British can better appreciate a true epic when they see one and perhaps because the political factions bent upon vilifying John Wayne, are absent there. Now, thanks to the release of the uncut version on video, any movie fan who appreciates a true epic can more fully understand what the director, John Wayne, wanted to tell the world about the Alamo.

2 hours and 15 minutes of talking and 15 minutes of fighting. Remember the Alamo!

[Boba_Fett1138 · 7/10 · 17 June 2012]

Sort of funny how this movie is somewhat of a semi-classic but most people can still agree on it that it's being far from a perfect movie.

There were countless problems I had with this movie and most of them could be blamed on John Wayne. No I am not talking about his acting but fact is that he directed this movie as well and the movie is filled with some storytelling flaws, that prevent this movie from ever becoming an involving one.

Fact about its story also remains that there was no good reason for it to be as long as it was. The movie is literally a 2 hour and 15 minutes buildup to an only 15 minutes short battle, that is over before you know it. Besides, the final 15 minutes makes its very long buildup feel very pointless as well. It spends a lot of time on character development, without ever really telling you anything the characters, or make them likable enough to care for any of them. It's also perhaps due to it that none of the characters feel 'real' enough. No one seems to be afraid to die and in fact all behave incredibly heroic and seem to be proud and happy to give their lives. This is of course a problem with a lot of Wayne productions.

The lack of a sense of true treat and despair makes this movie a somewhat shallow one but yet I can't really say that it's being a horrible movie as well. Despite the movie being way longer than it should had been, it never becomes a slow or boring one. The movie also does definitely still has its moments but overall it remains a lacking production of a true historical event, that deserved a far better treatment. Quite amazing that after so many years there still isn't a truly great Alamo movie yet. Oh well, at least this movie still remains better than the most recent 2004 version.

The acting is being a bit a mixed bag in this one. The only consistently good performance comes from Laurence Harvey, while John Wayne himself is really lacking at parts. The same really goes for some of the movie its supporting actors, who really were horrendous. But this is something a lot of '50's and '60's movies were suffering from, so perhaps it isn't really fair to hold any of that against this movie.

It's really far from a great movie but it remains definitely a watchable one.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Overwhelming and breathtaking retelling based on notorious battle performed , written , produced and well directed by John Wayne

[ma-cortes · 8/10 · 30 January 2012]

Big-budgeted and interesting rendition about the mythic mission El Alamo with impressive battles and all-star-cast . Epic western upon the state of Texas's fight for independence in 1836 . The usual band of diverse personalities including Davy Crockett (John Wayne) , Jim Bowie (Richard Widmark) , Colonel William Travis (Laurence Harvey) defend a small fort against very big Mexican raiding party commanded by general Santa Anna . Previously meeting final tragedy , they contend with each other and finally understand the meaning of life and come to respect each other . It's until the spectacular crushing spotlight of total slaughter hoping arrival of Sam Houston (Richard Boone) when the movie comes alive at all . It was a troubled issue but with millions dollars budget weighing heavy in the conscience of the producer/screenwriter James Edward Grant and also producer/director John Wayne , helped by John Ford , led to big success and achieved the wished box office . Lavish production features an impeccable musical score by the classic Dimitri Tiomkin , including the famous strains of 'Deguello' and colorful cinematography by William H. Clothier , John Ford's usual ; besides has an incredible number extras for the Mexican army .

Film is correctly based on historic events . The stalwart but tragic defense has become one of American history's most often repeated legends,although historical research has revealed a few facts that go unmentioned. For instance, Sam Houston , commander in chief of the Texas forces,never felt that the crumbling mission could stand up to a siege,and ordered frontiersman Jim Bowie to destroy . He didn't ,however, and rescinded the order and sent attorney turned colonel William B.Travis to defend it. The force that remained in the mission the date the siege began,is estimated at between 182 .Of these less than 20 were actually Texans,the rest including Bowie and another frontier legend,Davy Crokett were volunteers . Early all of them believed that reinforcements were only a short time away . Santa Anna Launched a pre-dawn attack . To the strains of ¨deguello¨a battle march indicating that no quarter would be given,or no prisoners taken,some 1800 Mexicans troops stormed the fort . They were thrown back by the cannon and rifles of the defenders,they rushed again,and were repulsed a second time.Eventually Santa Anna sent another wave of troops who broke the outer defenses and forced the Texans to retreat,fighting hand to hand . When the fighting was over,there were no survivors among the defenders . The myth that the garrison fought to the last man ,however isn't quite accurate,since the evidence indicates that Davy Crockett and several others were captured and possibly tortured , then executed . That they died bravely has never been disputed. William Travis who at least according to legend, invited all who would stay and die with him to cross the line in the dirt, fell near a cannon at the north wall . And Jim Bowie,already deathly ill from a sickness that had recently claimed wife and children,fought from his sickbed near the main gate . Like many others among the defenders Bowie was armed with the formidable hunting knife named for him. The legendary defense served as a rallying point for the beleaguered Texas . Although Santa Anna , who lost at least 600 of some 3000 troops against a force of less than 200 , referred as a small affair , the valor of the defenders gave the surviving Texan troops something to remember and thus they did,six weeks later at San Jacinto , but a new battle cry had been added to the annals of American history : ¨Remember the Alamo¨ .

Too long, inaccurate, poor screenplay, good production values

[mts43 · 6/10 · 6 February 2021]

There isn't much about James Edward Grant's screenplay that is historical accurate, the film is 30 minutes longer than it should have been, the dialogue is frequently bombastic and cliched, and at times even preachy. But John Wayne was a competent action director, and the cinematography and score are good. Lawrence Harvey gives a decent performance, John Wayne is John Wayne. Richard Widmark supposedly felt he was miscast, but he does a solid job. The fact that Chill Wills was even nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar is ludicrous, and the fact that he took out ads campaigning for the award is embarrassing.

For what seems like 13 hours the film misses classic genre status.

[hitchcockthelegend · 5/10 · 17 September 2008]

For 13 days these brave men hold the fort...

The Alamo is not the film it should be, even after the 2004 remake (a great film that takes a reflective and thoughtful stance) we find ourselves still waiting for a blood pumping and stirring take on the folklore tale of what happened at the small missionary known as The Alamo. It's San Antonio, 1836 and General Santa Anna is marching his mighty armies into the contested territory of Texas, all that stands in his way is a small band of heroes, Jim Bowie, Davy Crockett and their trusty men who are led by the inexperienced William Travis. They must buy time in order for General Sam Houston to get an army together in which to crush Santa Anna's imposing forces.

There really is no simpler way of putting it other than to say that The Alamo is an overlong misfire. Various cuts have been made to try and create an epic classic out of what was actually filmed, but neither of the cuts can succeed in making it the flowing genre piece it could have been. John Wayne directs and clearly cared about the project (with his own cash invested that was to be expected), but rumours have persisted that Cliff Lyons had to take up directing duties later in the picture, it's not hard to see why if that was the case, but various sources do poo poo this rumour, and is mostly believed to be Wayne's own work throughout the film. Wayne (having learnt from his mentor John Ford) had a great vision for the picture, and the scope is rather impressive, the recreation of The Alamo building in particular is first rate, whilst the formations of Santa Anna's armies finally rouse the picture out of its slumber.

However, the high points in the picture are few and far between, the acting leaves a lot to be desired, with Wayne himself unable to let the Crockett character be anything other than the John Wayne show. Richard Widmark as Jim Bowie steadily holds his own and manages to eek out a bit of bravado interplay with Wayne and Laurence Harvey (William Travers), but outside of that there is not much to write home about. The final third just about saves the film from being a stinker, with the Academy Award for best sound richly deserved, but sadly The Alamo remains to this day a plodding dinosaur that bores when it really should be igniting the spirit. 5/10

the labor of love of the Duke

[gzapiola · 9/10 · 23 February 2011]

O.K., is historically inaccurate, too long, here and there rhetoric and verbose, and very, very patriotic. Bus is also sincere, often moving,and probably the film in which Wayne expresses his more strong convictions. ¿Conservative? Yes. ¿Repubican? Of course. ¿Fascist? Only if you are the obnoxious left wing guy who thinks that everyone who dissents with you is the cousin of Mussolini. A funny story: some years ago, I purchased a VHS of the film in Madrid, dubbed in Spanish, and discovered that in the famous scene of the "Republic speech" (Wayne to Laurence Harvey) the word "Republic" was replaced for "Independence". In the almost fascist Franco's Spain, republicans were the Bad Guys of the last Civil War. Interesting trivia. The final battle is obviously borrowed from the famous combat in the ice of "Alexander Nevsky" (1938), by Russian director Sergei Eisenstein. Both sequences show first shots of individual soldiers, then little groups, then long shots of all the enemy army, and the soundtrack combines various lines of the principal musical themes of the film. The question: mention two famous ukrainian musicians who studied together in San Petersburg in 1913, with professor Alexander Glazunov. The answer: Sergei Prokofiev (author of the music of "Nevsky") and Dmitri Tiomkin (idem for "The Alamo"). Tiomkin also was piano's teacher of Glazunov's daughter. I suspect that he and Wayne (or his second unit director Cliff Lyons) have "Nevsky" in mind when filmed the battle. Is obvious too that the Duke don't tell us the story of the Alamo, but his legend (the final chorus insist: "let the old men tell the story, let the legend grow and grow"), and conceived his film as his particular version of Homer's "Iliad". The conflict of leadership between Travis and Bowie it's inspired by the confrontation of Agamnenon and Achiless in the old poem, with Crockett (¿Ulysses?) in the middle. And in terms of American politics, there are a sub-plot in the film: Travis is the manipulative hamiltonian leader, Bowie a jacksonian populist figure, and Crockett a jeffersonian that accepts the decission of the majority. Politics and history aside, the film is a good epic, that grows in his splendid 45 final minutes. And Wayne plays fair with his enemies: the villain is the concept of dictatorship, not the mexicans (the only individual bad guy is an opportunist American). "Nevsky", indeed, painted the story in white and black, making his hero as a parable of Uncle Joe Stalin. ¿Who is the "reactionary" an who the "progressive"?

An Underrated Masterpiece from The Duke!

[Theflyace · 7/10 · 20 January 2018]

When I was young, I saw a videotape of Fess Parker as Davy Crockett from Disney's interpretation of the legend and one of the parts was Crockett at the Alamo, which I loved. Then what seemed like a month later my dad picked up a videotape with one of my favorite movie stars, John Wayne, and it said The Alamo. My dad explained that in this movie John Wayne played Crockett. I excitedly watched it with him but I can't remember ever watching it again as it was very long. Well years later I saw it was coming on tv and decided to watch it all over again. And what i saw was... pretty darn good if you ask me.

The story, or legend in this case, involves Mexican general Santa Anna's charge to drive away the Texicans from then Mexico territory, Texas. Because of the lack of organization of militia and army elements scattered all over the territory, Sam Houston (Richard Boone) orders Colonel William Travis (Laurence Harvey) to hold his troops at an abandoned mission, The Alamo, and hold off Santa Anna and buy himself the time to mount a defense against the coming intruders. Travis conflicts with local militia leader Jim Bowie (Richard Widmark) on what the next steps should be but are soon benefitted by the arrival of the legendary Davy Crockett (John Wayne) and his band of rough and tumble Tenesseeans. Eventually surrounded by over 7,000 Mexican troops, the men must hold out during thirteen days of siege by Santa Anna, building to their final encounter with history.

This film is indeed an epic in most respects. For his first time ever at bat as director, Wayne certainly is able to fill his screen with men and sets, one of the best sets ever made for a film in my opinion. He knows where the camera should go and his action directing is top-flight. The final assualt sequence alone is worth a place alongside the Huey attack in Apocalypse Now and even the charge on Ft. Wagner in Glory. This was advertised as "fourteen years in the making" as this had become Wayne's passion project and even sunk much of his personal wealth into it. Unfortunately the film was not a giant success and critics singled out the film as Wayne trying to promote his conservative Republican ideals.

With that said, the film is not without its problems, and sadly there are a few notable ones. It's clear that Wayne is exhausted in front of the camera playing Davy Crockett as his duties behind it were enormous. The acting is very hit and miss, which the actors attributed to Wayne's uncomfortableness trying to motivate an actor without his own style of acting coming into the fray. Sometimes there are lively readings, such as Chill Wills and Richard Widmark, but the others come standard and uncaring about the long-winded dialogue. Yes lets talk about the writing. There are a lot of scenes with talking, and sadly some of these fall desperately short. The rhythm is off and the dialog is very stuffy and long winded. I call this "speechifyin" and Duke does a lot of that. James Edward Grant was his favorite writer and sadly Duke didn't question any of his awkward choices of both lines and character. The film's length, although necessary I suppose, doesn't help this.

Technically this film is a marvel. As i said before the art direction is amazing, with the Alamo compound recreated in painstaking detail. An element that should be studied for years to come is the astonishing sound mix. Recorded in Oscar winning Todd-AO, it is crisp and clear, almost like it was recorded yesterday. Kudos! The cinematography by William Clothier captures both the splendor of the Alamo and even the loneliness of it, and because of Wayne's carefully placed army extras, we get the sense of dread and anticipation. I cannot dare say Wayne and his crew didn't master atmosphere for this movie. It looks and sounds great.

Overall, I love this movie. Can it be slow and a touch too long? Yes. Corny? Unbelievably so in many instances. But I deeply respect Wayne's dedication and craft to bring this story to life and they all did try to give something to the audience. I can see some of Wayne's own politics coming into the fold, but this is very small as he wanted to make a movie, and thats what he gave us.

Note: I've seen both the roadshow cut (a dvd/video you should get before it goes out of print forever) and the restored general release version which I think is better paced and Wayne even took out scenes to make it flow better.

There are things to admire, but it was too uneven for me

[TheLittleSongbird · 5/10 · 1 November 2011]

Just for the record I like John Wayne and his films, I love The Searchers, The Quiet Man, El Dorado, The Shootist, Fort Apache and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, and quite like Red River and Rio Bravo. The Alamo is not Wayne's worst movie, not even close, that dishonour to me is still The Conqueror, but again it's not among his best either.

Before I point out what I didn't like very much about The Alamo, I noticed several things I liked and admired. The Alamo is a beautifully made film with great colour, magnificent scenery and strong cinematography. Dmitri Tiomkin has penned some wonderful scores, such as It's a Wonderful Life, Red River and The High and the Mighty, and the score for The Alamo was no exception, with its melodious and rousing themes.

Some assets showed some good and bad things. One was the script, the second half in written quality is actually stirring stuff. I wish I could say the same for the first half, sadly I found it rather leaden. Another was the direction, in the second half it shows signs of brilliance however in the first it is somewhat self-indulgent with scenes going on too long. This paragraph especially applies to the cast. John Wayne is charismatic enough and does a better job at acting here I feel than directing and Richard Widmark once again gives a solid performance. One of the most disappointing things of this picture is the performance of Laurence Harvey, who's very stiff with an accent that is both inconsistent and obvious.

There are also some assets that didn't do much for me. In terms of story, the second half is much better than the first. The second half has some good writing and picks up the pace, the first half on the other hand is in my opinion unexciting and pedestrian with too many overlong scenes that could've been trimmed easily. The Alamo is perhaps 15 minutes too long, the pace is often dull particularly at the start and for a lengthy movie you'd expect more character development than this. Widmark's is probably the most well developed, Harvey's character is very awkward and perhaps even out of place throughout.

Overall, too uneven and just didn't engage me. 5/10 Bethany Cox