The Alamo

Post by **TPRJones** » Sat Oct 02, 2004 1:08 am

WARNING: There are some spoilers here for those who don't know any history of these events.

Damn fine movie. Incredibly accurate, and they didn't pretty up any of it. The majority of the men who fought in the Alamo (the majority of Anglo Texians for that matter) weren't there to be heros and they weren't fine upstanding gentlemen. They were mercenaries and stubborn sons of bitches. Houston was a drunkard and a failed statesman and they portrayed that well. Crockett had become more showman than hero and they portrayed that well. Travis was a somewhat green luitenant colonel and they portrayed that well. Bowie was an unforgiving cuss and a bit of a scoundrel and they portrayed that well. All of them (except Houston of course) died like men, and they portrayed that well.

There's a plethora of historal documentation about the events that took place in the Alamo, and they did their research very well indeed. As an example, 180 defenders died in the Alamo and instead of filling it out with "Extra #48" and the like they had the full bio of every single of those 180 men and every so-called extra was playing a historical figure with a full biography available to him. That's pretty impressive, IMO.

Maybe it's just because I'm a Texan and damn proud of it, but I give this move 11 out of 10 stars.

PS: Ooo, the DVD Commentary track is the Historian and the Military History guy that helped with the movie. This should be really interesting! Much better than the usual Directory or Actor commentary, I'll bet.

Post by **GORDON** » Sat Oct 02, 2004 1:47 am

The stars at night... are big and bright...

Post by **thibodeaux** » Sat Oct 02, 2004 10:24 am

In Louisiana, we gots a saying: the only thing that separates the Coon-asses from the Horses-asses is the Sabine River.

Zetleft · Post by **Zetleft** » Sat Oct 02, 2004 1:45 pm

Never saw that movie because I was thinking they would "hollywood" it up and didn't want that. Guess I have to see it now.

Post by **TPRJones** » Sun Oct 03, 2004 12:36 am

Well, in the interest of full disclosure, it's not 100% accurate. When I say "incredibly accurate" I mean in terms of Hollywood movies. They did rearrange some of the chronology to tell a more interesting story, and did add a few things that didn't really happen but were actually possible and help give a feel for the historical situation. I wouldn't say that they "Hollywood"ed it up, though.

It's a movie, not a documentary, but the tweaks aren't pointless; they all serve a useful purpose. The bonus is that the commentary track has the historians to tell you what was real and what is a tweak.

Post by **Leisher** » Sun Oct 03, 2004 2:23 am

Wasn't this film a major bomb at the box office? I thought critics destroyed it and it lasted about a week?

Post by **TPRJones** » Sun Oct 03, 2004 2:53 am

A lot of people were pissed that it portrayed Houston as a drunkard and Bowie as a scoundral etc etc. They'd rather have the sugarcoated 1960 Disney version. That was part of the box-office problem.

Not sure why the critics didn't like it, I haven't read their reviews. I never do.

Zetleft · Post by **Zetleft** » Sun Oct 03, 2004 3:25 am

Those people like their allusions... Bowie was a swindler, and a damn fine one at that. Like alot of people coming to Texas at the time they were down on their luck and looking to turn it around.

Post by **TPRJones** » Wed Jul 08, 2015 10:12 pm

Still a damn fine movie.

I came to write about it in detail having forgotten this post. Instead I'll just give it a little bump and call it a night.

Post by **GORDON** » Wed Jul 08, 2015 10:15 pm

This 11 year old movie review that got bumped is the main reason I hesitate to upgrade the forum software. Too much history to lose.

Post by **TheCatt** » Wed Jul 08, 2015 10:21 pm

GORDON wrote:This 11 year old movie review that got bumped is the main reason I hesitate to upgrade the forum software. Too much history to lose.

We can convert it. Probably.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Wed Jul 08, 2015 10:28 pm

TheCatt wrote:
GORDON wrote:This 11 year old movie review that got bumped is the main reason I hesitate to upgrade the forum software. Too much history to lose.
We can convert it. Probably.

Dump raw post html to a file with other identifiers. What's with "probably?"

Post by **GORDON** » Wed Jul 08, 2015 10:28 pm

Well, make a new forum and I will export the dbase. If you get it working, we'll switch over/

Post by **TPRJones** » Wed Jul 08, 2015 10:52 pm

Okay, maybe I will expand a little on my original post.

This movie is the superior Alamo movie in other aspects as well. It covers the Goliad massacre and goes all the way through the Runaway Scrape up to the decisive Battle of San Jacinto that sealed Texas independance from Mexico, which is a much better ending to the story than stopping after the Battle of the Alamo. It also includes - albeit to a lesser degree than the big names everyone knows - some of the Tejanos that played a crucial role in the history such as Juan Seguín.

Post by **TheCatt** » Wed Jul 08, 2015 11:08 pm

Malcolm wrote:
TheCatt wrote:
GORDON wrote:This 11 year old movie review that got bumped is the main reason I hesitate to upgrade the forum software. Too much history to lose.
We can convert it. Probably.
Dump raw post html to a file with other identifiers. What's with "probably?"

We have a db, why the fuck would we dump html?

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:12 pm

We actually have a DB? Figured it was 2006 and it might still be on flat files.

Post by **Leisher** » Thu Jul 09, 2015 4:34 pm

How old is this movie? Who stars in it so I know to watch the correct one?

Post by **TPRJones** » Thu Jul 09, 2015 4:59 pm

Oh, sorry.

It is specifically The Alamo (2004), starring Dennis Quaid, Billy Bob Thornton, and other people not as famous.

Edited By TPRJones on 1436475566