The Alamo (1960)

I didn't know much about the story of the Alamo before I sat down and watched this epic-length movie starring John Wayne and Richard Widmark. I knew it was the true story of a siege by the Mexican army who were desperate to reclaim some Texan territory for their own, but I had no idea that this film, which didn't do very well on first release, would be so profound.It's the kind of old-fashioned film-making which has long since disappeared to be replaced by an over-reliance on style and effects. This is a long story which is in no hurry to get to the action; for at least half of the running time time is taken to carefully set up the plot and build the characters. Wayne and Widmark are very good, as you'd expect, and matched by Laurence Harvey as the priggish guy in charge.When the action finally does hit, it's all the more effective due to the build up. This the American version of ZULU and just as exciting and full of heroism and courage. The battle scenes are well directed by Wayne himself and the ending is as heartfelt and tragic as you'd expect. I don't often say this about the movies, but I consider THE ALAMO a masterpiece. It's without a doubt the best John Wayne film I've seen thus far.

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.

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.

In a seminal part of the history of the USA and Texas in particular, a small number of resistance fighters hold off the vast invading Mexican army at the derelict Alamo mission in San Antonio.In the 50-odd years since John Wayne's The Alamo was made, thousands upon thousands of movies have reached the public, ranging from the classic to the dreadful. Those regarded as classic have pushed the boundaries of cinema, and it must be accepted that this version of The Alamo doesn't stand up up too well when judged by present-day criteria.But back in 1960, The Alamo was an Event. Wayne was at the height of his popularity (he was box office number 1 for many years),this was a pet project of his, and it was an epic (and, unusually, a western one rather than biblical).Hindsight shows it to be somewhat bloated, rather slow paced at times, and over loaded with right wing polemic. On the other hand, it is undoubtedly sincere, the action sequences with their large casts are well marshalled, and it is a good looking film.For me, it passes muster. I wish I still had the commemorative programme which accompanied on its first cinema run!