I saw the Alamo on Thursday at the local premier. I thought it was great. At least the first 2 hours were great. I thought the ending was a bit rushed and I think that some things that I expected to see ended up on the cutting room floor. I had heard that the first version that was shown to test audiences in California had major changes done to the ending so when I saw it, I wasn't surprised. The battle itself was fantastic and very good. Crockett's fate was ok but I thought a bit too Hollywood. I thought that they should have shown that Crockett wasn't alone as a prisoner. I don't understand why they didn't have the plain red flag over San Fernando.
I guess it looked too plain for Hollywood. I thought Travis' character and Bowie's were good and true to character. Thornton did a great job as Crockett and I thought his character was well written. The fiddle playing to Deguello was a bit much though although they did play music every night of the siege except the last.. I don't believe Deguello was played at all by the Mexican army until the final attack.
I thought the movie would have been better if they had ended with Crockett's death and just had a note about San Jacinto. That way they could have spent more time on the people inside the Alamo. I don't think James Bonham was mentioned by name throughout the movie. They really didn't mention any of the couriers by name except Seguin. All criticisms aside, the movie was still good. The uniforms were good (although I have questions regarding Santa Anna's cuirassier guard) and the weapons accurate. The set was fantastic and some of the small details were well researched. I was glad that that showed the raid on the jacales outside the fort. I think Thornton should get nominated for Best Actor because I think he did a great job with the character. I think the movie is going to be hated by some because most of the Texan characters aren't that likeable or heroic (the truth can be an ugly thing) and hated by others because it didn't go far enough showing the Mexican point of view. Oh well. You can't please everyone.
I was impressed with the way the film showed various forms of artillery from shrapnel shells to canister. The film, "One Man's Hero," simulated cannons firing grapeshot. If Ron Howard had made the film his way, I'm sure the canister scene would have been much bloodier. I think they could have had some of the canister splinter and shatter the trees where the Mexican troops were entangled to make it look even more impressive. I think the most impressive artillery related scene I have seen was in the "Band of Brothers" series in the episodes during and after Bastogne. It looked very realistic and frightening.
I think that the DVD will probably have 30 minutes worth of deleted scenes. I really hope the movie does well at the box office because I think it will encourage Hollywood to start making more historical films just the success of "The Passion" will most likely lead to a new wave of religious (and historical Biblical) based movies.
The main gripe I have with Houston's character in the film was his Waterloo/Wellington spiel. First of all, if he was to make that comparison and did know his history, he would have known that Wellington got bailed out by the Prussians who showed up on the French flank. Houston has no Blucher and is going at it alone so Waterloo wouldn't have been my inspiration had I been in Houston's place. I think I would have been searching through Hannibal's repertoire instead. If I was a Fannin descendant (and was willing to admit it) or a descendent one of the men killed at Goliad, I would be upset that their fate wasn't at all mentioned in the movie. Oh, well, such is Hollywood.
If you are a Bowie descendent, you could join "The Sons of the Republic of Texas" which is an organization of descendents of Texians. I think there are chapters of the organization throughout the US. At least you are related to some one with an only slightly shady past. I may be related to Jesse James whom I despise. I think he was an evil, cold blooded bastard and I can't believe how he was turned into a folk hero by Missourians. His mother's maiden name is Cole and her family goes back to the same general area as mine does but so far I have not been able to conclusively prove a connection.
On a somewhat related note, I have started working on a paper currently titled "In Defense of Santa Anna." I plan to show that the decision for no quarter against the Alamo defenders was not unprecedented and give historical examples of sieges where the besieged refused to surrender and the consequences of their decision. I also plan to discuss standard laws and practices regarding rebellions, mercenaries, and pirates for that time. I don't expect I will make many friends with it but I think someone needs to say it for the record. I am tired of seeing how Santa Anna is portrayed as some monster and the 19th Century Mexican equivalent to Hitler. He may not have been the nicest guy or even that good of a President/General but he was certainly no Hitler.
I'm searching for more examples of cases where the besieged town or fortress refused to surrender. I have a good example that happened in Ireland in the 1600's and a few during the Napoleonic Wars in Spain. The outcomes weren't pretty. One fact that I am going to point out is that William Travis threatened to kill the entire garrison at Anuhac if they didn't surrender.
Back to After Action Review April 2004 Table of Contents
Back to After Action Review List of Issues
Back to Master Magazine List
© Copyright 2004 by Pete Panzeri.
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com