A HISTORICAL FILM DONE RIGHT | The Alamo (2004)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 лют 2021
- Visit our new Website here:
adamnproductions.com/
This week marks the anniversary of the battle of The Alamo. Adam rewatched the 2004 re-telling of the tragic story of how 185 Texians fought to the death against 1,800 Mexican Soldiers. Adam re-evaluates the under-rated 2004 film and goes over how it is an historical film done right while going over its accuracies and inaccuracies.
#alamo #davycrockett #texas #sanantonio #thealamo #santaanna
_______________________________
Like AN Productions on Facebook here:
/ adamnoyesproductions
Join the ANP Fan Group on Facebook here:
/ 805222419594315
Join Godzilla & Kaiju Podcasts here:
/ godzillakaijupodcasts
Follow ANP on Instagram:
@adamnproductions
Follow ANP on Twitter here:
@AdamNProduction
🔴Check out our latest HISTORY DOCUMENTARY here!🔴
ua-cam.com/video/L3SXm6sSms0/v-deo.html
I really liked the fact that in the assault on the mission, they showed the Mexican soldiers maneuvering around to find weaknesses in the defenses, rather than just going at the walls like zombies.
They indeed did some maneuvering. The forces attacking the palisade defended by Crockett and his men found the fire so withering there they were repulsed and drifted toward the west to combine with the forces there. Those assaulting the west wall drifted toward the northwest postern. All in all, the main force fell back to regroup three times and only took up the charge again with the prodding of the bayonets behind them. It finally took Santa Anna's reserves, the tough Zapadores, to break through.
This movie is unfairly underrated. Has been a pleasure to hear your review.
Glad you enjoyed. I too think this movie needs more recognition
I have always thought the main reason that the 2004 movie was unpopular in the United States
was because it showed the "heroes" warts and all.
2002-04 was a weird time for American cinema. I think this movie got lumped in with the crap. But is a diamond in the rough.
One of my ancestors Micajah Autry, from NC was one of those men who met their fate on March 6th 1836. The 2004 version even show Crockett with him as he gasp his last breath, "saying, They've killed me David, "Crockett replied-- I'm real sorry about all of this.. made the hair stand up on the back of my neck..
Did he go to Texas to grow cotton and be a slave owner once they had overthrown the abolitionist Mexican government?
As a Texan I respect and appreciation their sacrifice.
@@undergroundunlimited2282 Is it their attempt to form the most militant slave nation in history that you respect so much?
@@beachcomber1abletheir commitment to die to live free of liberals
@@beachcomber1able Nonsense
The 2004 version is by far the best version. I can't even watch the other 'Hollywood' versions. I love the way each character, Crockett, Bowie, and Travis are portrayed. The music score was awesome. The visuals were impeccable. I honestly can't see how anyone could dislike this version of the Alamo.
Bowie: "You heard the man, let's give em' a taste!"
Travis: "Letters not worth the ink committed to them"
Travis: "But I'd like to ask each of you what it is you value so highly that you are willing to fight and possibly die for. We will call that Texas."
Crockett: "They'd been cooked by that grease that run off them Indians. And we ate till we nearly burst. Since then -- you pass the taters and I pass 'em right back."
Crockett: "Are you Santa Ana?"
"I thought he'd be taller."
Bowie: "Those ain't bears out there. Do you understand that -- Davy"
plus it has one of my favorit quotes:
Bowie: you live a little longer you might just be a great man
Travis: I think i will have to settle for what i am now
@@MrChickennugget360 Yeah, this movie has so many great lines in it.
You will always have some people, Adam included, who poo poo this movie because it was, in his flawed perspective, "Boring."
I suppose if it had alot of needless drama and over the top explosions and perhaps Crockett using his violin as a magical ballista or Travis having an automatic shotgun, it might not be "boring".
This movie, the 2004 Alamo, does justice to the events of 1836, and I have no qualms with telling people to grow a brain and appreciate what's been given them. Boring my ass. Only people with no appreciation for actual history and the people of the time would denigrate this film.
@@AceGoodheart Crockett saying "We're gonna need (a lot) more men" is right up there with the line from Jaws, "We're gonna need a bigger boat." Each line is recognizing the enormity and gravity of the situation.
@@tr4480 Travis didn't have an automatic shotgun, it was a double barrel.
As a native Texas, I too prefer the 2004 movie from a historical perspective. The part I like most about this version is the way that Juan Seguin was portrayed in this version as he was very involved in the Texas Revolution. I do enjoy the John Wayne version though. I just wish I would have visited John Wayne's Alamo set in Bracketville, TX before it closed.
One thing wrong in the movie about Seguin, he wasn't ordered to stay with Houston, he was on his way back to the Alamo with a company of 25 men.
seguin was a true hero and has been treated badly by history.
He was, he commanded his own company, unlike the movie, Seguin spoke very little if any English, and was not ordered to stay with Houston, actually he was on his way back to the Alamo with a company of 25 men and ran into Smith and Alsbury who had 12 men and waited on Cibolo creek to join with Fannin's reinforcements, Fannin didn't come and the Alamo fell before they could get back.
@@jdgoade1306 Fannin was later executed along with 400 other Texan Army prisoners by the Mexican Army in the Goliad massacre, just 21 days after the Alamo fell.
@@StephenLuke Yes, on Palm Sunday, after being told they were being marched to Mexico for labor in the mines.
Personally, I love the 2004 version, for the acting and accuracy and also the more quiet, pensive moments that some may think are "boring". Yes, there are still a number of inaccuracies to be found, but this is still just a movie and dramatic license is always taken to some extent. It's a shame more people didn't/don't appreciate the 2004 film.
My dad saw this in theaters and didn't like it. I found it at an electronics store for a discount price, bought it, watched it with my mom and stepdad, and I loved it (and still do). I convinced my dad to re-watch it with me, and he concluded that it was much better than he remembered. He loved the historical accuracy and unflinching portrayal of the uglier side of the rebels, as did I--and I'm from Texas. As the title of this video says, this is an historical film done RIGHT. And it's a shame that it was such a flop.
If Goliad had been depicted, the “uglier:” sided of the Texicans woukl not have mattered,
Your right . I'm 2nd generation mexican American and love this movie. Hollywood should make historic movies correct. Kids dont learn it in school. Let the audience make their own mind.
I was born in the crossroads region of Texas, where both armies of the Texians and the Mexicans had passed. In 2003, I was cast in this film at a open casting call. Through circumstances beyond my control I was unable to fulfill my duties. This made me terribly sad, but I’m still proud of the film that I was almost a part of. I love this version as much as I love the 1960 version. Thanks for the video.
This 2004 movie is a master piece. Some people have a problem with it because they can’t comprehend real history, war, and the times of that era. Many brave men/ people died during this sad event on both sides
Can't agree more.
@@ANProductionsOfficialChannel why was it a box office bomb and why was it panned by critics?
@@diegofuentes6783 it lost a ton of money in the box office and was panned... not much else to say.
,@@diegofuentes6783 it was too slow and 'artistic' for a general audience, but the critics didn't like a film that showed the founders of Texas to be heroic at all. I liked it because it achieved a balance; Travis, Crockett and Bowie were human, but still brave men rising to a challenge. Same for the ordinary soldiers there.
@@sanjivjhangiani3243 well said
Don’t know how old you are- you appear to be relative young- but regardless, I’m happy to see people your age still being so passionate about early American history. I’m 71 and grew up watching Disney’s Davy Crockett and still love American history with a passion . Keep up the good work.
The real Jim Bowie died at the age of 39 at the Alamo, and the actor Jason Patric was 38 at the time of the movie being filmed! So he really was at the right age when he played the role of Jim Bowie..🔪
Other than that, I agree with your review!
The Alamo (2004) is the best version I have ever seen, and all the actors did a fantastic job!
But Bowie was racked by disease and would have looked older.
Davy was 50 and Travis was half davys age! What a mix of leadership. Davy was offered a leadership role and declined. He wanted to be counted with the grunts.
@@undergroundunlimited2282 Davy was 49.
For those who saw the 1960 version at the theater, as I did, there were battle scenes I remember, and can still see in my head, that are not seen in any version of it since. One was a big cannon shell landing in the middle of a large block of advancing Mexicans wearing white uniforms, near the beginning of the final attack. It appeared to have taken half of them out. Another scene I recall was a soldier (maybe a yaki? wearing a sombrero) carrying a ladder, running toward you, gets shot, his head gets tangled up in the ladder before he falls. Maybe censored as appearing too violent?
A curious scene that did survive the censorship was where a cannon shell exploded on the wall with maybe one real actor present, the rest were scarecrows set up to look like Americans getting blown up.
I have never been a fan of John Wayne as a person or as an actor, but I do acknowledge that he did an amazing job at both directing and starring in this movie. It must have taken a lot out of him.
Having said that, I think Billy Bob’s portrayal seems much more realistic.
I love both versions, the 1960 John Wayne classic and the 2004 version even more. Like you, even though I am a Canadian, I have been fascinated with the Alamo story, just like Phil Collins!
Yes...THE Phil Collins!
The siege of the Alamo was only a couple of weeks, It's pretty hard to capture character development if there wasn't really any IRL. And tbh the extent of the Travis and Bowie/ Crockett arc is all that's needed really. Great vid, glad I stumbled upon this.
I saw it first time a few weeks ago. I’m shocked it isn’t more popular even if just amongst history nerds? It should be shown in school as a treat in history class?
Same here! I loved it as a kid and was shown this movie when I was in middle school. Super underrated
The 2004 Alamo movie is a great movie. It was more to Texas history and any movie. Slaves were free from Mexico's rules. Also a lot of Tejano fought on the Texans side. Plus the Alamo was attacked at dawn. Not the afternoon like the 1960 Alamo movie. And the 2004 Alamo movie includes the Battle of San Jacinto. But it doesn't include the massacre at Goliad where Santa Anna slaughtered over 350 men in cold blood. I should know. I live in Houston about 10 miles from the San Jacinto battle ground.
Goliad tells more about the bloodymindedness of the Mexican dictatorship than the Alamo.
Just because you live in Houston does not necessarily make you an expert in any way.
400
@@josephdowling3745 I never said I was a expert. Need to get your facts straight.
Definitely superior to the 1960's Alamo movie by a longshot.
Only thing I've got to knock it for is the inclusion of the San Jacinto battle at the end.
IMO, the San Jacinto battle felt rushed and the movie would have driven the point just as effectively if it ended after the Fall of the Alamo.
I like both versions of the Battle of the Alamo, but I prefer the 204 version because of its more accurate depiction of the battle.
Very little of both films are accurate, if you investigate what really happened it is nothing like what they want us to believe. I suggest Exodus from the Alamo by Phillip Thomas Tucker.
@@johnlocke7097 The 2004 film was more accurate for several reasons (but far from perfect) ... notably the pre-dawn timing of the battle. The end, with a defiant Crockett on his knees while he sneers at Santa Anna, was pure bull$hit. I've read nearly everything written about the battle, inspired as I have been by my great-great grandfather Socrates Darling, who was among the contingent of Texans who captured San Antonio de Bexar from Mexican troops under the command of Gen. Martin Perfecto de Cos in Dec. 1835. Actually, if you want to read a highly accurate account of the battle, you should try: "With Santa Anna in Texas: A Personal Narrative of the Revolution", a translation of the diary ofJose' Enrique de la Peña, a Colonel in the Mexican army during the 1836 incursion into Texas. Peña, has nothing good to say about Santa Anna's grasp of military tactics and of his command of the battle.
I've been an Alamo aficionado since I was 12 (in 1959) after hearing Marty Robbins's "Ballad of the Alamo" , have since seen both movies and read pretty well everything, including novels having to do with Texas history and the battle at the Alamo. I've never been to Texas and my 'bucket list' includes a visit to San Antonio' where I hope to stand in Alamo Plaza and respectfully sing (in my head) the Ballad of the Alamo. I certainly agree with your praise of the the 2004 film version of that historic event. and thank you for doing this.
I have visited the Alamo many times since I was wee high, and was disappointed by what they have done recently, It used to be much like a shrine. No more.
Must say I like the 2004 movie better, the parts showing the cannons firing their home made canister shot (Musket balls, nuts, bolts chapped up chains) to me was very accurate. Most movies show exploding shells like modern cannons use. The canister would be much more effective against tightly grouped troops at close quarters.
I have an ancestor, Abel Morgan who was captured at the Battle at Goliad. He was arrested and imprisoned for a few years after the war and forced to be a medic.
My own Texas heritage began in December 1835, before the Battle of the Alamo. My 4 times great-grandfather came to Texas, settling in Red River county, bringing with him his more than 2 dozen siblings, children, grandchildren and other extended family.
To your mention of the reason Gen. Santa Ana had to attack the Alamo, militarily, he could not just go around it, leaving an "enemy stronghold" intact along his supply lines. If I'm not mistaken, I think this is even mentioned in the original film. Much has been learned since the 1960 version of the Battle of the Alamo. Letters written by officers in Santa Ana's command have been found with at least one account of the terrible execution of some of the principals who survived the final attack, including David Crockett. It also described them as defiant. Well done narrative, and I agree that Billy Bob Thorton's portrayal of Crockett is excellent, and his playing the violin at sundown on the Mission wall alone is worth the price of admission...
This is a widely debated topic in US military history. However, i still slide he could have bypassed it. Santa Ana's ego got in the way. His main objecetive should have been Sam Huston instead of diverting much of his personal attention on a for full of 185-210 militiamen.
2004 despite my love for the Duke , is clearly better. More historically accurate by far .
Great video and breakdown! You earned a new subscriber. It was funny i came across this video, i just watched this movie again a couple days ago. Ive always have been an advocate of this version. As a fellow huge American History guy myself Im really glad to see a youtuber who is interested in US history and historical films as well breaking them down. Look forward to more videos from you man!
Thank you. Most of my subscribers are here because of my knowledge of Japanese Kaiju history and analysis. But I REALLY want to peruse more history stuff since that is my bis passion outside of filmmaking. Glad you enjoyed. I do want to make more videos like this in the future.
Underrated movie. I loved Billy Bob as Crockett, I thought I would hate it but boy I was wrong. Thanks for the video you got great points.
Solid review! Thank you for taking such care and showing great passion. Subbed now.
Thank you. I have more history videos on my channel now too.
I liked this movie. I saw it while deployed in a war.
I liked how Crockett, Bowie and Travis were portrayed. Also, some good dialog.
"William Travis: I don't drink, Jim, you know that. I gamble, go to whores, run off on wives... but drinking, I draw the line.
James Bowie: You know, if you live five more years, you might just be a great man.
William Travis: I think I will probably have to settle for what I am now."
I am a huge Alamo fan.I agree with you on the 2004 Alamo. But I loved it from the first time I saw it. To the point that I can't stand watching any other version.John Wayne wanted to create a great masterpiece and in some ways he did. But he didn't let history get in the way opfg making a great movie. The one thing he did have was a great score. The music of his film is great. That is one area that Found the 2004film falling short.But IdidlikeCrockett harmonizing with El Deguello, At the beginning of the 2004, the men were arguing about recent events and one of the men mentioned the Mexican constitution. of 1824. That actor was none other than Ron Howard's father. But what he said was rushed and hard to hear because he was drowned out by the other men.
In case you didn't know it but early in the production,Ron Howard was supposed to direct. it. But he pulled out and they went to John Lee Hancock.
He is a native Texan. I loved the casting of Billy Bob Thornton and thought he was great as Crockett. I wasn't too sure of Jason Patric as Bowie. I would have gone with someone like Ed Harris or Tommy Lee Jones. Someone older. I also kind of ]wish they could have been a bit more accurate with the location of the Long Barracks to the Chapel. I understand why Hancock did what he did, but it wasn't 100% accurate. But they showed that the "trinity" was flawed. they were flawed people trying too reinvent themselves.
I got kind of annoyed by the men whining about why Houston was moving further east, ahead of Santa Anna.
I also wish they had addressed Goliad and Fannin a bit more. But I did like Travis's speech about staying there to fight.
I'm working omg a graphic novel of the Alamo story. And a stop motion film of the Alamo.
But now I can't watch Wayne's version and don't get me started on the 1987 "13 days to Glory" TV abomination.
One detail that the 2004 film got right was the final battle taking place at 4AM, in the dark. I think Wayne's film did it it at a time when they needed more natural light to shoot. They didn't have the more sophisticated light systems or lenses that we have now or evening 2004. So I give Wayne a pass for that. But they did have Lawrence Harvey as Travis. being killed early. And when Harvey lit the cannon with his cigar, the cannon came down on his foot. He didn't even wince. But he wore a cast for most of the time.
I am glad that you were able to go back and see the 2004 film for how good it really is.
The lack of Goliad is probably my biggest issue historically in the movie. But narrativly it works fine since that wasn't the focus. It was the Alamo.
@@ANProductionsOfficialChannel
Have you read Frank Thompson's "Making of . . ." book on this film? It contains the original screenplay, which Hancock did film, complete with backstories and scenes that added considerable perspective.
The tour guide at the Alamo told me that 257 men served at the Alamo, though not all at the same time. By my count, there must have been at least 192 defenders on the final day. A Mexican doctor oversaw the cremation of 182 defenders' bodies. Two black defenders were spared on their claim of being slaves rather than combatants. A Tejano (?) defender was spared by claiming he was a prisoner of war. A sixteen-year-old was spared on account of his youth. In the pre-dawn confusion, two escaped and were interviewed by the Arkansas Gazette two weeks later. Two others escaped in the pre-dawn confusion (probably not the same two) and made their way to Nacogdoches, where one died of his wounds. Two or more couriers, including John William Smith (of 1960 fame) and Captain Juan Seguín (of 2004 fame) were still out. That comes to 192, though I've heard there were others. Thanks for the discussion.
Billy Bob was great as crockett
Good review. You've hit on pretty much all the key points (and moments) in the 2004 film.
I became infatuated with the Alamo after watching Disney's "Davy Crockett at the Alamo" in the early 60's. You should check it out if you haven't seen it. At the Marine Corps Staff Academy, I gave a presentation on the final siege of the Alamo.
I remember seeing a 1980s made for television version of The Alamo on NBC in the 1980s. I recall Alec Baldwin being among the cast. I will definitely view the 2004 version. Thank you.
I like that version. Showed more of Santa Ana. They also shot it using the alamo village built for Wayne's version. It also use a lot of stock footage from a movie made in the 50's called "The Last Comand" I think.
I like the 1980,s version because all of the main actors played actual defenders
@@ANProductionsOfficialChannel you are correct.
great review. one thing few people fully appreciate is the vast majority of the defenders were simple untrained citizens, not hardened soldiers, Travis was only 26 y.o. when he commanded the Alamo, while Crockett and Bowie were late middle aged. To me, the entire event was the biggest disaster in Mexican history because of the reprecussions of the following 20 years. Never give a people a cause to rally, if you wish to maintain control....something today's governments would do well to remember.
I remember seeing the advertisements all over too and never getting to see it until VHS from the library or local video store...? It feels like more of a guilty pleasure (although, I like most older "historical" movies). Saw the John Wayne one for history in school as a kid too (which I don't remember much of). I also got to visit a lot of the "Gettysburg" locations, including, little round top (where I got lost as a kid, after stepping off of the tour bus lol). Loved visiting the battlefields though and love "Gettysburg" the movie. Also, have visited a lot of historical locations in Boston, Massachusetts/greater mass area (especially when it comes to the revolutionary war). One of the cool things of living in the area.
I agree with your take on both be films . As for the two sets the Alfred Ybarra Alamo chapel was incredible ... When Wayne had a worker take down the small cross that was installed at the very top of the hump of the facade and then told them to make a bigger cross and have it appear as a fallen cross , that gave the chapel the personality that it needed for that movie . Seeing the chapel is one of my main reasons for watching that movie . With the 2004 version it has always bothered me that they chose to move the chapel some 90 feet forward so they could have it visible in most of be the shots . That aside , it was very cool to see the chapel as it appeared during the siege and they even have the sandstone blocks ( made out of foam ) that makeup the front of the chapel all correct in shape and placement . Also I have found it to be really interesting the amount of people that I have met that feel a strong connection to the Alamo and have , as myself , for most of their lives .
Thank you for the superb commentary about the two opposing forces. I always wondered why there wasn't a more accurate accounting of the Mexican killed in the battle. After all, they were all Christian and would get a proper burial? But no, there is no such record. Heck, we don't even know the servant "Joe's" last name. He was freed by the Mexicans and disappeared to who knows where. I agree that this movie is highly underrated.
I'm a bit older than you so my fascination with the Alamo came with seeing the Disney version in the Davy Crockett series and the 1955 film "The Last Command". You should check that one out. Anyway, I agree that the 2004 film has better character development and was far more accurate historically. An area of disagreement with your review concerns the portrayal of Santa Anna. I agree with how the film portrayed Santa Anna. He WAS a slimy villain, cut pretty much from the same cloth as Saddam Hussein or Idi Amin. He was also a perfectly miserable military commander (Napoleon of the West indeed!). He was a recurring disaster for the Mexican nation. He fared no better against an outnumbered American army a few years later lead by Winfield Scott than he did against Sam Huston at San Jacinto. The deleted scenes where he orders a sham marriage with a 16 year old local girl in San Antonio actually are historical. Historians are split as to whether he was entertaining Emily West (the Yellow Rose) in his tent at the outset of the Battle of San Jacinto. This was not depicted in the 2004 film but it certainly would not have been out of character for Santa Anna.
The march across the desert to San Antonio required great skill.
John Lee Hancock is an underrated writer / director. Very talented with visual and imaginative story telling. It would be interesting to know what his career might have been if The Alamo had been a hit. Unfortunately being released around the same time as another historical epic, The Passion Of The Christ, doomed its ability to compete at the box office.
There was more to it than Passion of the Christ. Horrible marketing, a subject matter few cared about, etc. Unfortunate truth.
But I do agree with you on Hancock. Really underrated
@@ANProductionsOfficialChannel Unfortunately Hancock wasn't a well known director with much experience under his belt at the time of filming The Alamo. I think Hollywood has a bad habit of giving unknown, inexperienced directors epic stories with large budgets to direct and then throwing them under the bus when the movie bombs.
@@ANProductionsOfficialChannel
Also, this film was one of Michael Eisner's last projects as head of Disney. After he was forced out, the new regime running the Mouse House certainly wasn't gonna do anything to promote one of Eisner's "babies," which is why the studio's promotion of John Lee's film was so pitiful.
And there you have the Alamo! And that’s why we are still trying to figure it out and parts are still a mystery...
have you seen "The Last Command" with Sterling Hayden which was John Waynes original screenplay, basically stolen so he had to re-do it. It does go a little way into the history with Stephen Austin, and also Bowie's wife having died in 1833 not 1836, it also shows that Bowie was a Mexican citizen who had apparently fought with Santa Anna (not sure if that is true)?
Loved listening to this review, I didn’t even know there was a 2004 version I’ll have to check that out for sure!!
My opinions on this movie were/are almost EXACTLY like yours. LOL! Upon first viewing back in 2004, I thought it was boring. I, too, have always loved the story of The Alamo and I expected more from the movie. But upon viewing it again many years later-and having grown many years wiser-I LOVED it! I didn't mind the vilifying of Santa Anna, but I really appreciated that the movie didn't do that to all the Mexicans. Appreciate your thoughts. Thanks for sharing!
Glad you liked the movie! It is the most historically accurate. A couple other facts. The canons at the Alamo were positioned to protect the town of Bexar (now San Antonio) As such, they were behind the walls near the top of the walls, and their barrels pointed slightly above horizontal. They were ineffective against troops on the ground outside the walls. The Texians hoped for reinforcements from Goliad, but Santa Anna's forces marched them to exhaustion and then massacred them. Santa Anna did not believe the Texians deserved to be treated as soldiers, and that's why he offered them only Surrender At Discretion which meant they would not be treated as prisoners. Finally the Mexican Army in the 1830s was the largest, best trained and best equipped army in the western hemisphere. Santa Anna's forces at the time of the battle were more than 10 times the size of the Texian forces, and much better equipped.
"the Mexican Army in the 1830s was the largest, best trained and best equipped army in the western hemisphere. "
That is a myth, the problems of the mexican army were very well known, in 1824 a mexican officer wrote a report to the congress saying that the mexican army would be unable to stop an invasion of 6000 troops. A prophecy that was fulfiled during the Mexican American War
I agree with your comments on the 2004 movie. Thank you.
Great Video man
I saw both Alamo movies when they were released. I was about 12 when the John Wayne movie came out and a little older when the 2004 movie was released LOL. Being an Alamo geek I must mention that the 2004 Alamo itself was too small and the chapel not being set back far enough bothered the hell out of me. In fact I sent an email to the History Channel re this fact as they praised the historical accuracy. Also as to not "scare" movie goers and keep a lower PG-13 rating they made the gunfire muted. Finally as far as Billy Bob Thornton's portrail of Crockett, his acting was awesome but he was afraid of the flintlock. I loved both the final battle in the 2004 movie was so spot on. Just IMHO
It takes much practice to train a flintlock shooter to not flinch when the trigger is squezed.
When I shoot modern, it has been commented on how steady I was which was quoted in gun magazines (not me personallt).
A little while later? Well I guess if you're a tortoise that lives for centuries then 40 some odd years would be a "little while".Plus this geek narrating said "Crockett and his fellow kentuckians". All along I thought Crockett and company were Tennesseeans.
Like history? Check out MORE amazing historical videos here! ------> ua-cam.com/play/PLSHHHAWOW4TLkfol1FLnBaKOlOBVBcWWN.html
The reason why John Wayne portraited the Mexican army respectful is he knew the Mexican government abolished human slavery 30 years before the USA did. And John Wayne had an affinity with the Mexican people, and they knew and loved him as well .
@@mikhailbashni8936 interesting. I would not put that past him
I think Wayne gets too much of a bad rep.
@@ANProductionsOfficialChannel I agree, by the way I'm not sure if you had seen the interviews Merv Griffin had with John Wayne. It's on Amazon prime, season 1, episode 14.
Mention David Crockett's encounter with Bigfoot soon after his arrival in East Texas on his way to San Antonio, and what Bigfoot told him, it's some crazy shit, I live in Fort Clark Springs, Brackettville Tx where John Wayne's Alamo was filmed, a couple good UA-cam videos on the making of his movie
I'm so glad I'm not alone, thank you
I saw a Alamo film in '91 , I saw it at the I-Max in San Antonio ... You might want to go that one out .
When Crockett told the story of his time in the Creek war, it was pretty true, as the historical Crockett said about burning the cabin with all the Indians after a squaw killed one of their men, that he saw a young teen boy with a broken arm and leg trying to crawl away from the burning shack and that, "He was so close to the flames that the grease was stewing out of him."
I dont how anyone could see something like that and not be deeply affected by that.
Speaking as a 5th generation Texan, who had 2 direct gg uncles in the
battle,( my gg grandfather's brothers)
who were with Crockett,
I believe undoubtedly that the last movie(2004)
stayed as historical as Hollywood would allow.
And I also believe that Bowie's main malady was pneumonia stemming from the sandbar fight in which he never fully recovered.
In the movie he stated tubercular pneumonia.
Back in the day, T.B. was called Consumption.
@Rusty Sawyers a 7th generation 1st cousin of Crockett here... There is no other movie rendition of this story that comes close to the historicity of The Alamo 2004, period. My straight line grandfather William Crockett came boiling out of the mountains in 1780 with his brother John, David's father to get Ferguson at King's Mountain. Cuz'n David had patriotic genes, I reckon
@@kirkwilson10
Howdy Kirk, from the Alamo City. I enjoyed what you wrote and am glad you know your roots. I assume you know that today, March 6th, is the 186th anniversary of the Alamo battle. Keep in touch and if you find out anymore on your family, I am all ears. Very interesting. My relatives at the battle were on my Mama's side of the family. My dad's side is equally as interesting and also played a large part of our history. Take care.....
@Rusty Sawyers
I taught TN History for 25 years and it's a fact, you can't teach TN History right unless you teach some North Carolina & Texas History with it. I have a book on Texas history that acquainted me with the writings of Alcalde Ruiz, that mayor of San Antonio, whom Santa Ana put in charge of the disposal of the Mexican soldiers corpses.
His count is very interesting indeed...
Also, the most vulnerable spot in the fortifications was the low palisade where the Tennesseans were. It was unbreached. No wonder the Mexicans called them the "Diablo Tejanos" from then on.
@@kirkwilson10
Very true but I had heard the term was given to the Texas Rangers during the Mexican/American war because of their viciousness. By the way, when the dead bodies were dumped into the San Antonio river, it sparked another cholera epidemic.
The movie states the volunteers would receive 600 acres of land of their choosing for their service. One William Bennett Scates , who first took the Alamo , Bexar in 1835 , from the Mexicans before THE ALAMO was retaken by the Mexicans . Scates was also one of the 38 signers of the Declaration of Texas independence and was at the key battle of San Jacinto . He did not receive his grant of land , he was left impoverished , poor , starving and practically without clothes by the end of the war ... I quote him ' When I went into the army I had a fine stock of goods and was quite independent . When I left the army at the end of the war , I was almost naked and without a dollar ...."
Of note in Galveston , he knew a young lawyer as his friend ( William B . Travis by name ) and he knew Jim Bowie , traveling with him . Letter in Texas Archives as source .
Mr William B Scates , designed the Texas flag , one of four he submitted for acceptance .
Source : Published in the Texas Almanac of 1873 ; Osage , Colorade County, Texas , dated October 1, 1871 Texas State Historical Association , San Jacinto Museum of History , Pages stamped by LW Kemp .
So the film ( 2004 ) was not done right and is not historically correct !
She stood up to Santana and was only 22. I have all of her history and my family tree
I agree the 2004 version was more accurate than 1960 version. To me one thing that stands out most in 2004 film is construcrion of the palisade. In 1960 movie it simply shows the palisade to be mostly gabions, wicker baskets filled with dirt, and nothing else. In reality the palisade built to cover open area from the chapel to the barracks was made with heavy logs with a trench in front making it probably the most solid parts of the Alamo.
This movie is one of my favourites. It doesnt deserve the hate it gets. Really good movie and sad at the end too
Also I'm pretty sure there was much more Mexicans than 1500 lol.
"You can go to Hell, I'm going to Texas."
"It's amazing ehat a little harmony'll do."
That 2004 version is the most accurate yet !
It is much closer to the Diary that was found, belonging to the Luitenant aide to Santa Anna. The Diary was taken to Texas A&M for Authentication. It does say that Crockett and some of his Vilunteers were caught hiding in one of the Rooms, taken outside and Executed by Firing Squad.
John Waynes version was all Hollywood. Wayne's Version did not do enough research. The Lt. Aide to Santa Anna was
Enrique de la Pena.
Check out his story. Wayne knew about it, he just didn't want know that part of history, since he was playing the part of Crockett.
Crockett came to Texas thinking the fighting was over with Santa Anna. To his surprise it was not.
Don't forget that John Wayne had originally presented a screenplay/script to Republic studios to make the movie, but they had rejected the idea, but then used it to make The Last Command about James Bowie with Sterling Hayden as Bowie, and which had a more realistic timeline (Bowie having lost Ursula his wife and children, and the Veramendi family c 1833, also being a Mexican citizen, and had fought with Santa Anna as a soldier previously) including an episode of grief and heavy drinking. John Wayne then had to get more research done and a whole new screenplay and script. The 1960 version is a great action movie marred by a number of historical inaccuracies.
A fascinating revisit concerning the actual history of the Alamo is found in ‘Forget the Alamo: The Rise and Fall of an American Myth’. Well worth a read and a think.
I saw it. Interesting but heavily flawed.
I think one inaccuracy with the movie has to do with the Alamo set itself since the Church is way more forward than what it should be.
Otherwise, I remember watching through it my first time after I had spent time reading through a book about it, and they'd mentioned things in the movie like the Matamoros campaign that caused my eyes to widen that they included stuff like that, then there were things like the clothing, for instance Crocket has a vest on underneath his jacket that's a recreation of one that he actually wore irl, which was another nice detail to see.
And another aspect of the film, in terms of being a film, is they somehow managed to humanize all of the defenders and even a lot of the Mexicans to a degree that I felt stronger connections to the Defenders at least, unlike in John Wayne's film where most of the Defenders that don't get much screen time are just faceless soldiers, and likewise with the Mexicans to some degree.
And like I told my Dad after watching it the first time, it was the most accurate representation of the Alamo that I've seen so far.
Excellent take on this film
They got the ages pretty well. Travis 26, Crockett 49, and Bowie 42. Best historically correct Alamo movie yet although not perfect.
Correction...I did the math. Bowie wasn't quite 40. Born in 1796.
2004 version is by far, the very best......
I want to see a movie of Texas taking back the Alamo.
Do that mean what I think it do? It do!
I visited the Alamo a few years ago. I was really surprised at how small the compound is. If Santa Ana had just focused on one point in the walls and gotten inside, the defenders would have easily been overcome.
have you made a video of the fighting sullivans ?
I might be wrong, but I thought the actor who played Santa Ana in the 2004 version was too old for the part. Otherwise, it was great.
online i read an interview from the san antonio newspaper done in around 1903. it was with an aging Mexican-American gentleman who had been inside the Alamo at the age of about six. His version of it was the first time I really got the reality of it. it shows how silly some versions are. the actual battle, the siege at the end, was fought in pitch black. his father was killed in the battle. when he and his mother and (i think) sister left after sunup, he said he saw "sights of such horror that they are forever burned into my brain." unquote. he said weeks before the battle he had fallen into the river there (san antonio is right on a river) and the person who dived in and saved him from drowning was none other than Jim Bowie, his badass self, whom he described as, "a nice man." but he never saw travis or bowie during the time they were in the fort. the only person who got up and talked was Crockett, who had been a congressman and was used to talking to groups. the interview with this guy was by far the most interesting thing about the battle i'd ever read.
A spot on review
I loved the original as a little boy. But it is the 2004 version which I have in my collection.
I like your views & ideas about Santa Anna. Maybe after losing so many men he completely lost it & had Crockett & the others executed. It’s an idea I never thought of. One thing the Wayne version brought out was in showing that some anglos were on the side of Santa Ana. They owned land for the first time in their life & had everything to lose should they rebel. The 2004 version is better historically but I thought they downplayed Juan Sequin too much. He had a large force. He was involved in the “siege of Bexar” where the Texas army took the Alamo from the Mexican force & at San Jacinto. Also he did not leave the Alamo with message to Sam Houston by himself, he had a few men escort, my great grandfather being one of them. My grandfather appearing on the muster list for Siege of Bexar & San Jacinto. Also every version of Jim Bowie I believe always misses a very basic point. Bowie was from Louisiana, he was a Cajun & most likely talked like a Cajun. Or as Justin Wilson used to say @ I garooonteeee!
I liked your insight very much. Thank you.
Davy Crockett was not capture; he was killed in the courtyard. A Mexican Lt stabbed him with his sword as he was reloading his rifle, he by this time had killed near to 20 Mexican soldiers. It was said by the Mexican sgt. who wrote the account he the man in the odd hat never missed a shot fired. Once he started to reload the Lt charged in first followed by his men, who then bayoneted Davy. His body was seen in the courtyard that morning by more than 3 people who knew it was Crockett. Oh, the odd hat you will have to look up, it is very odd for that time.
@@Tellgryn u hv to remember how inaccurate this movie is. Once the Mexicans breached the walls the defender’s began to lose heavy casualties as explained by modern historians. This hand to hand fighting was a small fraction, once those walls came down and the deadly Calvary was inside the Alamo the defenders began a retreat as many Anglo bodies 60 to be exact were found in the south walls. For your peace of mind read the book Sea of Mud, a very interesting read, and perhaps Crockett capture might make sense.
@@PaulisVidal Paul I have all the books on the Alamo, the movie is very faulted. No Mexican cavalry entered the Alamo that night, it was on the outside looking for any trying to escape. Many of the defenders are killed by their on cannons, as they entered rooms to hold out and the Mexicans used the Alamos cannons to fire into the rooms. There is zero doubt Davy was killed in the courtyard. John Wayne's Alamo is a far different movie, he knew the Mexians attacked in the night the last day, but he was making a spectacular type of movie. He spent more money than he should have and wanted for everyone to see what was happening. Everyone also knew Bowie likely did not even fire a shot in the last battle, you could even see the halo on the wall in the room he was killed in until they destroyed that long, long years later. Bowie was shot up close, likely with a pistol and his brains left that halo circle on the wall. The second part of the De la Pena diary is a total fake and not in Pena's hand at all. Rumors in the late 1930's and early 1940's about it being faked was common in the Texas historical societies and was heard even across the nation. The diary is said to have been faked in Mexico City, using the research done from 1900-1935 to add weight to the diary. I still to this day do not know why the diary was bought, the only worth of the diaries is the first one by Pena and it gives little information to the battle.
@@Tellgryn you bring up good points. Recently I’ve read a book called The Sea Of Mud an archeological investigation of the retreat of the Mexican army after San Jacinto. Great Great read. That book and there’s interviews with the author on youtube will easily prove the last battle in this 2004 movie was completely disgustingly false.
Through those same interviews I came across other investigators who have shared new findings and tallied information that has been neglected, one such was that during the breakdown of the walls of the Alamo the calvary with their gold plated helmets shined through the defenders and literally blinded them with the sun reflecting of their metals. This is when heavy casualties were suffered. The fact that over 60 defenders corpses were found by the outer facing the west is indication that the defenders knew this was a hopeless fight and should retreat to fight another day.
@@Tellgryn Crockett or anyone killing over 20 men is a absolutely joke. Not even the British were that fierce vs the Zulu wars and those primitive fighters only had spears, Crockett was not fighting the Aztecs, for it was a modern army though with outdated guns and poorly equipped but do you really believe the soldiers took turns on fighting Crockett or isn’t more realistic that if a bad ass sharp shooter is killing your comrades wouldn’t you go Russian and rush with numbers?
You sir need to do real critical thinking. If you care to really know what happened and stop reading old books that aimed for false patriotism. There’s so many new findings and common freaking sense that the Alamo was not as heroic as we have been led to believe. Many modern historians almost believe or inclined to believe that Crockett was captured and executed. You have to remember the Mexicans only experienced high loses when the defenders were shielded by the walls of the Alamo once the enemy broke down those walls the defenders knew it was over much like the British and zulus. So it’s very credible to believe these brave men decided to retreat and hope to fight another day. But Hollywood wants us to believe otherwise.
Look at the Battle of Golliad or even The Mexican war when the hell did any of them kill 20 soldiers and you expect to believe Crockett the politician somehow became godlike? Stop living in the 50 my man that’s just not real. To me Crockett is a legend regardless how he died, he fought for freedom and the Texas cause against a dictatorship. Why can’t that be enough for you?
I used to do the same thing as a kid lol.
I was obsessed w the alamo
And remember that this was such a great/ sad thing that took place in history that people started to remember or think they saw what happened with the death of Davy Crockett. Santa Anna was
It's like True Grit , if you read the book the newer version is spot on
For me the best pretrial of Crocket and Bowie I have seen or how I imagine they would have been, cannot really get my head around Travis in any of the Alamo films he is hard to pin down even after reading so many books on his life.
He always struck me more as his character in the 1960 film.
Jim Bowie is a relative of mine.
He owned property near New Braunfels. Clear Springs?
A truly underrated film. I love showing it to people who only know of the John Wayne one and think “The Alamo Movie” is so historically inaccurate and so on. Then showing then NO, the 2004 one. Can’t believe it flopped. Took a lot from Peña’s accounts on Crockets death
A lost version that's never discussed is (The Last Command) I don't think it was the most historically accurate, but the battle scenes are phenomenal. I can't think of the Actor who portrayed Davy Crockett, but he also did a good job. It had an interesting friendship between Jim Bowie and Santa Ana. Bowie was in fact married to a close relative of Santa Ana. I believe his niece.
I really don't like that version. It lacks neither the accuracy of this version, nor the scale of the Wayne version. Nor does ot have Fes Parker lol
My great X3 uncle was the Sergeant Major of the Alamo. To answer the question about why the Mexican Army didn't just attack, Santa Anna was HOPING Sam Houston would show up so he wouldn't have to chase him.
Travis died in the first 5 minutes of the assault. It was dark. Once the attack started it was over in under an hour.
Isn't the set of the movie still up?
Burned down 5 or 6 years ago. The John Wayne one, while abandoned, is still standing.
I remember seeing this in the theater with my dad and my best friend at the time. I was a little confused at the time because I was used to both John Wayne's Alamo and Davy Crockett: King of the Wild Frontier. I was excited to see Texas get its independence at the end though.
For me its sad knowing what was to happen to the Tejanos and the slaves that didn’t escape to Mexico. Long story short tejanos were second class citizens and the slaves remained slaves until their death.
It is the best version made so far!
As a 5th generation Texan i much prefer the 2004 version. My ancestor, Calvin Grimes died there. He's a character in the movie but has no lines, he's just in the background.
It was going to be three hours long but Disney forced the direction to cut out several scenes. I recommend looking for the novelization which is probably close to what the movie was supposed to be.
the interplay between travis, bowie, and crockett is key to every alamo movie ever made. as one historian remarked, travis and bowie were a disaster waiting to happen - two very strong personalities in a scrum for dominance and command. the aspect of thornton's portrayal of crockett that i found most objectionable and unworthy of the man were the implications of cowardice and uncertainty. this was a man who stood 6 feet tall and did not hesitate to crawl into confined spaces after a wounded bear with nothing but a butcher knife.
The story of the Alamo captures our hearts because history made it that way. It was actually an insignificant little scuffle, as happens in any war. Travis disobeyed orders to blow it up, take the canons, and get ot of there. Today, native Texans revere that independence of mind, but he disobeyed his orders. Most of the defenders were volunteers and Houston wasn't about to waste any of his troops reinforcing that lost cause.
Independence was all the rage back then. The American colonies, France, and now it was Texas' turn to try it out. Santa Ana was just doing his job, putting down the rebellion. What he didn't know was that he never had a chance. Texas was too far away from Mexico City and becoming more "American" with each month.
“Doing his job” like brutally killing pows? Or how about abandoning his men and cowering?
Unfortunately for tourists, the set burned down in 2011. But the 1960 set (in Brackettville Texas) is still there, but closed.
Looks like the 1960 set is all but gone too as it is in true disrepair. I did hear about the 2011 fire.
@@ANProductionsOfficialChannel Think the chapel still stands, as it was adobe and/or stone. The wooden buildings could've fallen down from the elements and lack of repair.
This was the most accurate depiction ever presented, with a couple of exceptions. For one, Crockett is shown performing at the cantina on his fiddle, offering his rendition of "Listen to the Mockingbird." If he had the prescience displayed here he might not have gone into the fortress in the first place, because he was playing a tune that wasn't written until 18 years later, in 1854. Secondly, in the scene in which Travis gains respect from the men by manhandling a ten-inch mortar shell (don't try this at home without welding gloves - that thing is HOT) just lofted by the Mexicans, he then plays macho by toting it up to the 18-pounder and telling his gunners to return it; an impossible task, since the bore on the big gun only measured a little over five inches. Third, the producers are to be commended for bucking the Crockett fans who insist he went down swinging and having him surrender at the end, but if we are to believe DeLaPena's eyewitness account, there were a half-dozen others with him. General Castrillion did beg for their lives, but according the the account, they were dispatched with swords by some toadying junior offices who hadn't even participated in the battle.
Still and all, well worth watching, which I have done at least a half-dozen times.
You mention Travis and Bowie were supporters of slavery. You should point out that was a major reason for the revolution.
Mr. Crockett was a man 👨 of principle stood for what he bealeve in no matter the outcome ❤
The trouble is it's a Disney film and in Disney films the villain has to clear cut from the outset.
6:20 Santa Ana own post battles account was 30 Killed 600 Wounded, which most historians and scholars don't find reliable.
I did not use his figures in this video.
You bring up some good points ,However I go back to the Walt Disney days and Fess Parker .Still this is the "best" of the films.
18 Minutes 🙏
I also thought the 2004 version was very well done. One thing that bugged me though - Santa Ana was (I believe) under 40 at the time of the battle. Portraying him as a dottering old man was silly!
To understand Santa Ana in Texas look at what happened in Goliad Texas.
Check out the 1937 version of the Alamö. You will appreciate the details and it explains the issues between the filibusters who betrayed the Texas government- Aöso there were 250 men in the Alamo. Aöso the Texans were seeking freedom, but also wanted to bring in slaves and the Mexicans were anti slavery. They made slavery illegal in 1829. So go figure, the Texans wanted freedom but were slavers. Also the Mexicans invited the Americans and then the Americans broke the law and thought they could do as they wished.
this is a great film. great.