The Alamo : Deleted Scenes (Dennis Quaid, Billy Bob Thornton, Jason Patric, Patrick Wilson)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 жов 2024
- This movie is a Classic, i never get tired of watching it, hope you enjoy ! I dont get paid to do anything you see in my videos ......i just do this as a hobby ...........thanks for watching !!
I love how when Almeron and Susannah Dickinson are dancing, you see the pain in Jim Bowie’s eyes over his wife. Great job by Jason Patric
@joeszymaszek1146 Agreed. He is such an incredible actor who is woefully underrated for choosing to do mostly indie films. But I think he is one of the best ever.
Don Javier is the actor in the beginning and he’s my father
Was his character a real historical figure?
@@Jake_Steiner no I do not believe so, he’s also in the movie not just in this deleted scene. I think his character is meant to represent the opinions of Mexicans who live in Texas about Americans.
@Adventuring with Michael very interesting, thank you. All the best to you and your dad.
@@adventuringwithmichael8134you mean the character speaking to Captain Seguin? He’s portraying Jose Gregorio Esparza, a real life Tejano Alamo defender. The movie shows him bringing his family into the Alamo, and they survived as noncombatants. He died at the chapel battery with Captain Dickinson, which is all accurate.
Muy buena película donde participó tu padre, saludos.
Most underrated movie ever. By far.
one of my favorites, really well done. thanks for watching !
Yes, this movie was one of my favorites
Tells an excellent story
It is by far the most historically accurate depiction of the siege of the Alamo (as well as the Battle of San Jacinto) that has been made.
Flag waving BS
The director should have left these sequences in the film. It adds establishment and context that even 3 and 4 hour Alamo Epics never have.
The Texans and Tejanos thought they had won that winter. The Tejanos had been moving for freedom from Spain since 1813, then quickly after 1824 they realized the new Mexico City government was just another Spain, with new dictators.
I think the director, John Lee Hancock was under constraints from Disney. Had a strict budget and the final cut had to be a certain time length. This was originally going to be done by Ron Howard and his company. Howard wanted a big budget, pull out all the stops, an R rated movie, with some bloody battle scenes. And Russell Crowe was supposed to play Houston. But Disney balked at the cost and the R rating, saying they were a family company. Howard pulled out, and so did Crowe. Still a great movie. John Lee Hancock did pretty well with what he had. I heard that Hancock would like to do a Directors Cut, but Disney won't spend the money. Hell, they won't even release it on Blu-ray. Yet their HUGE flop of Alexander, has had numerous versions put on video, with every chance to succeed and failed.
You’re correct, though it wasn’t immediately after 1824. It was more in the years immediately prior to 1835, after Santa Anna rose to fame as a war hero and was elected as a federalist but did an abrupt 180 and became a centralist while abolishing the constitution of 1824. This film did the best job so far of showing that Santa Anna was generally disliked throughout Mexico, as evidenced by the multiple other Mexican states that rebelled and seceded.
The 1813 to 1822 Mexican war for independence eventually created a liberal constitution in 1824 of dispersed regional government and universal male suffrage (sorta of course).
However in the decade following the old concepts of rule that even predated the Spanish came into play. 85% of Mexicans live in a strip in the highlands on either side of Mexico City ...as they did in Montezuma's era. This power base did not respond well to dusty provinces north and south of them. The post revolution 1st Republic was falling apart by 1833, and Santa Anna was emerging with more and more executive power.
Suffrage was limited, grievances of outer provinces was ignored, and foreign colonists once invited such as Tejas Colony of Moses and Steven Austin was now seen as invaders to build central resentment against them.
Rebellions are often not Revolutions but Evolutions and it usually comes from somebody that intends to rule at any cost...despite their good intentions when they 1st took office.
Lo que yo sé es que los anglo americanos se robaron estos territorios y posteriormente otros más,.estados unidos como siempre desmadrando al mundo a conveniencia
Great movie. I don’t know why the critics don’t like it.
i liked it just fine, i just had to watch it more than once and get used to the actors , it was different in the casting area , just sayin
It’s because it has no good dialogue lol, you can feel that most conversations are scripted and really empty
@@enderlinde3152 Ain't that the truth!
Es una bazaofia, la pelicula solo muestra positivamente a los tejanos, a excepción de su AFAN por tener esclavos.
Y no muestra a los tejanos hispanos que querían a los anglos migrantes.
@@enderlinde3152 Agreed. I don't think all of the dialogue scenes are bad but they do give off that "scripted vibe" though in a way I think that's a bit of the movie's charm. It gives off kind of a classic film vibe. The type of movie from the 30's-60's that you'd pop into the DVD player now and the acting is either bland, stilted, or over the top by today's standards especially in an era where improvising half the movie's dialogue is the norm
Do you seriously believe that the Texans faced the Mexican army head on? What they did was attack at night while they were resting and captured Santa Ana and forced them to affirm the independence of Texas plus the help they received from the USA.
I have that movie on DVD.
By the way, it's a Disney movie.
this is disney? didnt know that, they dont make them like this anymore :)
@@ghostsofVTurbexSkysthelimitvid , it was Disney's Touchstone section. Disney needs to release a Blu-ray Directors Cut of this movie. And don't just put these scenes back in, there are other key scenes that were filmed and left out, like Bonham's ride to Goliad for help, and battle scenes. They'll probably never see the light of day.
@@ghostsofVTurbexSkysthelimitvid
ua-cam.com/video/PS8Zi1zb1IM/v-deo.htmlsi=JlR1DnpMLKHj-HkU
Russel Crowe was suppose to play Sam Houston, this was suppose to be a saving private Ryan epic movie. Ron Howard wanted a big budget and cut but Disney refused.
@@ghostsofVTurbexSkysthelimitvid
Did you know that Dennis Quaid’s (Sam Houston in The Alamo (2004)) brother Randy Quaid voiced Alameda Slim the main antagonist in the Disney animated feature film Home on the Range?
Someone knows the name of the dance? I love it
3:40 Kirie Elaiison indeed, no bigamous marriage is legitimate under the laws of God.
Maybe that's why he had his ass kicked in San Jacinto
Tick your Heavenly Father bitcoin LDS
You what?
Like
The best...
This film had no redeeming features. There is only one "The Alamo" - and it will live forever... Wayne, Harvey, Widmark (Tiomkin!)
Anthony AT: if you check with actual historians about the Alamo, you will see just how INACCURATE the JW version really is.
@@dennismood7476 I don't need to do that. I am myself an expert on the subject. You missed my point. I suspect you miss a lot of points. : )
@@anthonyat2401 Well, I wasn't looking very closely but I guess I missed the point on the top of your head. :)
@@dennismood7476 Calling JW's Alamo inaccurate, is like calling Shakespeare inaccurate. Now I begin to think that you didn't merely miss the point but simply cannot appreciate it. This later version is dreadful in every possible way. I wasn't expecting much of it but even then, it was still underwhelming. True, they both had the wrong year on the flag...
@@anthonyat2401 Well, let's see. When Crockett lost his bid for re election in Congress, he accepted a spot in the militia in return for a large land grant, hoping to rekindle his failed political career in Washington.. Gonzalez and the Alamo garrisons had already defeated the Mexican army's attempts to keep hold of both areas, Crockett arrived at the Alamo in late February thinking since the Mexican army was defeated, he could rest easy to only having to defend against local bandits and small attacks from various Indian tribes. The Mexican government was weak and falling apart and Santa Anna took over as dictator. He spent two years putting down revolutions against the tyrannical government Santa Anna brought into being by his reign as General. He entered San Antonio and began the assault on The Alamo shortly after Crockett arrived. After 12 days of night time bombardment, Santa Anna ordered the cannon fire stopped allowing the defenders to fall asleep since they hadn't slept well for a number of days. The assault started around 4:00 -4:30 or so and only took 1 1/2 hours to completely wipe out the Alamo defenders. By 6:00 AM, it was all over, and the Mexican army was busy burning the bodies. Now, why were the settlers in Texas in the first place? Mexico (which included Texas) was so vast that the government could not secure it with the military they had. Mexico opened up Texas for settlement to populate it. There were conditions, however: 1) there were to be no slaves. (Mexico had previously abolished slavery). 2) Settlers were required to become Mexican citizens( Bowie had already done so and married into Mexican aristocracy). 3) Settlers had to be baptized into the Catholic faith. The settlers ignored these requirements. Since the Mexican government could not "police" the area, the settlers formed their own militia to safeguard the area against bandits and Indian attacks. With time, the settler's formed a loose government and decided to split away from Mexico and become their own country. Santa Anna laid siege to the Alamo to RID Texas of what he considered to be land pirates. Now, NONE of what I have written here is conjecture, speculation, myth, hallucinating drug pipe dreams, or movie magic. What I have related here is documented from letters, other correspondence, journals, and related information by survivors on BOTH sides of the battle. Also written military and civilian documentation of the history of Texas and its revolution. JW's battle was in full daylight when the real battle was in the wee hours of predawn. JW's Crockett went to the Alamo to fight for a republic when in actuality, he went there to secure his political future. The defenders were the good guys and Santa Anna was the bad guy. Only partly true. Santa Anna considered himself to be nationalist who was fighting for the integrity of Mexican soil against invaders and land grabbers. JW's Travis was shown sword fighting and finally killed long after the battle began, when in reality he was killed early on at the North wall with a ball to the head. John Wayne's Alamo story was good entertainment and a rousing virtuous testament to flag waving patriotism. However, the Hancock version was more true to FACT than fiction and legend. You really should look at some online information about the Alamo by Dr Stephen Hardin PHD. He is an authorized Texas historian with not only the degrees to support his knowledge but the documentation also. Check him out. It's only a few clicks on the computer to some real knowledge...or if you prefer to be wistfully and deliberately ignorant of the facts, then so be it. I won't tell anyone you really don't know what you are talking about unless you make it evident as you did to me. Regards, Dennis