Best movie about "The Alamo"?

[Etex Horn]

There have been numerous movies made about The Alamo.  All Texans know the story; 185 men fighting for Texas independence, opposed by Santa Anna and several thousand Mexican soldiers determined to put their rebellion down.  The three movies that come to mind are:

1960 version with John Wayne as Crockett, Laurence Harvey as Travis, Richard Widmark as Bowie 

1986 version (made for tv) "Thirteen Days to Glory" with Alec Baldwin as Travis and Brian Keith as Crockett

2003 version with Billy Bob Thornton as Crockett, Jason Patric as Bowie

Which is your favorite?

Which is the most historically accurate? 

 

[primal defense]

John Wayne!

 

[drgilbert]

The 2003 version was good, but you can't beat The Duke

 

[texasdobbs]

The Duke. ..

 

[echeese]

Love the Duke but the 2003 movie was historically far more accurate. . . . shame it did get more play

 

[Juan]

I would like to see a new one. Except instead of starting with the men already inside the Alamo, I would prefer to see the events that led up to that point.

Antonio de Padua María Severino López de Santa Anna y Pérez de Lebrón was not just a dictator and tyrant, he was also a genocidal madmen as he cut a swath across Texas selectively killing all persons of pallor, including women and children, both before and after San Antonio. He did no harm to the native spanish speakers or local Indian tribes. He was on an extermination mission. This is an aspect to this story that has been whitewashed by history. I would rather see it emphasized, depicted and fleshed out.

 

[Shevis Irons]

I would like to see a new one. Except instead of starting with the men already inside the Alamo, I would prefer to see the events that led up to that point.

That was certainly a part of John Sayles original script. Ron Howard was the original Director of The Alamo. Howard insisted on showing the brutality as well as several other aspects of the story not often included. Disney balked. They didn't want to lose the young Texas audience and what Howard was proposing was just way to "Real" for a Disney Movie. Howard bowed out since he wanted to show what really happened since he said the true story was actually more compelling than all the Hollywood rewrites.

Enter John Lee Hancock. To his credit Hancock shot a lot of stuff that Disney had no intention of allowing in. For example, there were weeks of shooting the events around Houston retreat by himself to spend drunk with his Indian friends in East Texas. The Goliad Massacre was shot as well as some great stuff showing the terror in the Texians s they burned there own town, Gonzales. Some pretty horrific stuff from the Runaway Scrape was shot. Disney had it all edited out, especially the stuff that didn't present Houston in a favorable light. BTW, I am of the opinion that Quaid pretty much gav his worst performance of a spotty career.

At the Premiere, Hancock got up and excused what we were about to see. He explained his final cut was three hours and a few twenty minute. At great regret he had to cut down to under two hours per Disney. He basically said he hated what Disney made him do with his movie. He then said he defiantly settled on a final cut of two hours twenty minutes. We just kinda sat there stunned. I've never heard a director apologize for the movie he made. He also apologized to a bunch of the cast for not include ding some great performances. Very strange. Fact is, Marc Blacus, with a fith or sixth credit, was completely cut. Blacus played Bonham.

I ran into John Lee right after the Bastrop fire( he lost his house in the. Fire) and he said he still wanted to get to e Director's Cut but the real problem would be added expense of so much more scoring.

 

[echeese]

I would like to see a new one. Except instead of starting with the men already inside the Alamo, I would prefer to see the events that led up to that point.

Antonio de Padua María Severino López de Santa Anna y Pérez de Lebrón was not just a dictator and tyrant, he was also a genocidal madmen as he cut a swath across Texas selectively killing all persons of pallor, including women and children, both before and after San Antonio. He did no harm to the native spanish speakers or local Indian tribes. He was on an extermination mission. This is an aspect to this story that has been whitewashed by history. I would rather see it emphasized, depicted and fleshed out.

He put plenty of Mexico including Vera Cruz to the sword as well . . .

 

[Juan]

He put plenty of Mexico including Vera Cruz to the sword as well . . .

Yes, plenty of Mexicans hated him too.

But this had nothing to do with Texas or the Alamo.

 

[echeese]

Yes, plenty of Mexicans hated him too.

But this had nothing to do with Texas or the Alamo.

actually it had everything to do with the Alamo . . .

The revolution started when Santa Anna seized power and renounced the Mexican Constitution of 1824 . .. Texas was not the only Mexican state which wanted to see it's rights respected. . .

http://mexicanhistory.org/santaanna.htm#reac

Much of Mexico led by the states of Yucatan, Zacatecas, and Coahuila, promptly rose in revolt of Santa Anna's actions. Santa Anna spent two years suppressing the revolts. Under the Liberal banner, the Mexican state of Zacatecas revolted against Santa Anna. The revolt was brutally crushed in May 1835. As a reward, Santa Anna allowed his soldiers two days of rape and pillage in the capital city of Zacatecas; civilians were massacred by the thousands. Santa Anna also looted the rich Zacatecan silver mines at Fresnillo.

 

[Juan]

This thread is about an Alamo movie.

What it is not about is the complete history of Santa Anna or 19th century Mexico.

That's a different thread.

And movie.

 

[echeese]

This thread is about an Alamo movie.

What it is not about is the complete history of Santa Anna or 19th century Mexico.

That's a different thread.

And movie.

My apologies for trying to put Santa Anna in historical context. . .  . .