Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: The Alamo

This is topic The Alamo in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000759

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-09-2004, 02:51 AM:

blah

This should've been so much better.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 04-09-2004, 03:08 AM:

Decent flick. I don't know much about the real story of the Alamo, and I felt the film needed to explain that more. I felt left out of something that seemed really big, but I guess I'll have to find a history book. I heard rumors there was an hour cut from this film, so that might help to explain the missing pieces. I did, however, LOVE the sound mix. Canons are just too cool. Anyone else think Santa Anna seemed to be a really sleezy, creepy guy in this movie?

AJG

Posted by Renato Menichini (Member # 2355) on 04-09-2004, 05:23 AM:

Hallo

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 04-09-2004, 06:28 AM:

I agree with Brad. Good, but not as good as it could/should have been. I think the actors were all very good at their parts.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-09-2004, 04:59 PM:

Oh come on! Jeremy and Brad, you are from Texas. You HAVE to like it! Yeeeeee haaaaaawww![av=m]

Anyway I agree with Renato's interesting take on the movie.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 04-09-2004, 05:03 PM:

Darryl O'Shea reported at the Feature Info & Trailer Attachment that "THE ALAMO" is a Dolby EX and DTS ES release. All the movie advertisments I have seen and the Dolby site indicates that this film is in standard SRD and DTS only. Was EX & ES sound encoding added to the film at the last minute? If it is in EX, is there a noticiable difference in the sound especially from the rear speakers?

-Claude

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 04-09-2004, 06:17 PM:

DTS discs had the ES logo on them.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 04-09-2004, 07:07 PM:

The real problem with this movie is that both John Sayles and Ron Howard BOTH walked out on this production, after several head butting sessions with disney about the direction of the movie.

That bieng said, it was good for what it was. It should have been better, but from what I understand it was much worse before the hour or so had been cut by the studio. Apparently it drug on even futher.

You have to give cudos to Billy Bob Thornton. Excellent job as always, saving what could have been a total disaster.

Ciao

dave

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 04-09-2004, 10:41 PM:

I thought it was good. It had the typical feel of a western or war movie of that time period.

I thought it was interesting to see the Alamo recreated and how the only thing that you can even remotely recognize is the front of the church.

I've always been a fan of Texas history, so I may be a bit biased.

However, I found it strange that the story takes place in San Antonio but I didnt see any whales.

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 04-13-2004, 10:34 PM:

quote:
Oh come on! Jeremy and Brad, you are from Texas. You HAVE to like it! Yeeeeee haaaaaawww!

Joe, I didnt say that I didnt like it, just that it could have been better than it was.

Now how does that there review sound to you, partner!! [Big Grin]

Posted by Mitchell Cope (Member # 32) on 04-17-2004, 06:25 AM:

I enjoyed this movie because of its accuracy and the portrayal of its key characters. I could detect its flaws and how it might not appeal to anyone who didn't have to take Texas history growing up.

I kept thinking, I'm enjoying this, but what could they have done to make it like a "Lawence of Arabia"? I'm not sure if Ron Howard could have done any better. It's not a documentary, it didn't have the documentary, History Channel, or TV Mini Series feel... it was just probably as close as we will ever know to what really happened.

Favorites: Billy Bob Thornton (Crockett), Patrick Wilson (Travis), and Emilio Echevarría (Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana).

The state of Texas owes Disney a debt of gratitude for putting this story on film. The San Antonio set was beautiful. I hope to be able to see it some day on a visit.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 04-17-2004, 01:52 PM:

quote:
The real problem with this movie is that both John Sayles and Ron Howard BOTH walked out on this production

It's too bad Ron Howard departed the project. I understand that while he was aboard there was some consideration for shooting in 65mm.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 04-19-2004, 05:34 PM:

18 April 2004, Regal Cinema World 8, Eugene OR, 11:45AM, House #8, probably SR-D. Attendance started at 8, ended at 6 (2 kids were bored and left after about 30 mins). OK presentation though this is one of those abominable very short-throw houses with a very large screen and image quality suffers.

It was obvious from the beginning that this was going to be a history lesson, and on that level I enjoyed it. Most of the performances were excellent. Billy Bob Thornton is a standout as David "Don't Call Him Davey!" Crockett. The recreation of the Alamo was pretty impressive to see and very convincing. All in all this seems like it wants to be a big sweeping epic but turned out kind of dull for today's short attention span audience. Maybe it would work better recut as a 2 or 3 part miniseries. Maybe we'll get an extended DVD version.

Anyway I enjoyed it but I can't strongly recommend it.