Bill Slocum This review is for the shortened, two-hour, forty-one minute version.John Wayne threw everything he had into making this film, at the apex of his stardom, and just for that, and the sacrifice it honors, I want to celebrate it. I just can't."The Alamo" presents the story of the heroic last stand of some 180 Texas irregulars against the massed might of Santa Anna's Mexican army, featuring Wayne both as director and actor (playing Davy Crockett, one of the defenders at the siege.) It's full of great images, solid performances, and affecting scenes. Also, it's terribly long (even the edited version I saw runs over two-and-a-half hours) and weakened by a tendency toward preachiness and lazy sentiment.Is it entertaining? I say yes, albeit intermittently, even though it doesn't adhere to the facts and feels rather underbaked in the story department. Print the legend, as Wayne's patron John Ford was often quoted as saying, however spuriously, and "The Alamo" sort of does that, pushing the story as an exercise in rah-rah sentiment which strangely veers into liberal platitudes about republicanism and respecting one's foe even as he's bent on killing you to the last man.Reading the reviews here, you get the sense more than you do with IMDb takes on other Wayne movie how much he attracts negativity from people who see him as an avatar of American imperialism. Yet "The Alamo" is the last film of Wayne's which deserves such opprobrium. The film soft-soaps the viciousness of Santa Anna, whose no-quarter approach to riot control did him in as an effective ruler, and sets up the title edifice as a kind of coming together of multi-ethnic harmony. Even given the context of legend-building, this plays way too good to be true.The script, by Wayne's favorite writer James Edward Grant, pushes buttons without mercy or subtlety. This is the film where Denver Pyle, as one of the Alamo's defenders, marvels about the Mexicans bent on the slaughter of him and his comrades: "Even when I was killin' 'em, I was proud of 'em."Wayne took a lousy part, a character already brilliantly defined on TV by Fess Parker, and did what he could with it. As director, he selflessly ceded the stage to his co-stars, especially Richard Widmark as a tough, no-nonsense Jim Bowie and Laurence Harvey as Col. William Travis, the most interesting character in the picture. Harvey, burdened somewhat by an on-and-off English accent, gives Travis a veneer that makes him likable, even as he plays loose with the facts in keeping his men in the fort. Harvey at least is clearly enjoying himself, and for that his scenes have real color and vim.Some reviewers here say the film is cheated when cut a half-hour from the version first released in roadshow form. Certainly what I see here felt compromised by the absence of a resolution to a story arc involving a bad-guy American named Emil Sand and the woman he seeks to pressure into marriage. But it wasn't like I wanted this movie longer.The finale at least is terrific. Call it "Wild Bunch 1.0" for the way Wayne shoots the battle itself, all quick cuts and grisly deaths with hardly a dollop of sentiment. It's visceral filmmaking, and shows Wayne could shoot action, however lacking Widmark and others found his direction in terms of character development.Ultimately, "The Alamo" works okay as cinematic entertainment, aided greatly by William H. Clothier's cinematography which gives every shot that epic feeling that came so naturally in the 1960s and rarely thereafter. It's not entirely empty otherwise, Wayne's affable performance is on par with his later work and Grant manages to write some good dialogue here and there, like when Bowie learns the fate of his wife. But for such a legendary moment in American history, one is left wanting for much more.

Neil Welch In a seminal part of the history of the USA and Texas in particular, a small number of resistance fighters hold off the vast invading Mexican army at the derelict Alamo mission in San Antonio.In the 50-odd years since John Wayne's The Alamo was made, thousands upon thousands of movies have reached the public, ranging from the classic to the dreadful. Those regarded as classic have pushed the boundaries of cinema, and it must be accepted that this version of The Alamo doesn't stand up up too well when judged by present-day criteria.But back in 1960, The Alamo was an Event. Wayne was at the height of his popularity (he was box office number 1 for many years),this was a pet project of his, and it was an epic (and, unusually, a western one rather than biblical).Hindsight shows it to be somewhat bloated, rather slow paced at times, and over loaded with right wing polemic. On the other hand, it is undoubtedly sincere, the action sequences with their large casts are well marshalled, and it is a good looking film.For me, it passes muster. I wish I still had the commemorative programme which accompanied on its first cinema run!

denis888 So many people used to tell me this was The best version of Alamo. I was procrastinating long enough to watch it, and was right to do so. The newer version stands out to me as a great and thrilling movie, despite box-office bomb and much derision. But then, I watched the 1960 version. Just for fun. For the record. I didn't like it. Why? Well, first of all, John Wayne was Not a good director or even a very strong actor. His speeches are long, right-wing skewed, trite, banal and never exciting. He himself is not a very attractive man to be sexy or cool on screen. His playing is at best basic and very very formulaic. Other actors did almost the same average job - they're god but not great, OK but not excellent, lively but not very much alive. The Mexicans are the weakest link here and their portrayal is very bland, gray and vapid, especially Santa Anna - he is almost non present in the plot. Heh. The battles scenes are very simple and very caricature too, as we see the obvious goofs with stunts, or the exaggerated faces of those dying. The effect is not achieved and the film is viewed as a sort of some joke, joke that never worked out. I am of a strong opinion that this movie is not a success.

TheLittleSongbird Just for the record I like John Wayne and his films, I love The Searchers, The Quiet Man, El Dorado, The Shootist, Fort Apache and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, and quite like Red River and Rio Bravo. The Alamo is not Wayne's worst movie, not even close, that dishonour to me is still The Conqueror, but again it's not among his best either.Before I point out what I didn't like very much about The Alamo, I noticed several things I liked and admired. The Alamo is a beautifully made film with great colour, magnificent scenery and strong cinematography. Dmitri Tiomkin has penned some wonderful scores, such as It's a Wonderful Life, Red River and The High and the Mighty, and the score for The Alamo was no exception, with its melodious and rousing themes.Some assets showed some good and bad things. One was the script, the second half in written quality is actually stirring stuff. I wish I could say the same for the first half, sadly I found it rather leaden. Another was the direction, in the second half it shows signs of brilliance however in the first it is somewhat self-indulgent with scenes going on too long. This paragraph especially applies to the cast. John Wayne is charismatic enough and does a better job at acting here I feel than directing and Richard Widmark once again gives a solid performance. One of the most disappointing things of this picture is the performance of Laurence Harvey, who's very stiff with an accent that is both inconsistent and obvious.There are also some assets that didn't do much for me. In terms of story, the second half is much better than the first. The second half has some good writing and picks up the pace, the first half on the other hand is in my opinion unexciting and pedestrian with too many overlong scenes that could've been trimmed easily. The Alamo is perhaps 15 minutes too long, the pace is often dull particularly at the start and for a lengthy movie you'd expect more character development than this. Widmark's is probably the most well developed, Harvey's character is very awkward and perhaps even out of place throughout.Overall, too uneven and just didn't engage me. 5/10 Bethany Cox