The Alamo

From watching both the John Wayne Film and the John Lee Hancock there are some very noticeable difference in both movies. Both movies had a sense that everything was dramatized and that both movies portrayed events and characters very differently in the other movie which made me believe that the newer 2004 movie was more accurate then the John Wayne film.

First the John Wayne I thought and everyone else that saw the movie knows that most of that movie is historically inaccurate due to the way the characters have been shown and the setting of the movie. The character of Jim Bowie was depicted as a drunk that he was injured during one of the cannon raids in the Alamo when historically he was ill during the siege of the Alamo. Davy Crockett shows up at the Alamo with many men to help fight at the Alamo when he showed up at the he only brought at the most a hand full of men to fight at the battle. Another point about the way davey crockett was portrayed that he die by blowing up the room with all the gun poweder when he died in the front of the chapel. Which showed, in my own opinion, that John Wayne might have thought that the soldiers there would have at least have some what of a fighting chance but the was inevitable. One of the weak points in the fim was the actuall battle itself it only lasted about 9 minutes at the most when the real battle only lasted about 90 minutes or even more. Then time and the setting of the movie was off the time of the seige took place very early in the morining around 5 and didnt end till the sun came up. In the setting of the John Wayne film was off in the movie San Antonio was in the middle of a desert and was shown to be in the middle of no where, this was wrong San Antonio at the time had trees and the no dester and the Alamo was next to the river. The John Wayne version of the movie was depicted soely for entertainment proposes because a good majority of the movie was historically inaccurate.

In the 2004 Alamo movie with Billy Bob Thorton was more believeable and more historically accuate due to the fact they had most of the event in the correct way it happend. The way Davy Crockett was portayed in this version of the movie was that he was a legend but not the way he was in John Wayne Film. One thing that didnt change was the fact that Jim Bowie and cournal William Travis were arguing almost any chance they had but in reality was that they only argued twice. One point of the film when they were getting bombarded by Santa Anna cannon fire Davey Crockett grabs his fiddle and playes with the drums and there was no cannon fire that night. I believe the directors just added that part in there to make is seem that eveyone had a repreve from the cannon fire and just to make seem more dramatic. One part of the film was the Juan Seguin was portrayed very accurately the way he was in real life over all the new 2004 movie was the most historcally accurate movie i have seen so far

Both Alamo movies are really good but if any cares about historical accuacey i would sugjest that you go and see the Billy Bob Thorton movie but you want to see a movie that is for enterainment see the John Wayne movie. But in my opion i would sugjest that you would watch both movies to see how Hollywood diptced the historical events of the Alamo back in the 1960's in 2004.



The Alamo. DVD. Dir. John Wayne. MGM Home Entertainment, 1960, 162 min.



The Alamo. DVD. Dir. John Lee Hancock. Touchstone Home Entertainment, 2004, 137 min.