Had the good fortune of seeing the 1960's version of "The Alamo" this evening, after suffering through the 2004 version of "The Alamo" yesterday.
How to describe the dull dialogue, one-dimensional characterizations (with the exception of Billy Bob Thornton's exceptional "Davey Crockett"), and the claustrophobic view of the Alamo fighters who apparently were not respected by either the film's writer or director.
And, there's one line that seems to sum up the politically correct view of those involved with the film - the line - something like - the Mexicans are fighting for Mexico, the Texicans want to conquer the world.
On the other hand, in John Wayne's "The Alamo" the fighters are treated with respect, both American and Mexican. There was a story and dramatic line that carried you from the beginning to the end. Situations that were unclear in 2004's murky pc film were presented clearly, thoughtfully, and with solid dramatic impact. And the acting -- Lordy, Lordy -- Richard Widmark's feisty Jim Bowie, Laurence Harvey's powerful, yet prissy Col. Travis, and Richard Boone's powerful Sam Houston....
What's the phrase - there were giants then...With a strong thumbs up for that exceptional actor - Billy Bob Thornton, who unfortunately could not singlehandedly save the current film.
John Wayne respected his material, respected the people. The writer of the 2004 version toyed with the material and provided dialogue of little consequence. Subtlety does not appear to be his strong suit as he hands Billy Bob Thornton one-liners, shows Jim Bowie as a one-dimensional consumptive, portrays Col. Travis as an uptight incompetent and General Santa Anna as part peacock, part buffoon.
Let's face it, since everyone's long dead and gone, a writer has lots of freedom in which to create his fantasy of what really happened at the Alamo and both movies have silly scenes that don't track. But, with all of that, I'm left with that old cliche - they just don't make them like they used to.
How to describe the dull dialogue, one-dimensional characterizations (with the exception of Billy Bob Thornton's exceptional "Davey Crockett"), and the claustrophobic view of the Alamo fighters who apparently were not respected by either the film's writer or director.
And, there's one line that seems to sum up the politically correct view of those involved with the film - the line - something like - the Mexicans are fighting for Mexico, the Texicans want to conquer the world.
On the other hand, in John Wayne's "The Alamo" the fighters are treated with respect, both American and Mexican. There was a story and dramatic line that carried you from the beginning to the end. Situations that were unclear in 2004's murky pc film were presented clearly, thoughtfully, and with solid dramatic impact. And the acting -- Lordy, Lordy -- Richard Widmark's feisty Jim Bowie, Laurence Harvey's powerful, yet prissy Col. Travis, and Richard Boone's powerful Sam Houston....
What's the phrase - there were giants then...With a strong thumbs up for that exceptional actor - Billy Bob Thornton, who unfortunately could not singlehandedly save the current film.
John Wayne respected his material, respected the people. The writer of the 2004 version toyed with the material and provided dialogue of little consequence. Subtlety does not appear to be his strong suit as he hands Billy Bob Thornton one-liners, shows Jim Bowie as a one-dimensional consumptive, portrays Col. Travis as an uptight incompetent and General Santa Anna as part peacock, part buffoon.
Let's face it, since everyone's long dead and gone, a writer has lots of freedom in which to create his fantasy of what really happened at the Alamo and both movies have silly scenes that don't track. But, with all of that, I'm left with that old cliche - they just don't make them like they used to.