John Wayne made a very entertaining movie.
However, I watch The Alamo (2004) and I am shocked at just how much better of a detailed movie it is with complex characters and historical accuracy. Plus I think Billy Bob was David Crockett (as Fess Parker was the Legend "Davy Crockett") whereas John Wayne was just John Wayne playing Davy Crockett.
Which did you like better?
John Waynes Alamo was the best ever, make no mistake, this man was a great very much underated actor, unique in every way, to be able to direct such a
monumentle project, and star in it must have stretched him to the full, Mike.
John Waynes version was much superior and rather even handed which surprised many at the time.
shareJohn Waynes all the way.
shareIf you want Historical Accuracy-- READ A D@&n BOOK, PEOPLE!
I'm sick of the new Hollywood tradition of ignoring historically accurate details in order to cater to the ignorant American viewing populace. Movies are for entertainment, not education. Use the Library, not Blockbuster.
I am a die hard fan of The Duke. Always will be. I love the 1960 Alamo. I think the 2004 version was fine, but I just prefer to watch the 1960 version given the choice.
"I'm goin' to war...with every one of them carpetbaggin' sons a B!#+c#es!"
No, Its the 1960 version from me. much better all round. The 2004 was 'different' and quite good with a new approach and feel - but everything about the Wayne version is everything good cinema should be. One thing which is MUCH better in the Wayne version - the artwork for the film poster (by renold brown) SOOO much better than the poor artwork which would accompany the 2004 release. Music too! Tiomkin outshone most composers anyway.....the green leaves of summer etc etc... Its all these asides that sometimes add up to what we all remember in a 'good' movie and trigger our memories as such. The Great Escape for example....Where eagles Dare.....The Big Country....the list is endless. Lets welcome a new Directors cut DVD in the near future, and from time to time a cinema showing of this classic 1960 movie.
shareI think that a remake, with decent casting (Which the 2004 version didn't have, excepting Albert Finney who did a passable Santa Anna) that takes the best parts of the 1960 film, and the 2004 film, would be a good thing. Maybe.
Of the two in existence, I prefer the 1960 version for it's epic qualities.
[deleted]