Welcome to BigScreenBiz.com

I am totally “befuddled” over the obvious poor acceptance, by the public and critics, of the new & improved “Alamo”. I’m old enough to have seen the original film back in the sixties, (although I never, for a moment, accepted John Wayne as “Davy Crockett”), but the film was good for its time, and the music was brilliantly scored – enough to get your heart pounding.

Since then we’ve learned (via investigations like the History Channel) that many of the 189 “Texican” patriots were indeed human – with all the warts, frailties, and fears that we humans are inherently cursed with.

The new “Alamo” sets are incredibly beautiful, the cinematography is outstanding, and so too is the sound. It would have been better had the music-score been “lifted” from the original Alamo instead of the non-descript, totally forgettable elevator music in this film.

How true to history is this version? It does seem to align, more or less, with the History Channel’s version of actual events (however much faith one puts in that). This “Alamo” seemed to devote a great deal of script to character development and, if true, helped me to better understand the lives and motives of some of these 189 heroes.

I don’t think this film deserves the excessively bad rap that the press has dumped on it. Given that, in my opinion (and I wished Touchstone had asked me), I don’t think it is the right film at the right time. Why, I’m not sure, maybe it’s just too darn politically correct, maybe it exposes some "flaws” of our American heroes, maybe people just don’t care about 19th century Texas history, or maybe it was just as simple as bad luck… Whatever the reason, it’s too bad…

I agree with your assessment Alyssa. It really is too bad the negative PR this movie is getting. I'm still gonna play it for a week, though. Like they say, any press is good press and I still think I'll do pretty well with it.