I have a certain fondness for this movie. Granted it's a "Poverty Row" production, with most of the Texians dressed like cowboys in a Grade C Saturday-matinée western and the Texian settlements obviously standard back-lot western-town sets, but it tries, and it means well. The Alamo set is laughable compared to the huge, detailed, more-or-less accurate recreations of the mission-fort in John Wayne's THE ALAMO and the more recent version with Billy Bob Thornton; but given the low budget they had to work with, the Alamo set in "HEROES" is better than expected, and it's more accurate than the Alamo set in the Disney version. (At least it has the palisade.) (If you get the DVD version of HEROES OF THE ALAMO you can see parts of one of these silents, WITH DAVY CROCKETT AT THE FALL OF THE ALAMO, the surviving fragments of which are the DVD's bonus feature.) The story of the growing rift between Mexico and the American settlers in Texas is reduced to cartoon simplicity, but at least it tries to give you some idea of the reasons for the conflict. It's interesting to me that the Mexican officer at the beginning is shown not as a monster but as a reasonable man doing an unpleasant job. Compare him to the bestial subhuman "greasers" of the silent MARTYRS OF THE ALAMO. As Alamo expert Frank Thompson states in his prologue on the DVD version, "HEROES" is unusual among Alamo movies in that the main characters are not the larger-than-life "trinity" of heroes--Bowie, Travis and Crockett--but Almaron Dickinson and his wife Susanna. The Bowie in this movie is a weird, rednecky guy who looks like he might gut and skin hoboes just to keep his knife sharp. The Travis in this movie is kind of bland compared to the more dramatic and romantic Travises of the screen, but he grew on me. (The production values were so cheap, however, that apparently they couldn't get him a sword and he has to draw the famous line in the dust with a rifle butt!) The Crockett is an unusual and somewhat oafish geek, and his death scene is probably the weirdest Crockett Death Scene of any Alamo movie, ever. His strange last line always makes me chuckle.
4 Reviews
What could have been a good recreation of the road to Teaxan independence is ruined by a poor script and pervasive cheapness
dbborroughs26 January 2008
Earnest but laughable attempt at telling the story of the battle of the Alamo and what lead up to it.
Made on the cheap the film looks at times little better than a filmed high school production. The script is overly melodramatic, the result of trying to get in too much passion and romance into the story of the founding of Texas. To be certain the film has some nice moments, scenes in the Alamo the night before the attack have a good sense of being there, and there is a conviction (too much at times) in most of the performances that made me think with a better script and more money this might have been something.
The problem is that the film is cheap with stock western sets and costumes used in many scenes, It all completely falls apart in the final attack when it seems like ten guys in funny hats charge the deserted walls of the Alamo again and again. I know there was no money but did they really have to make it clear that there was no armies either? I'm guessing that the extras played both sides (or some of the footage was lifted from a cheap silent film), which is understandable, but the result is its the Texans fall to a phantom army. Its much too silly.
Not worth bothering with, unless you have a strong attachment to all things Alamo or are some one who needs to see every "western" 2 out of 10.
Made on the cheap the film looks at times little better than a filmed high school production. The script is overly melodramatic, the result of trying to get in too much passion and romance into the story of the founding of Texas. To be certain the film has some nice moments, scenes in the Alamo the night before the attack have a good sense of being there, and there is a conviction (too much at times) in most of the performances that made me think with a better script and more money this might have been something.
The problem is that the film is cheap with stock western sets and costumes used in many scenes, It all completely falls apart in the final attack when it seems like ten guys in funny hats charge the deserted walls of the Alamo again and again. I know there was no money but did they really have to make it clear that there was no armies either? I'm guessing that the extras played both sides (or some of the footage was lifted from a cheap silent film), which is understandable, but the result is its the Texans fall to a phantom army. Its much too silly.
Not worth bothering with, unless you have a strong attachment to all things Alamo or are some one who needs to see every "western" 2 out of 10.
Alamo On The Cheap
bkoganbing24 September 2011
After seeing Heroes Of The Alamo I'm not surprised that John Wayne felt compelled to make his version of The Alamo on a far bigger budget than this poverty row product that ended up being owned and released by Columbia Pictures. The most well known player in this film is veteran western player Earl Hodgins who plays Stephen F. Austin.
The protagonists in this film are the Dickinsons, Almeron and Ruth Dickinson who are played by Bruce Warren and Ruth Findlay. As is part of Alamo lore, Mrs. Dickinson was in The Alamo with her husband and little girl and she and her daughter survived the attack as Santa Anna played here by Julian Rivero showed gallantry to the fair sex.
Rex Lease is Travis, Lane Chandler is Crockett, and Roger Williams is Bowie the triumvirate of commanders at the mission fort. You get absolutely no insights at all into these three men all of whom are quite different personalities in other films and in real life.
Until I came across it on Amazon rental I had never even heard of this film. What surprises me is that around this time the Texas Centennial was being celebrated and I can't believe that none of the major studios thought of doing an Alamo film back then.
As you can imagine the sets looked rickety and worn and threadbare. Production values for an epic story were just plain nil. See the John Wayne version or even the Disney version is better than this.
The protagonists in this film are the Dickinsons, Almeron and Ruth Dickinson who are played by Bruce Warren and Ruth Findlay. As is part of Alamo lore, Mrs. Dickinson was in The Alamo with her husband and little girl and she and her daughter survived the attack as Santa Anna played here by Julian Rivero showed gallantry to the fair sex.
Rex Lease is Travis, Lane Chandler is Crockett, and Roger Williams is Bowie the triumvirate of commanders at the mission fort. You get absolutely no insights at all into these three men all of whom are quite different personalities in other films and in real life.
Until I came across it on Amazon rental I had never even heard of this film. What surprises me is that around this time the Texas Centennial was being celebrated and I can't believe that none of the major studios thought of doing an Alamo film back then.
As you can imagine the sets looked rickety and worn and threadbare. Production values for an epic story were just plain nil. See the John Wayne version or even the Disney version is better than this.
In many ways, best re-telling of the heroic story
morrisonhimself4 July 2018
Prior, anyway, to the current mis- and/or un-informed generation, everybody knew the story of the Alamo.
It's THE American story of heroism, of courage in the face of overwhelming odds.
It's usually portrayed as an equivalent of the battle by the English colonists on the East Coast for independence from Great Britain.
"Heroes of the Alamo" is a remarkable production, doubly so considering it's from Columbia.
Unlike so many versions of this story, there is no over-emphasis on side stories, no excessive corn or sticky sweet sentiment.
In the big-budget John Wayne version, history was better served in the reminder that there were Mexican Texicans alongside Gringo Texicans, even inside the Alamo. That's missing in this much lower budget version.
However, the remarkably capable actor Julian Rivero plays General -- and dictator -- Santa Anna as a strong, if not very nice, leader, and the other "Mexicans" are shown as generally brave and admirable people.
In fact, many hundreds of the soldiers in the surrounding forces had been conscripts, were poorly fed and clothed, and were exhausted from the forced march that brought them to Bexar, as San Antonio was known then.
This version also shows the truth, that the Texicans as led by Stephen Austin -- beautifully played by the excellent Earle Hodgins in an unusual role for him -- were wanting to be loyal to Mexico, had in fact come to Texas mostly with that intention.
Not shown is the history that much of Mexico's governmental leadership had invited the Gringos to Texas at least in part to be a buffer against the wild, and often savage, "Indians," as the natives were and are mistakenly called. Texas was wide-open desert land, and the government of Mexico, like all governments, had no thought for the people but only for any riches that might be brought in.
Also like all governments, the Mexican state, as led, or mis-led, by Santa Anna grew more greedy and more grasping and the new Texicans -- very much like the English colonists on the Atlantic Coast -- grew resentful and finally rebellious.
Some of that history is referenced in "Heroes of the Alamo," but a lot more is, by necessity, left out, including, for example, the massacre by Santa Anna of the Texicans at Goliad.
Al -- in real life Almaron -- Dickinson really did have his wife inside the Alamo, and in real life she went out to tell the world of the heroism and tragedy of that battle. In real life, though, she was Susanna, not Ann or Anne.
Many of the real-life heroes are portrayed here, including David Crockett, James Bonham, Jim Bowie, and William Travis. Also shown in this film is William H. Wharton, who was not at the Alamo but was a strong rabble-rouser for Texas independence. (There is a page of quotes by Wharton on the Internet, but most of what is there is, certainly by modern standards, pretty racist and, in my opinion, rather general and, thus, rather stupid. It shows ignorance of or blindness to the fact Mexicans fought alongside the Gringos, not just beside Santa Anna.)
There is a print at YouTube that is miserably dark, and thus it is hard sometimes to be fully aware of what is happening on screen. Surely technology exists to improve the quality. And this movie is not just a good one, but an important one. It has a large cast of high-quality players, so many of whom are unknown now; and it is a good and mostly accurate history of Texas and the Alamo.
"Heroes of the Alamo" is by no means perfect, but it is an honest attempt at history on the Columbia limited budget and deserves being seen, again and again.
It's THE American story of heroism, of courage in the face of overwhelming odds.
It's usually portrayed as an equivalent of the battle by the English colonists on the East Coast for independence from Great Britain.
"Heroes of the Alamo" is a remarkable production, doubly so considering it's from Columbia.
Unlike so many versions of this story, there is no over-emphasis on side stories, no excessive corn or sticky sweet sentiment.
In the big-budget John Wayne version, history was better served in the reminder that there were Mexican Texicans alongside Gringo Texicans, even inside the Alamo. That's missing in this much lower budget version.
However, the remarkably capable actor Julian Rivero plays General -- and dictator -- Santa Anna as a strong, if not very nice, leader, and the other "Mexicans" are shown as generally brave and admirable people.
In fact, many hundreds of the soldiers in the surrounding forces had been conscripts, were poorly fed and clothed, and were exhausted from the forced march that brought them to Bexar, as San Antonio was known then.
This version also shows the truth, that the Texicans as led by Stephen Austin -- beautifully played by the excellent Earle Hodgins in an unusual role for him -- were wanting to be loyal to Mexico, had in fact come to Texas mostly with that intention.
Not shown is the history that much of Mexico's governmental leadership had invited the Gringos to Texas at least in part to be a buffer against the wild, and often savage, "Indians," as the natives were and are mistakenly called. Texas was wide-open desert land, and the government of Mexico, like all governments, had no thought for the people but only for any riches that might be brought in.
Also like all governments, the Mexican state, as led, or mis-led, by Santa Anna grew more greedy and more grasping and the new Texicans -- very much like the English colonists on the Atlantic Coast -- grew resentful and finally rebellious.
Some of that history is referenced in "Heroes of the Alamo," but a lot more is, by necessity, left out, including, for example, the massacre by Santa Anna of the Texicans at Goliad.
Al -- in real life Almaron -- Dickinson really did have his wife inside the Alamo, and in real life she went out to tell the world of the heroism and tragedy of that battle. In real life, though, she was Susanna, not Ann or Anne.
Many of the real-life heroes are portrayed here, including David Crockett, James Bonham, Jim Bowie, and William Travis. Also shown in this film is William H. Wharton, who was not at the Alamo but was a strong rabble-rouser for Texas independence. (There is a page of quotes by Wharton on the Internet, but most of what is there is, certainly by modern standards, pretty racist and, in my opinion, rather general and, thus, rather stupid. It shows ignorance of or blindness to the fact Mexicans fought alongside the Gringos, not just beside Santa Anna.)
There is a print at YouTube that is miserably dark, and thus it is hard sometimes to be fully aware of what is happening on screen. Surely technology exists to improve the quality. And this movie is not just a good one, but an important one. It has a large cast of high-quality players, so many of whom are unknown now; and it is a good and mostly accurate history of Texas and the Alamo.
"Heroes of the Alamo" is by no means perfect, but it is an honest attempt at history on the Columbia limited budget and deserves being seen, again and again.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
