Login | Register

The Alamo (2004)

View at IMDB

Commentaries on this disc:

Commentary 1: Historical consultants Alan Huffines and Stephen Hardin Rating:9.0/10 (3 votes) [graph]Login to vote or review
Reviewed by Lurch on September 30th, 2004:Find all reviews by Lurch
Why the commentary isn't labeled on the special features is beyond me since since it's a quite excellent track.

The historians not only go into great detail about the accuracies and (Surprisingly very little) in-accuracies about the movie's subject, they also served as consultants on the set and share a bit of trivia on subjects such as how Jason Patric managed to get the ill look of Jim Bowie. And what does a "Screamer" really mean?
Fans of historic movies should definetly give this one a listen.
Reviewed by Pete on November 5th, 2004:Find all reviews by Pete
It's not the worst commentary ever; but it certainly isn't good. For one thing the two "historians" are about the most arrogant know-it-alls this side of the Rio Grande; all with a twinge of rampant liberalism. If they say it was like this, that's how it was--and you better like it.

The other problem is Stephen Hardin's voice. Good lord!--he gets excited at the mere mention of someone disagreeing with his views on history and proceeds to near the edge of a coronary (all with a severely high voice; it sounds almost like a hysterical gay man on the verge of tears).

The second historian/military consultant is okay to listen to, but he spends most of the time just agreeing with whatever Hardin says.

The ultimate problem, though, is they are unaware that they screwed over a Texas legend and ended up with an expensive crap movie. They fawn over the thing like it is superior to Casablanca, or, God forbid, John Wayne's The Alamo. Every camera angle is spectacular; John Lee Hooker (director) is a God; Davy Crockett has the greatest smile us mere mortals will ever see!

Oh, yeah: If you think Crockett wasn't executed, well, you are stupid and moronic because they (Hardin and his lackey) say he was, and you just can't wrap your head around it.
Reviewed by Rizor on February 25th, 2005:Find all reviews by Rizor
I agree more with Lurch's review. It's a very good commentary and to me, the historians didn't seem arrogant at all. They make time to emphasis that what they're saying "MAY" have been the case and make sure to apologize for some inaccuracies that slipped by them.
Reviewed by closedface on March 1st, 2009:Find all reviews by closedface
I agree with Lurch.

It'd be nice if more movies based on history included commentaries with experts on the events portrayed who could share their expertise with the viewers.