The Alamo (Need understanding)

J.R. Hudson

J.R. Hudson

Spirit Animal
According to BOX OFFICE MOJO this film cost $107 million with an estimated $30 million in Marketing. The big shocker is that it grossed $24,034,884; WORLDWIDE.

178 USERS at BOX OFFICE MOJO gave the following stats:

A's: 44 24.7%
B's: 35 19.7%
C's: 26 14.6%
D's: 28 15.7%
F's: 45 25.3%

I watched this film tonight. I liked it. It wasn't the stinker or flop that I had expected and that I had heard. It did not have the EPIC feel of say GLORY or GLADIATOR or the cool of TOMBSTONE and I confess I felt these elements missing, but I liked it. The acting was first rate, the cinematography was above standard and the story I found interesting enough to pay attention to. I used to try and rate films with a STAR system and recently decided that this method was unfair to films with 5 STARS or 1 STAR. I decided to go to the THUMB UP or THUMB DOWN method. A THUMB UP means I would watch it again and actually recommend it (Even if only for a Saturday Night DVD rental) and a THUMB DOWN would mean RUN AWAY FROM THIS FILM, DO NOT WATCH as I WOULD NEVER WATCH THIS AGAIN even on TNT.

That being said, I give this a THUMBS UP. Anyone have an opinion on this? How can this film do $25 Million worldwide?
 
Re: The Alamo (Need understanding)

[quote author=John Hudson link=board=movies;num=1096437205;start=0#0 date=09/28/04 at 22:53:25]I WOULD NEVER WATCH THIS AGAIN even on TNT.[/quote]

Never watch a movie on TNT! It's like watching the Simpsons on UPN! Syndication is not kind...

Anywho, I didn't see it, I have no intention of seeing it, but I recall someone saying that they falsified A LOT of things that they than presented as historical facts. Anyone else hear that?
 
Re: The Alamo (Need understanding)

Problem with this movie was that it's leading cast was made up of B-list actors like Billy Bob Thornton. All they needed for this movie to make WAY more money was a single A-list actor to sign on. Something akin to The Last Samurai. You throw in one big name and people start saying "oh yeah, you mean that new movie with so and so". Once you get this kind of buzz people will start to go see your movie. This movie was a run of the mill (didn't add anything new to the scene) and lacked an a-list name... thus, way too much money was spent with little return...
 
Re: The Alamo (Need understanding)

I see what you mean on the A List take. OUCH! Remember when QUAID was on the A LIST? It definately lacked STAR POWER. I also felt they did not capture TEXAS the way an EPIC should. No scenic vistas, no magic hour shots (well, maybe a couple) but it really didnt have an epic feel in terms of the camera.

Im not too sure about facts being twisted. I know about The ALAMO and there were some key events that I was aware of but Id have to look into it further to see specifically what they did.

I felt the battle too short and the events leading up to it to drawn out. Still, it wasnt that bad. I mean, it wasnt a turkey you know?
 
Re: The Alamo (Need understanding)

[quote author=John Hudson link=board=movies;num=1096437205;start=0#3 date=09/28/04 at 23:22:47]Remember when QUAID was on the A LIST? [/quote]

No...

I kid, I kid. :P
 
Re: The Alamo (Need understanding)

A-List actors make the money they make because they're the ones who end up making all the money for a movie.

Movies that break director's into the industry don't tend to have a-list actors... or they do, but they're the movies that create the new a-list actors. They also don't tend to be as successful financially as other films while they might still be extremely good.

An a-list actor is worth their weight in gold. You cast Tom Cruise in any movie and it's going to make money. Same goes for Nichol Kidman, Renee Zelweger, Charlize Theron, Halle Barry, Johnny Depp, Tobey Macguire, Kirstin Dunst, Al Pacino, Robert Deniro, Orlando Bloom... i can go on... new a-list actors are always being created by performances and others are moving down to b-list for the same reasons.

Up and coming a-list actors: Don Cheadle (always been b-list sadly, believe he'll be making it big), Ryan Gosling (next Sean Penn easily), Jamie Fox (former comedian), Jude Law (i don't believe he's quite a-list yet), and I believe Mark Wahlberg will be making quite the comeback (i've already seen I HEART huckabees so i'm biased)

When someone mentions a movie they don't say "oh, you mean that movie directed by Robert Rodriguez." at least non-film people. They'll say "oh you mean that movie with Johnny Depp"
 
Re: The Alamo (Need understanding)

[quote author=TC link=board=movies;num=1096437205;start=0#1 date=09/28/04 at 23:04:13]
Anywho, I didn't see it, I have no intention of seeing it, but I recall someone saying that they falsified A LOT of things that they than presented as historical facts. Anyone else hear that?[/quote]
No, I haven't heard that. If anything, this was one of those rare Hollywood movies that was relatively accurate to the actual events at the Alamo and the Battle of San Jacinto.

I've walked and studied the grounds of the Alamo many times and I thought the movie did a pretty good job of recreating the defenses and general look and feel of San Antonio and the mission. I along with one of my best friends, an Army Engineer Major, examined the location (or what's left of it) anaylzing the mission defenses in detail and pondered all the "what if's". They got it right.
 
Re: The Alamo (Need understanding)

[quote author=THiNSPiRiT link=board=movies;num=1096437205;start=0#2 date=09/28/04 at 23:16:30]Problem with this movie was that it's leading cast was made up of B-list actors like Billy Bob Thornton. All they needed for this movie to make WAY more money was a single A-list actor to sign on. Something akin to The Last Samurai. You throw in one big name and people start saying "oh yeah, you mean that new movie with so and so". Once you get this kind of buzz people will start to go see your movie. This movie was a run of the mill (didn't add anything new to the scene) and lacked an a-list name... thus, way too much money was spent with little return...[/quote]
I guess I am one of the few individuals that REALLY enjoyed the Alamo.  Personally, I don't feel a movie needs the box office draw of an "A-List" actor to be a success - case in point being your example "The Last Samurai".  Here was a movie that had great potential, but in true Hollywood fashion they screwed the pooch BIG TIME!!!  While I understand the need for some artistic license in telling the story, however in this case the screen writers, producers, and director kicked historical accuracy to the curb like some cheap two dollar whore.  The real story of the Last Samurai (Saigo Takemori) is far more compelling than some alcoholic transplant gaigin war vet from the US Indian Wars.  What horse ****!  Tom Cruise's personality (while a box office favorite) completely overshadowed any worthwhile potential this movie might have had.  A lesser known actor might have given the movie more grit and realism, but instead Cruise's persona guaranteed this a standard popcorn flick.  If I had to choose an “A-List” actor it would have been Russell Crowe (Gladiator Samurai style).

Hollywood needs a major ENEMA!
 
Re: The Alamo (Need understanding)

Quad actually intro-ed a History Channel segment a few weeks ago regarding the Alamo. From all that I've gathered, they tried to stick with the 'real' events in this film (I confess, I haven't seen it yet but planned to after seeing Quad participate in this segment). There are several things concerning the 'popular' version of histories version that just aren't true.

Jim Bowies’ death, David Crocketts’ death (executed, not KIA), etc.
 
Re: The Alamo (Need understanding)

Are you saying that neither is true in the movie? Personally, I did not know Crockett was executed but I had always heard Bowie was killed while sick in bed.

Ranger - I'm glad someone likes this film. I did and honestly cant see how it did 24 Million. Its mind boggling.
 
Re: The Alamo (Need understanding)

Ranger, you completely missed my point. Having an a-list actor won't make your movie good necessarily, but it will make sure that your movie makes money. No matter what people say on this board, film making is a business. It's about making money. Nobody is going to give you $20 million to make a film unless they're going to see that money come back to them and more. You hire an a-list actor that everyone knows and everyone wants to see, you'll get that many more people coming to see your film. If it's not objectively bad then tonnes of people will come to see it simply for the one person.

You know how many people went to see the Last Samurai simply because Tom Cruise starred in it? I guarantee 80% of the people who went to see it couldn't care less about what the story was about, or that it was about the fall of the Samurai, or that it was set in a rustic Japanese setting. All they paid to see was Tom Cruise. *THAT* is how movies make money. You can take that exact same story and cast someone else and it wouldn't make nearly the amount of money.

Crowe would've been good as well I agree, in fact, I believe they had him slated to do it at one point early on. I think he had other commitments at the time...
 
Re: The Alamo (Need understanding)

(I haven't seen the movie but...)

The History Channel doc had evidence of post battle interviews with the Mexican troops that Crockett was captured with several others (alive) and executed post battle. The “no-quarter” red flag was flown before the fight and the troops were in automatic execution mode.

And yeah, they said Bowie was killed in bed. Historians interviewed his mother after the Alamo and her account of how she “felt” her son died in battle is what made it into the press at the time and then into all the previous movies.

But after this latest CBS “evidence” fiasco who knows and the History Channel did state at the end that some things just couldn’t be verified. There were several survivors from the Alamo however.
 
Re: The Alamo (Need understanding)

To be fair THiNSPiRiT

An A LIST actor doesnt guarantee anything.  The are a ton of films that dont make money with A Listers attached.

Case in point?

Hudson Hawk
Budget: $60 million-plus
U.S. Box Office: $17.2 million

Ishtar
Budget: $55 million
U.S. Box Office: $12.7 million

Battlefield Earth
Budget: $50 million/$73 million
U.S. Box Office: $1.9 million/$21.5 million

The infamous
Heaven's Gate
Budget: $44 million
U.S. Box Office: $3 million

The Postman
Budget: $80 million to $100 million
U.S. Box Office: $17.6 million

Cutthroat Island
Budget: $100 million-plus
U.S. Box Office: $9.9 million

The Adventures of Pluto Nash
Budget: $90 million to $100 million
U.S. Box Office: $4.4 million


That being said? I do see your point and agree it cant hurt!
 
Re: The Alamo (Need understanding)

[quote author=John Hudson link=board=movies;num=1096437205;start=0#13 date=09/29/04 at 18:17:02]The Postman
[/quote]

*Shudder*
 
Re: The Alamo (Need understanding)

I kinbd of like the The Postman but I like COstner so Im somewhat biased. I see the flaws in the film and totally see why someone would not like it. That chick was a skank though.
 
Re: The Alamo (Need understanding)

See, the thing about those films John are that they're example of films where they are in fact objectively bad... you can't get around a bad movie...

Movies like those drop a-list actors to b-list actors which is very much the case with a lot of those. What have you seen John Travolta big in since then? He's dropped a notch or two... he ended up in punisher with a terrible role... Costner ended up doing open range which wasn't all that bad, but still lacked the big push it really needed.

A bad movie is a bad movie and I can't say that an a-list actor will make those movies money. I can say though, if you have a decent film to begin with, and you add an a-list actor, it makes it all that much more marketable...
 
Re: The Alamo (Need understanding)

So, A-List actors make successfull movies, except for when they make bad ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top