From: laro@idworld.net
Okay, my wife and I just saw the movie. We give it "2 jalapenos"
rating!
Too many, too long, the fake blood and guts segments, definitely
not necessary.
And it did NOT tell the story of WHY the battle took place. I did
not see anything politically correct in the presentation, however.
Did not seem slanted toward the Mexican or the Texian sides.
Did not explain much. Did show Santa Anna to be a rotten old
shit, showed Sam Houston to be a military planner and good officer.
(that last was what irritated a historian friend to tears; he believes
Houston was the most evil man in Texas, up until the 1930s.
Therefore, he tells the story that the movie was historically
inaccurate! (everybody's got to have a point of view, I guess.)
The set was not very good. Showed the Alamo much closer to
town (San Fernando Cathedral) than it actually is. Made the
battleground appear much smaller than it was. Was this a
horrible example of film-making? Nah.
I don't think it will be a sleeper, but it ain't awful, either. Just
sort of a blah movie. Too bad, it could have been so much more!
"Cliff D. Weller" wrote in message
news:407a85e6@news.zianet.com...
> In article ,
> monaco8292@hotmail.com says...
>
> > Do they make it to not offend the Mexican/Mexican American population
> >like Pearl Harbor tried not to offend the Japanese?
>
> It's a Disney production, so it's definitely been
> sanitized to avoid offending the general audience
> in the USA. That's one of the major complaints
> against it from the critics - not enough realism
> in the blood and guts shown. BTW, I have not seen
> the movie so I'm only familiar with news release
> versions of what it's like.
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
