The Alamo (Widescreen Edition) Reviews

• A Must-See

  
  By A11PTCZ2FM2547 on 2004-04-13
  For an historical film to succeed it must vividly recreate the setting, conditions, people, conflict, and chain of events for its subject. Without question director John Lee Hancock--along with producers Mark Johnson and Ron Howard--meets all criteria with his sweeping film, THE ALOMO. Walking into the theater with less than enthusiastic expectations, along with some disquieting reservations (Billy Bob Thornton as Davy Crockett? Give me a break!), I was immediately impressed with Hancock's unwavering commitment to detail--from a Texan volunteer's marking each day of the siege onto the Alamo's wall with his knife, to the Mexican army's band playing the haunting "Deguello" each night before Santa Anna unleashed his artillery. Such craftmanship enhances the entire viewing experience, and effectively pulls the audience back in time to the winter of 1836, when a foolhardy group of about 180 men held off more than 2,000 Centrist soldiers for days in a tiny compound overlooking San Antonio.

  An historical epic can only be as good as the people involved in the event, and THE ALAMO furnishes a feast of colorful characters. General Sam Houston (Dennis Quaid) frets and agonizes over sending reinforcements to the aid of his Texas brethren, but ultimately decides he must not jeopardize his gathering army by confronting Santa Anna at the Alamo. Colonel William Travis (Patrick Wilson) commands the Texas Regulars at the Alamo; he is viewed as a martinet by many of the men, so he must earn their respect, and he does. Famed knife fighter James Bowie (Jason Patric) is at odds with Travis and in conflict with his orders from Houston to confiscate the fort's cannon and move them back to the Brazos; succumbing to illness, he spends the bulk of the siege on his cot, which indeed becomes his deathbed. General Santa Anna (Emilio Echevarria), the eogomaniacal "Napoleon of the West," hopes to attract Houston's forces to San Antonio, and when it becomes apparent no reinforcements are coming he decides to attack and "take no prisoners."

  Yet, to my utter surprise and astonishment, Billy Bob Thornton dominates this cast as frontiersman and former Congressman Davy Crockett. Thornton gives a down-to-earth, even humble, portrayal of the Tennessee Mountain Man. Crockett was in Texas not as a mercenary but as a land speculator; his arrival at the Alamo two weeks before the siege was more a matter of bad timing than a duty to serve. But Crockett inspires the men, entertains and comforts them, and Thornton brings this character to fascinating life.

  Some reviewers have lamented the film is "too slow" or "boring." I maintain the movie is not meant to be an X-box game of gratuitous violence but a re-enactment of a siege that took 13 long days; I further maintain that when the actual fighting starts, it is powerful and at times even overwhelming. And yes, there is an element of Hollywood "creativity," but nothing that interferes with the historic authenticity, with the scope and the magnitude, of the Alamo's tragedy, and its subsequent inspiration. THE ALAMO is first-class entertainment--a must-see movie and a must-have DVD when released.
  --D. Mikels
  
  

• Excellent retelling of the Alamo siege and battle

  
  By A2Q13PHEXGR48Q on 2004-04-14
  The Alamo is an excellent historical epic depicting the famous battle and its aftermath in 1836. In February/March 1836, 184 Texians defended the Alamo against a much larger Mexican army led by General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. For thirteen days, the Alamo defenders held back the Mexican army until on the morning of March 6 they were overwhelmed in the predawn darkness. This movie has received a lot of bad publicity, but don't listen to it. This is not your typical action movie, but instead a character driven drama with excellent battle scenes. The movie accurately portrays what took place during the siege. Although director John Lee Hancock had to cut almost an hour from the original version, this is still a very good movie and well worth a watch.
  
  The Alamo does not have a bad performance from its cast. Billy Bob Thornton absolutely steals the show as David Crockett, the ex-Congressman who finds himself at the Alamo. Thornton brings a human side to Crockett not seen before in any Alamo movies. Also, Crockett's controversial death scene is one of the best scenes in the whole movie so I doubt you'll be disappointed. Dennis Quaid is very good as Sam Houston, although his part was significantly cut in the editing room. Jason Patric and Patrick Wilson are great as the famous knife-fighter, Jim Bowie, and the young Alamo commander, William Barrett Travis. The film also stars Emilio Echevarria as Santa Anna, Jordi Molla as Juan Seguin, Kevin Page as Micajah Autry, and Leon Rippy as Sgt. Ward. I loved this version of the movie, but I do hope a Director's Cut DVD is released. The DVD offers widescreen presentation, deleted scenes with optional commentary, a commentary track with two Alamo historians, and three very good featurettes. With great characters, beautiful cinematography, excellent battle scenes, and a haunting score by Carter Burwell, The Alamo is a great historical epic. Check out The Alamo!
  
  

• America's Iliad - re-imagined

  
  By A19Y4W9RZDRNF4 on 2004-09-26
  If you want history, read some books. Let's get that out of the way first. There are many fine histories written on the battle of the Alamo, and disputing ideas about what exactly happened there. It is likely that, like Custer's Last Stand, the exact story of what went down at the Alamo will still be disputed by historians long after we all are dead.
  This movie is about mythology, not history. While the battle of the Alamo was a historical event, it long ago entered into the realm of American Myth. It is our Iliad. If we cannot win, this is how we want to die - not shirking our duty, but finding something heroic inside ourselves to rise to the occasion. That was portrayed well in this film. The principle players, Bowie, Crockett, and Travis, are not born heroes here. Instead, they are strong men with flaws and quirks of character like all the rest of us. When they are confronted by crisis, we see them rise beyond their flaws, their doubts, even their fears, and in their last moments truly become the heroes of the legend. This was captured powerfully in this film.
  An early scene shows Sam Houston speaking to Davy Crockett about Texas at a ball in Washington, near the end of Crockett's term in congress. Seeing the two together, an observer whispers to another man that either of those two might once have had a chance to be president, but no more. It is a nicely done scene accomplishing several things at once. First it allows us to see the two as men who had risen to a certain level of success and power, with some reason to expect more to come. It then shows us that before the fighting in Texas, both were men whose star was in decline, and who may have faded out of history had they not cast their lot with the Texicans. Finally, it establishes from the beginning that Davy Crockett was more than a coonskin hat-wearing cliche hero, and prepares us to see him played as a fully dimensional character. This is just one example out of many of how efficient and well made this movie is.
  The whole cast did a great job with their roles, but I thought that Billy Bob Thornton as Crockett delivered a particularly outstanding performance; one of the best of his career. The role gave him many opportunities to shine, and he rose to the occasion. Chills ran down my spine when his Crockett stood like a chuckling Prometheus to answer the murderous music of the Deguello with his defiant fiddle. And in his death scene, he created a powerful alternative take on how a hero can die. Though it is one of the most controversial scenes of the film, I believe any man could be proud if they were able to meet death with such courage and defiant humor.
  The film has some flaws - much was edited out, and it leaves the story and character of Dennis Quaid's Sam Houston feeling choppy and incomplete. But taken as a whole, this is a powerful new take on a great American legend, not replacing, but adding to what went before. It has many layers and much nuance, and is a film which bears seeing more than once to take everything in. While not perfect, I can't give four and a half stars, so I give it five.
  
  Theo Logos
  
  

• Don't get carried away!

  
  By on 2004-04-01
  Let's not get too overboard with this film.
  They took alot of liberties with the truth, as Hollywood always does, and mangagled it good!
  The Art Director screwed up. The sets were bad, even though the San fernando Church looked okay.
  Costuming was atrocious! Way overboard on the David Coperfiled look! That was nuts!
  While the Mexican army looked great and we finally get to see the sappers, I question the authenticity of the uniforms.
  Having seen a first edition copy of a mid 1800's book on and by the Mexican Army telling it's history and uniform changes, it has color plates of the army's uniform changes from before the Texas Rev period, during that period, and after it.
  It is amazing that the uniforms of the Alamo period look alot like what we saw in the Duke's version!
  They have Travis looking like a whimp. He was anything but that!
  Crockett being tied up and executed, which never happened, and him yelling, "I'm a screamer!", before they execute him.
  How ludicrous can you get?!
  That'll probably end up being the most memorable and recited line from the whole film I am sorry to say!
  It's full of revisionist bull.
  Do not go to see it thinking you will be seeing the actual true story. You won't.
  It has more historical errors in it than John Wayne's.
  But if you go to see it as a western, you probably will have a good time.
  They should of consulted with Thomas Ricks Lindley and Bill Groneman before writing the script to this film.
  If you want to see the best Alamo film ever made, go see the Imax version, "Alamo: The Price of Freedom".
  Then demand that Price of Freedom be released on DVD uncut and with the Making 0f..., trailers to, and all the other goodies!
  
  

• WASTED OPPORTUNITY HERE

  
  By A16KWEU0B076ZA on 2004-04-10
  Having viewed this version of"The Alamo"on opening night,All I can say is WHAT A WASTED OPPORTUNITY to make a REALLY GOOD Alamo flick this is.Sure,this film is gritty looking,and without all of thepatriotic touch-ups of the John Wyane epic BUT one comes away from the Duke's version more satisfied,more enthusiastic,more content than one does after seeing this version.Yes,Billy Bob Thornton does make an interesting Crockett,but,all in all,his role here is minimal,and there does seem to be something of a cowardly streak in the way in which his part was written.Was Crockett a coward,an opportunist whose only goal in coming to Texas was to gain land and regain political prestige(as this film suggests)?I DOUBT THIS!
  Another reviewer here chastises those of us who are honest with our opinions,claiming that it is a"slap in the face"to all of those who worked on the screenplay & the movie.BALDERDASH!I,personally,have read dozens of books on this battle,and nearly all of them dismiss outright the mexican account that Crockett(or"Cwacky"as apparently he was called by the alledged eyewitness)surrendered and was killed by the mexicans AFTER the battle itself was over.If this,then,is the level of "historical research"involved,then,by thunder,we critics have every right to carp.
  It would seem to me that ,probably,the producers of this film had revisionist notions on thier mind from day one,intending to give the public a version of the story that not only had never before been attempted but,further,would upset most existing notions regarding what happened at the alamo,and why.
  On a purely personal note,i found the whole film badly edited(as if the director shot way too much film and then had trouble deciding which parts to keep in and which parts to discard),the music was awful(more sleep-inducing than stirring).
  What a missed opportunity to retell the Alamo story accurately,fairly,and without burdening it with a lot of revisionist claptrap.
  
  
• "Victory or Death"
  By A2DSXA1E02C86D on 2004-05-02
  The saga of the Alamo is too well-known to belabor extensively here. In short, the Mexican dictator-president General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna marched into Texas, then Mexican territory, in 1836 to quell a rebellion of citizens, most of them American-born. In San Antonio de Bexar, Santa Anna surrounded a couple hundred rebels holed up in the local mission, the Alamo. After a 16-day siege, the General launched an early morning attack on March 6 with 1,800 troops that eventually overwhelmed the fortress. Estimates put Santa Anna's losses at 600 men killed or wounded. All of the Alamo's defenders - officially 189, but perhaps as many as 257 - were slaughtered, some after capture, including those men of American legend, frontiersman David Crockett and adventurer James Bowie. This courageous last stand inspired the Texan Army under Sam Houston to defeat and capture Santa Anna at he Battle of San Jacinto on April 21. In exchange for his release, Santa Anna signed away Mexican rights to the province.

  The single best reason to watch THE ALAMO is the wonderful performance of Billy Bob Thornton, who puts a human face on the Crockett legend. At one point, Davy admits that he only began wearing his trademark coonskin cap because an actor playing him on stage did so. Yet, Crockett's fame is so great that even one of the Mexican soldiers attendant on Davy's death wears such a cap in emulation of his hero.

  The next best performance, and indeed a very good one, is that of Emilio Echevarria as the arrogant, over-confident, and ruthless Santa Anna. Historically correct or not, it's everything I would have expected the General to be.

  The costuming and sets of this epic are magnificent, especially the elegant, brightly colored uniforms of the Mexican officers and their troops. And where did the Texans get such a varied and striking collection of headgear? Those hats were one of the movies best touches.

  The other actors, Jason Patric as Col. Jim Bowie (commander of the Alamo's volunteer defenders), Patrick Wilson as Lt. Col. William Travis (commander of the Alamo's regular army defenders), and Dennis Quaid as Sam Houston, turn in relatively uninspiring performances. The best role is Wilson's Travis, whose plea for outside reinforcements for the besieged incorporated the famous words "Victory or Death". The character of Bowie remains pretty much a mystery, especially as he spends his last days on his sickbed suffering a lung ailment vaguely termed "typhoid pneumonia". And Quaid's frowning Houston is particularly wooden and brooding. It was if either the actor or Houston was continually preoccupied with indigestion.

  Inasmuch as I can determine from Web research, the events surrounding the Alamo battle seem, generally speaking, accurately depicted on-screen. Out of necessity, Crockett's death was embellished because the truth surrounding it remains murky - but this version is nicely done (and enhances the Crockett legend). THE ALAMO also takes pains not to demonize the Mexican forces - except for Santa Anna, of course. Indeed, some of the General's chief lieutenants argue for sparing the captured defenders. And the fact that native Mexican (tejano) settlers fought alongside the Texans is given due credit. (For once, political correctness meshes with historical fact.)

  After the film stutter-starts a bit establishing the characters of Crockett, Travis, Bowie, and Houston, it settles down into being a fine historical epic. And the Davy Crocketts of John Wayne and Fess Parker can stand aside for Billy Bob's.
  
  

• Very good retelling of the Alamo saga.
  By A15OZEIN9FM28O on 2005-05-01
  
  After reading many of the other reviews I think a bit of background is in order. Mexico achieved its independence from Spain and set up a Republic and elected its first President. This man served out his term and then Antonio de Lopez Santa Ana was elected President. He then threw out the constitition and the elected government and declared himself absolute ruler of Mexico.
  
  A policy of encouraging immigration was established by Spain and continued by the new nation of Mexico. If a settler would convert to Catholicism they would be granted Mexican citizenship and be allowed to own land and start businesses. In this way Mexico hoped to attract entrepreneurs, business people, and money to the Provinces. James Bowie, for example, was a Mexican citizen when he died at the Alamo.
  
  By throwing out the constitution and siezing power Santa Ana provoked widespread opposition to his rule. The defenders of the Alamo wanted to restore the constitutional government of 1824. That is why the flag that flew over the Alamo was a Mexican flag with the date 1824 emblazoned on it.
  
  The movie production was troubled from the start with Ron Howard turning over the directors chair to John Lee Hancock who wrote the script. A magnificent set was built for this movie that exactly replicated the Alamo and San Antonio De Bexar. John Wayne did the same thing for his version of the Alamo and built his set in Brackettville, Texas. This the town where I am from and as a young man I was able to watch the construction of this set and the work on the film, a great experience for me at that time. The location people from the new movie visited the Wayne set and studied it for possible use but eventally rejected it as they felt that they surrounding terrain was not enough like San Antonio so they built their new set outside of Austin. They may have come to regret this as bad weather, torrential rain, and even snow plagued the production and caused significant delay.
  
  The movie was beautifully photographed and more than 100 hours of film was shot. This large amount of film contributed to delays in the editing process.
  
  I think that the cast was quite good and that the work by Patrick Wilson and Billy Bob Thornton was outstanding. The actor who played Santa Ana, Emilio Echevarra, was positively brilliant and he should have had an Oscar for best supporting actor.
  
  The costuming was excellent but the battle scenes could have been a bit better.
  
  Many of the men who died in the Alamo were in fact locals who had families and businesses in the area. One fact overlooked in the movie was that the settlers already had their hands full with marauding Indians and bandits and it was a hard decision for these people to leave their homes to defend the Alamo. Most of these were Anglos who were Mexican citizens. The 33 men who rode in from Gonzales all left behind families and most knew that they would not return.
  
  Originally the Alamo was garrisoned by Mexican Army troops who were driven out by the locals. When they returned to Mexico proper Santa Ana was so enraged that he marched immediately upon the Alamo, losing many of his soldiers in the forced winter march. This was accurately portrayed in the movie. The Texans were taken by surprise when the Mexican Army showed up in the early spring before defensive preparations were complete. The actor that played Col. Neale, the Alamo commander before Travis, commented "........as you can see it was not designed with miltary intentions in mind."
  
  One scene that really sticks out is when Crockett, sitting with other defenders around an evening campfire, describes his Indian fighting days and tells the story of the potatoes that he ate that were soaked in grease from burned human beings (the Indians).
  
  Another good scene is when Crockett mounts the wall and plays fiddle along with the Mexican Army Band as they play the Death Song, "Deguello."
  
  The movie carries through to the Battle of San Jacinto where Santa Ana is defeated and forced to cede Texas.
  
  Between the 200 or so defenders at the Alamo and the 400 prisoners shot down like dogs at Goliad a lot of Texan lives were lost, especially considering the relatively small population. There was much grief and sorrow after it was all over.
  
  A must have for those interested in Alamo lore.
  
  All in all this was a very good film that could have been a great film. Worth the price.
  
  
• The Best Alamo film ever made
  By A3TIM4HEBLH0NP on 2008-05-14
  For serious students of history of the Alamo, director John Lee Hancock's "The Alamo" can't be beat. Every phase of the battle (a night battle which lasted about 90 minutes) is accurately depicted. The movie shows how outlying sentries, sleep deprived after days of shelling, were bayoneted during the initial charge, how the Mexican battalions first scaled the north wall where Travis was killed, shot between the eyes, how defenders retreated into buildings lining the walls where terrible close-quarters fighting took place, and how the last defenders, including David Crockett, retreated into the chapel at the end.
  
  The film presents the view that some defenders, including Crockett, were captured and executed shortly after the battle. This controversial scenario is taken from the diary of a Mexican officer, Enrique De La Pena.
  
  I would have preferred that there be more middle and far distance scenes for those of us who love the history and are interested in military tactics. But director Hancock chose mostly close-ups of the action. This, I presume, was an artistic choice to maximize dramatic effect and my wishes to the contrary are but minor quibbles. (Boy, would I love to see the outtakes!) All in all, the film is a great achievement, the best Alamo film ever made.
  
  The politics which led to the war are skillfully presented. The script courageously includes the fact that the Mexican people were betrayed by the Anglos to whom they had given lands in return for oaths of allegiance. Another uncomfortable truth portrayed here is that the Texian rebels fought, against Mexico, for their freedom to continue the institution of slavery.
  
  The courage of both the Mexicans and the Gringos is shown. We see the Mexican army marching through the snow in the terrible winter of February, 1836, with rags tied around their feet to redeem the honor of Mexico. This is no John Wayne; "There was 10 of us and a million Mexicans" Alamo.
  
  But what makes any war story great is the human portrayal. This is not lacking here. The writing is delicious. On arriving in San Antonio, Crockett makes one of his famous "Prettiest wife, ugliest dog, meaner than a snapping turtle..." speeches. A listener says; "Gosh, Davey, now that yer here, Santy Anny won't dare attack!" Crockett replies with a sick grin: "I understood the fightin' was over. Ain't it?" Crockett had come, hopeing to become the first President of the Republic of Texas.
  
  The counter-intuitive choice of Billy Bob Thorton to play David Crockett was brilliant. Thorton captures Crockett's humility and compassion for the common man (Crockett opposed Jackson's removal of Native Americans from the east, realizing that these people were more like the people Crockett knew than the politicians who wanted their lands). Thorton shows us how Davey really must have felt. And Thorton manages to even look like the few extant drawings and paintings we have of Crockett. This is good acting because Crockett was alot better looking than Billy Bob!
  
  Jason Patric smoulders and exudes danger as Bowie and Patrick Wilson's youthfulness truly illucidates Travis' courage. Emilio Echevarria's Santa Anna is at once sympathetic in his ideals and detestible in his arrogance and cynicisim. He says: "What are the lives of soldiers but the lives of so many chickens?" Santa Anna ignored the tenants of Napolianic theory of warfare which held that artillery should breach a fortified position before infantry advance. Santa Anna ordered his men to attack the fort with ladders and "Sappers" carrying axes to dismantle fortifications. The Mexican soldiers did their duty.
  
  The Alamo is America's Thermopylae. The story must be told again and again. No matter if the heroes' flaws are exposed. They are greater in the imperfections of their humanity. It will be a long time before this story is better told.
  
  
  
• Can the story of the Alamo make a good movie?
  By on 2004-04-16
  It's a shame that this movie was so badly savaged by most critics and is doing poorly at the box-office. All its production problems seem to have ensured that it really never had a chance to succeed. I think that's a shame because overall this is a moving and nicely done recreation of one of America's most mythic events. In fact, it's the best depiction of the events and people of the Alamo that has been been put to film. (However, that really is not saying much because the film that previously held that title, John Wayne's "The Alamo," was an earnest, but very clumsy attempt to use the Alamo as a symbol for Cold War era American patriotism.)

  This new version of the Alamo story is not going to please those from the far left, who think the story the Alamo is one of an unscrupulous land grab by a group of white slave holders, or those from the far right, who think the Alamo defenders were chivalrous defenders of "freedom." Instead the movie trys to walk a tightrope between the two extremes. It shows that many of the defenders of the Alamo were men with checkered pasts. Some were slaveholders. Some were opportunists just looking to get rich fast. Yet, the movie also shows these men as people who were just looking for a second chance at life and maybe, as the movie's Col. Travis puts it, a chance to be "a better man." According to the movie, these men died fighting for their own individual dreams of what the opportunities of Texas offered them.

  This movie will also not please those in love with the myth of the Alamo. The heroes of the battle are all shown with very human flaws. Jim Bowie (Jason Patric) is portrayed as man with a very checkered past, an alcohol problem, and a tendency to try to solve all disputes through violence. William Travis (Patrick Wilson) is shown as an arrogant glory hunter who abandoned his wife and daughter. However, it's nice to see an appropriatly young actor playing Travis, who was just 26 when he was killed. Finally, there is David Crockett (Billy Bob Thornton) who is shown coming to Texas for wealth and possible political power not to fight. Yet these flawed men rise to the occassion. Bowie is a natural leader. Travis' determination and courage gradually win over the skeptical men. Crockett, although chagrined to find himself trapped by his own legend, does everything he can to live up to that legend in the eyes of both Texans and Mexicans. I also have to echo the other raves about Thornton's performance. I think he really did nail the real Crockett. Billy Bob's "David" is not the mythical "Davy" as played by John Wayne and Fess Parker, but a real human being who finds himself having to play a character. It's a brilliant performance and Thornton steals every scene he is in.

  The battle of the Alamo consisted of a 13 day siege and pre-dawn assault which overran the defenders. That has always been a problem for previous Alamo filmmakers because sieges are not all that exciting and until recently nighttime filming techniques were too primitive to film the assault. Technical improvements have allowed this new movie to overcome the later problem- the film's recreation of Santa Ana's assault in the darkness is the highlight of the movie and images of those scenes are still in my mind. It's just thrilling filmmaking. However, this movie, like all the other Alamo movies, has a tough time with the siege- a lot of sitting around and talking and not much action. I enjoyed many of these scenes, but this is where critics bashed the film for being "boring."

  The biggest problem with "The Alamo" is the tacked on campaign and battle of San Jacinto which focuses on Sam Houston (Dennis Quaid.) The movie is trying to put the Alamo into context- San Jacinto, not the Alamo, was the decisive battle of the Texas War of Independence. However, San Jacinto for all its historical importance lacks the mythic quality of the Alamo and in this movie it feels extremely anti-climatic.

  Overall, "The Alamo" is worth the price of admission for its recreation of the assault on the Alamo and Billy Bob Thornton's performance. That's probably not enough to get non-history buff fans into the theater and it looks like Disney is going to take a bath on this one. It's too bad- it deserved a better fate.
  
  

• HISTORICAL ACCURACY A MUST!
  By A3G2X99BIUTY1T on 2004-01-27
  John Wayne's "The Alamo" is by far one of my favorite movies of all time. However, anyone who has done any research at all knows that he took a lot of liberties with historical accuracy. The only thing that is really historically accurate is the Alamo compound itself, as it was constructed from actual blueprints. It surprises me that, while supposedly accurate to detail, the new "Alamo" was not built accurately, as the closeness of the long barracks to the chapel will attest. We'll have to wait and see about Bexar. And what about the story? The weather elments seem to fit hisorically in place. After all, the movie was filmed during the same months that actual seige took place. John Wayne filmed in the summer and it shows. The fact that the seige begins in the dark of early morning would be another historically accurate element. The rest, we'll have to wait and see. And I can't Wait!! I wished I could be at the world premiere!
  
  
• Where is Dmitri Tiomkin when you need him?
  By A3JJWHINQVAN5I on 2004-04-12
  I just saw "The Alamo" this afternoon, and, as many critics are saying, the film doesn't quite jell. It has some riveting images and sequences --- Bowie on his death bed being ministered to by his dead wife's sister, Travis defusing a dud shell himself when one of Bowie's men refuses to do it as ordered, Crockett breaking out the fiddle on hearing Santa Anna's band play "Deguello" once too often, Travis taking a bullet between the eyes as he aims his shotgun over the ramparts --- but in its final moments the film kind of peters out. It needed some razzmatazz at the finale, an uplifting ending, that just isn't there.

  Nevertheless, I'm glad I saw it. Though not a masterpiece, it is a worthy effort. Many of its features are taken from real life, you know. Travis' death happened just that way, as his slave (who survived the battle) related it many years later. Crockett's horrific experience in the Creek Indian war is told in this film just as he told it in his memoirs. Travis's letters from the Alamo are the same in the film and in history. One of Santa Anna's top officers was cut down at the San Jacinto rampart just as in the film. (History records his last words: "I have been in forty battles and never once showed my back. I'm too old to do it now.") And when the Mexicans fled into a slough behind their camp, they were shot like fish in a barrel, just as shown in the film. (Sam Houston's officers had a hard time stopping the slaughter. One of them was told, "Colonel Wharton, if Jesus Christ were to come down from heaven and order me to quit shooting Santanistas, I wouldn't do it, sir.")

  That last sequence needed more work, I think. A more skillful director would have ramped up its horror even more than John Lee Hancock did. And Santa Anna's flight, capture, and cowardly cession of Texas to save his own neck should have been depicted with greater impact, even pathos, with the focus shifting decisively to him. After all, what more dramatic storyline is there than "How are the mighty fallen"? The whole tragic epic really belongs to Santa Anna, just as the Texas campaign was his to lose. And he was every bit the blackguard he's portrayed in the film. The feckless "Napoleon of the West" is one of the great antiheroes of history.

  When I was a boy, I saw John Wayne's "The Alamo" in theaters, and I listened to its soundtrack LP countless times. On a certain level, the Duke's version was great stuff. Watching it today, one can see how hokey it is, but it certainly doesn't lack for a slam-bang ending. Maybe the soundtrack is the secret. Dmitri Tiomkin never did better work than he did for that movie. The new film's score is good, but it needed a rousing chorus or two, especially at the end.

  I only wish Wayne's film had cut out some of the fictional business that padded out the Alamo siege and instead had included the San Jacinto campaign, with Wayne playing Houston, not Crockett, and someone skilled at conveying handsome wickedness playing Santa Anna. The English actor Dirk Bogarde, perhaps, or maybe Gilbert Roland or Ricardo Montalban.

  As I write, Mel Gibson's "The Patriot" is on TV. Now there's a slam-bang film. Puerile nonsense from first to last, of course, but it certainly doesn't lack for adrenaline. I wish the new "Alamo" had borrowed a little of its oomph. But I think Hancock's movie will be better remembered than "The Patriot" is. It, at least, is not an insult to the intelligence.
  
  

• Alamo the major disappointment
  By A2H6K4HYUF4VLI on 2004-07-02
  This movie was supposed to capture the historical event to its true sense. One of the most well advertised aspect of this movie was its accuracy. It was to show the Mexican side as well as the Texican side. It meant to show the Santa Anna's army and its journey from Mexico City to San Antonio de Bexar. It was shot mostly for that notion, but editing and the will of the producers took away any of real historical accuracy. It was a lob-sided story telling when it was said and done on the wide screen. Depicting the Mexican army and the process of war was done very poorly in development of the Mexican characters and the focus on the Texican side was developed incorrectly. This movie lacks fluid story telling, if one pays a close attention, at times it leaves you wondering how the parts are coming together. The movie shows the illness of Jim Bowie as its center piece, and General Sam Houston as a drunken leader. The action and the war part of the movie as well as characters was developed poorly thus rendering it an escape from a fun entertaining history telling. The budget was way over shot by John Lee H., it came close to what Ron Howard proposed for his R rating movie. There was no comparison of proposed cast of both directors. There could have been at least three Oscar winners involved with the movie. John Lee wanted an historically accurate movie, but his vision took a detour; he had to comply to the will of the producers as well as poor judgment. John Lee's vision ended up twisted. I am writing this review since I was on the set from Feb until May. I saw the parts shot which would have made a some what compelling story but they were left on the editing table. Audience response made this movie one of the biggest disappointments for Disney. History telling was at one of it's lowest points.
  
  
• A darn good historical epic
  By A1O30ZJ181B4JH on 2004-04-14
  The story of the Alamo, a crumbling mission-turned-fort, is a fascinating one. A small bunch of men holding out for a 13 day siege against a full-blown trained army says something for itself. "The Alamo" strives to capture what those thirteen days and the final outcome must have been like and succeeds.

  For the most part, the movie focuses on a character study. The audience is introduced to the likes of Sam Houston, William B. Travis, Jim Bowie, and of course old Davy Crockett. Unlike other versions, this movie shows the men as they really were: human.

  The casting is well put together for the most part. The standout is Billy Bob Thornton as the already legendary Crockett, seconded by Jason Patric as the likewise famous knife-wielding Jim Bowie. Patrick Wilson does a decent job as Travis, the young, unknown commander who grew to fame through his actions at the Alamo, though at times his acting appears a bit stiff. Dennis Quaid, as Sam Houston, doesn't really shine as much as the three main defenders, though he does give a brief, rousing speech before the Battle of San Jacinto.

  The pace of the movie is only somewhat slow, but that only adds to the feel of what the men behind the walls must have been feeling. The final battle sequence, like the rest of the film, is wonderfully shot. The chaos and the carnage of the battle is all captured, while avoiding too much blood and gore. (This was done to keep the movie within a PG-13 rating.) Overall, this is probably the most historically-based film to date (certainly it is much more so than John Wayne's movie) and the extra four month wait was well worth it. Hopefully it will be an Oscar contender for next year.
  
  

• A TV Movie, a comic book look at greatness, so sad.
  By A2DTEU2045AVZ3 on 2004-04-15
  See Walt Disney's Davy Crockett if you want to learn about the man, see John Wayne's Alamo if you want to see the fight......

  Disney should hire professionals to make their films......the make up on FDR in Pearl Harbor was amature....the whole Alamo is amature, a TV movie at best, a comic book version at worst.....

  I cannot tell you how disappointed I am, because now another 30 YEARS WILL HAVE TO PASS BEFORE SOMEONE ELSE TRIES TO TELL THIS STORY....

  They were so afraid of Davy's coonskin cap......they would have done much better to just redo Walt's version...it had more character.......

  It was just sad.....amature.....
  
  

• Alamo History
  By A1U7MQNMRI0J1T on 2004-04-16
  This is a movie that all Texas History teachers, history buffs, and movie goers alike should attend. It is by far the most historically accurate account of the events that unfolded during those days of conflict, turmoil and the uncertainty future of Texas itself.
  All the actors are to be commanded for excellent portrayals of their respective roles.
  Disney has done a wonderful thing for Texas history and for all age groups to enjoy and to understand as well. John Wayne was and is one of my favorite all time actors. His film the Alamo was filled with excitement, action and passion, as is this new Disney, Alamo, but Wayne's Alamo lacked severely in telling the true story of Texas. Disney's Alamo will set many records straight about Texas, the Alamo, and our Texas heroes and I know that a long forgotten Texas Born Hero, Juan Seguin, will be rediscovered by educators and by the general public at large.
  See the movie The Alamo 2004 for yourself, you be the judge, don't be influenced by me, a descendent of Juan Seguin, or by commercial critics. Be your own person and view the film yourself. Don't wait for the DVD, bigger is better, see it at the theater and get the full effects and benefits from the Alamo.
  Albert Seguin Gonzales, 3rd gggrandson of Juan Seguin
  
  
• Boring...and still not an accurate balanced portrayal
  By A2YFOLJQNPMQU6 on 2004-04-16
  I went to see this film against my better judgement. I had read some of the pre-release negativity, but was also lead to believe that this film was a more portrayal of the battle of the Alamo, and the Texas Revolution as a whole. It is not. Despite their claims, this film is Hollywood all the way. Sure, it is not as over-the-top as Wayne's chest-pounding,flag waiving 1960's film, but it still seems to miss the point.
  My complaint here are not necessarily about the portrayal of the main characters (Bowie, Travis & Crockett). A previous reviewer objected to their flawed characterizations, but to me that was one of the few things I enjoyed. It was good to see these "larger than life" characters brought to a more human level. I guess for a few out there that were raised with 4th and 7th grade Texas history, it will be hard to picture these men as anything less than superhumans, but let me assure you that not everyone views them as comic book characters. Serious historians have long challenged some of our views of this conflict.... if you still believe Crockett dies in a blaze of glory with Mexican bodies piled around him, then you are getting your history from Hollywood and not from serious scholars.
  I was dissapointed that the film did not focus on more of the issues that lead to the conflict. Most people still have the opinion that the Texas Revolution started as a revolution of inspired brave men against an overwhelming tyranny. This is both simplistic and untrue, and the film does not really do anything to discredit this view. The truth is the Texas Revolution started as part of a larger civil war between the federalist and centralists powers in Mexico. It was a Mexican struggle...not a simple Texian strugge and definitely not an American struggle. However, settlers took the opportunity to take control of the land that they always wanted. Texas was a prize long sought after, and the events that lead to this conflict provided the opportunity to seize it. The Alamo will continue to be a symbol of the struggle for freedom for some, I guess...but those of a more critical perspective would be best served by steering clear of Hollywood and hitting the books. And please, don't pick up your old text bood... many good ones have been written on the subject an will give you the bigger picture. For the rest, maybe you'll enjoy this film. I didn't.
  
  
• One of the finest war dramas since "Saving Private Ryan"!
  By A20ZFWGBY4REFX on 2004-04-20
  "The Alamo" is sure to be among one of the most powerful war epics ever made since Steven Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan". "The Alamo" is also a magnificent and extraordinary motion picture with lots of action, plenty of heartfelt emotion, and superb storytelling, which reminds us as to why we go to the movies in the first place. The direction of John Lee Hancock ("The Rookie") was nothing short of amazing. The on-screen talents of Dennis Quaid ("Frequency"), Billy Bob Thornton ("Monster's Ball"), Jason Patric ("The Lost Boys"), Patrick Wilson ("Angels in America"), and Jordi Molla ("Bad Boys II") were top-notch as well as commanding!

  "The Alamo" is among one of those rare films that addresses two major factors: power and responsibility. Back in 1836, people died at the Alamo, and while they did so bravely, they did so because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time for the wrong reason. Texas belonged to Mexico back then. Like the rest of the geographic United States, our forefathers lied, cheated, fought, killed, and stole just to get from one coast to another. Texas was a spoil of war, and Sam Houston is considered a hero for managing to defeat, in battle, a general who was positioned to relinquish it. To me, I loved "The Alamo". As history, I hear that its accuracies are outweighed by its inaccuracies, but as a film it is enjoyable, not horrifically violent as other action-ers have been recently, and it addresses, to a certain degree, the two aforementioned subjects (power and responsibility) that come with legend.

  The film focuses on four legends here, each at odds with the other to some extent: Sam Houston (Quaid), Davy Crockett (Thornton), Jim Bowie (Patric), and William Travis (Wilson). Houston navigates the bureaucracy surrounding the acquisition of Texas by the U.S. Troops are placed at the Alamo when it is thought that the Mexican army has moved out of the area. But the tyrannical General Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana (Emilio Echevarria) has tricked the "Texicans" and returned. Meanwhile, there are two egos battling for control of the Alamo's men: the fancily uniformed, bookish Travis and the rough 'n' ready Bowie. Both men are two big for their respective britches, and both men have lessons to learn about respect. In the midst of all this is the visiting Davy Crockett -- onetime Tennessee congressman, legendary sharpshooter, and "bear wrestler". When the Mexicans surround the Alamo and force a waiting game, Crockett balances the opposing Travis and Bowie, who is ailing from "consumption" (or a form of typhoid pneumonia). All the while, Houston waits it out miles away, hoping for reinforcements to arrive -- wise enough not to commit his own soldiers to slaughter without proper backup. Two weeks after surrounding the Alamo, Santa Ana's troops surprise the exhausted Texans and the legendary defeat ensues.

  There is, however a weak point in this film. The weak point is the sense that the film doesn't know who the story is about. We start and end with Houston, but it's Travis' lessons and changes that we follow most closely. We spend the most time with Crockett, but it is Bowie who is afforded dream and fantasy sequences. The film would have done well to focus on one of these men more closely. It is Crockett who gets the best lines and the best moments, though, thanks in no small part to Billy Bob Thornton, who has as much charisma and humanity as any working film actor. His violin serenade, which accompanies the Mexican battle trumpetry and inspires both sides to a night's peace, is the film's most beautiful and effective scene, while his frequent reminders that there is a difference between Crockett the man and Crockett the legend are excellent theses to inspire all to live within their own sense of who they are and not be slave to the expectations of others. All of the performances of the first four leads are good, particularly Patrick Wilson as Travis, who mines more expression out of his icily, intellectual deadpan than, say, Jim Carrey typically can with his famous rubber face. Dennis Quaid, meanwhile, shows strength and command without worrying about Houston being likable. However, likability is not the point. Victory is.

  The other Texan slogan that this film conjures, aside from Houston's saying of "Remember the Alamo", is "Don't mess with Texas" (not said in this film, FYI). In conclusion, if Texas history or American war movies appeal to you, then you will like "The Alamo". If not, well, you probably won't. Regardless if you like this film or not, this is patient, introspective action filmmaking, and it sure does explain a lot about Texans. "The Alamo", without a doubt, is a DVD must-own when released.
  
  

• Well worth seeing & buying! Excellent film.
  By A3M55PGC9RH0DI on 2006-09-05
  I agree with all the other reviewers have written so I won't repeat. I saw the John Wayne film when it was released (many years ago - I was only 7!) and loved it but was very upset that Davey Crockett, who was a hero of mine, had died. I knew nothing of The Alamo and it's history and was shocked by the ending. Since then I've always had a fascination with everything-Alamo. I was excited about the new film and thought it excellent, very well filmed and acted and just a fantastic movie.
  My only challenge is the way the Crockett character was written. I thought Billy Bob Thornton stole the show, was brilliant as Crockett and the violin scene and his death scene are exceptional pieces of film that stay with you a long time. No, my point is that where I agree and liked the way his character was portrayed (multi-dimensional, flawed, down to earth) I disagree with how he seemed, at all times, to want to dispel his legend and make out that he really wasn't how most people thought of him. Well, he WAS like that when younger. He ended up at The Alamo by chance not realising the seriousness of it all but to try and tell an audience that he wasn't who he was is misleading and irresponsible. Well, that's my only negative point but this in no way interfered with my enjoyment.
  I loved the film and recommend it 100%.
  
  
• Great movie.
  By A19P1P852TQ4V2 on 2003-11-07
  Billy Bob Thornton makes a better Crockett than John Wayne. Amazing film. Shows the real version of the battle. The scenes look so real.
  
  
• You will remember this Alamo!
  By A3INMIZIYJ9BQ4 on 2004-04-12
  This presentation of "The Alamo" is a study in the larger-than-life characters who fought at the Alamo and the dedication, bravery, and patriotism of the common men who gave their lives for a cause.

  John Lee Hancock has directed an emotional epic film in "The Alamo". The 52-acre set which recreated the crumbling church known as the Alamo and its surrounding buildings, as well as the pertinent battle fields, was a work of art created with striking authenticity by P.D. Michael Corenblith. Cinematic-license was taken in the fact that the church was moved forward several feel for the sake of orienting moviegoers to their location. But this should matter only to those who obsess over the smallest raindrop while missing the beauty of the whole of the heavens, because otherwise, the setting was an absolute perfect backdrop to the historical accuracy of the film ,which surpasses all previous endeavors to capture this monumental legend on celluloid. Historians continue to research the subject and quibble over the facts. But much care was taken in this fictional film to adhere as closely as possible to history, as known, and still present an exceptionally entertaining film. That care certainly shows.

  Dennis Quaid gave an exceptionally strong performance as Sam Houston and Jason Patric's portrayal movingly revealed the human side of Jim Bowie. Patrick Wilson nailed the evolution in the manhood of William Barrett Travis. Totally without question is the fact that Billy Bob Thornton's portrayal of 'King of The Wild Frontier' Congressman David Crockett is Oscar worthy. When Thornton's image was projected on the screen, every other actor's role diminished in contrast. Crockett's persona leaped off the screen as a larger-than-life personality exuding exceptional charisma and character when channeled through Billy Bob's awesome talent. Thornton's portrayal of Crockett magnetizes the viewer's unwavering attention in the much the same way Crockett's tales held the men of the Alamo, and even some members of the Santa Anna's army, completely spellbound. Interwoven with humility, humor, and dignity, through Billy Bob's capable acting ability and undeniable talent, Crockett lives up to all the legends that have endured through time. I certainly hope when Oscar-time arrives, the academy remembers "The Alamo", specifically Billy Bob's Davy Crockett.

  The casting of Emilo Echervarria as General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna Perez de Lebron was nothing short of a brilliant move, a stroke of genius. Echervarria, speaking only archaic Spanish, gave a flawless performance as the 'Napoleon of the West'. From his facial expressions, steely cold eyes and chill in his voice, down to body language and hand gestures, Echervarria captures the tyrannical, heartless and vile character of Santa Anna without so much as one false note. Perfection is the only was to describe Echervarria in this role. Hopefully this performance will be remembered by the academy as well when considering 'Best Supporting Actor' nominees.

  Lesser characters depicted perfectly and poignantly the dedication and sacrifice of the soldiers, the common men, and their families who fought and died to free Texas from Mexican rule.

  All of these performances combined make "The Alamo" such a heart-wrenching emotional story that by the time the battle of the Alamo and Sam Houston's battle with the splintered Mexican army at San Jacinto explode on to the screen, the viewer has a lump in his throat, an ache in his heart, and a tear in his eye, accompanied by overwhelming admiration for men so willing to die for a belief.

  The battles scenes were brilliant in their execution by director Hancock and awesome as captured by the camera. The unfairness and futility of 100+ fighting 1000s was depicted with reality, accuracy, and amazing photography. The grandeur of each panoramic scene intermixed with the details of many individual's personal experiences, completely transports the viewer onto the battlefield and directly into the treachery that took so many lives on both sides of the fight. Sam Houston's understanding of military strategy was interestingly detailed as he fought to keep his small army intact and on the right path to avenge the Alamo in the smaller, but more victorious battle, which began with the cry of 'Remember the Alamo' and culminated in the freedom of Texas.
  
  Visually, "The Alamo" is beautiful to behold from the bright sunlit days, to the gorgeous sunsets, and ultimately to fire lit Texas nights. Regaled with a splendid wardrobe, authenticity down to dirty finger nails and scruffy beards, and the natural beauty of Texas, the viewers eyes are simply overwhelmed with beautiful pictures in every scene, pictures that resemble a complete album of stunningly beautiful photography.

  Carter Burwell's haunting score is the perfect accompaniment to every emotion emoted on the screen. Subdued only to prevent overwhelming the action, the music of the film perfectly captures the bravery, futility, and magnitude of the story that is "The Alamo". Perhaps because of the Celtic nature, the viewer may constantly be reminded of the Oscar-winning score for "Titanic" written by James Horner. Hauntingly beautiful throughout, 'Fiddle Deguello music, offered by Davie Crockett to harmonize with the musical battle-call of the enemy, perfectly personifies the entire score of "The Alamo".
  
  "The Alamo", so obviously a labor of love for every individual involved from the biggest star to the smallest bit player, from the Director to the cast-of-thousands of extras, exudes that dedication in every minute detail as well as in every magnificent moment.

  This is a film to be viewed, savored, and enjoyed, and by all means REMEMBERED.
  
  

• great movie
  By on 2004-04-22
  when this movie came out i couldnt wait too see it. but i was put down by the horrible reviews of the critics. i went too see this not half as excited as i was when it first came out. and whats new, the critics completely blew it! this is the best movie ive seen this year and it even comes close to lord of the rings 3. people say it doesnt have enough action but if you took away the slower parts it just wouldnt be right. but when you do get to the action its amazing! the fighting at the alamo is awesome. it shows the real feelings of the soldiers and captures the action perfectly. when the alamo is lost and its up to sam houston to win texas itsgreat too.its even kind of similar too aragorn giving his great speech before lord of the rings 3s final battle when sam houston yells remember the alamo and charges the army of general santa anna. the acting is done perfectly especially billy bob thornton as davy crockett. nothing could be better in this movie, its the best ive seen this year for sure.
  
  
• Let's Rate it as a Movie, Not as a Textbook
  By A1H3ZATBDMOJ6Z on 2004-04-29
  The reviewers who flunked this movie, because they disagreed with its depiction some historical aspect, are not viewing it as a film, but as a history lesson. That just silly. Unless the movie willfully distorted history, the fact that it doesn't coincide with some historian's concept of the "truth" is to be expected and doesn't really matter. There are conflicting accounts of what really happened, and the filmmakers needed to choose between them. These choices had to be based, first and foremost, on entertainment value.

  It's clear that the director did try to achieve a high degree of historical realism, if not accuracy, and give more humanity to most of the characters. There is one important exception and that is General Santa Ana. The movie portrays him as a Disney ogre whose own followers hate him. I don't mind the fact that this was probably done to place the blame for the Alamo on one tyrannical Mexican, and not the Mexican people as a whole. But I do mind that it hurts the film dramatically by making Santa Ana seemed cartoonish, while his American opponents are realistically drawn.

  Billy Bob Thornton is wonderful as Davey Crocket, The actor who plays Travis is quietly convincing and Jason Patric is too "Hollywood."

  Because of the performance of Thorton, the excellent battle scenes, and the effort to achieve some measure of reality and balance, I'd call this a good effort.
  
  

• Remember the Alamo--if you stay awake long enough!
  By A2XGJ56VCFOKKZ on 2004-12-01
  I wanted to see this film in theaters but it disappeared so quickly, I missed my chance. After seeing it on DVD, I'm glad I didn't see it on the big screen, because it would have been a waste of a lot more money and I would have fallen asleep. At least I was at home when I fell asleep through the middle section of this film.
  
  I don't fault the actors for this film. This is the kind of film that looked like a lot more fun for the actors playing in it than for the viewers who have to watch it. I don't know much about the Alamo history, but I am a fan of historical films and always want more of them made. The reason is because I think they do a great service in helping us imagine what it was like back during that time period. This film gets a lot of those details right and the actors do a great job in their roles. However, the film has too many long stretches where nothing is happening. Bits of conversations here and there, we get glimpses into the lives of Sam Houston, David Crockett, Jim Bowie, and Colonel Santa Anna of the Mexican Army (who fancies himself the Napoleon of the West). The film moves along at a snail's pace and wasn't interesting until the last half hour or so when the big battle takes place, followed by another cool battle scene. Unfortunately, that's not enough to save this film. I'm not sure what needed to be done to fix this film, but obviously, it didn't do well at the box office for a reason that most people wouldn't have the patience to sit through a slow motion movie like this one. I was hoping for a much more exciting movie, and this is from a guy who was hesitant to see "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" because he expected that film to be boring but was pleasantly surprised by. By comparison, this film is no "Master and Commander". This movie is perfect for any insomniacs out there who find counting sheep doesn't do the trick. Try "The Alamo" instead!
  
  
• BarbieDoll49
  By A10W681A86LFU0 on 2006-11-09
  I bought this recently for a son's birthday. We watched it all together as a family and were pleasantly surprised. It was SOOOOOOO well done and the extras that were added helped to make the people come to life. You felt as if you went to that time and place and lived it. Also, all the hard work that went into it to make it historically acurate is amazing. I still have the awesome feeling that we experienced as a family watching when I think of it now. I grew up with an American History teacher and didn't really like to have to learn dates and times and all that stuff even for my dad's class, but if all the important events in American History could be presented like this, well then, I would love history and not forget much at all! It is a moving piece of story telling and the photography is just so undescribable. I would recommend it to anyone who wants to live the story and "feel" like they were there. There is nothing like it! I have kids 21, 15, and 10, boys and a girl and they hardly breathed through the whole thing. It was just great.
  
  
• DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY
  By A3P121GNV5QYIN on 2003-10-30
  Like my title says,I won't waste money on this.You know Hollywood is running out of ideas when they start remaking John Wayne films(which should be a sin).So take my advice and go rent the origianl film instead.
  
  
• TERRIBLE AND DISGRACE
  By on 2004-04-10
  THIS MOVIE IS A DISGRACE TO THE MEN WHO FOUGHT GALLANTLY FOR FREEDOM. THE SCENERY AND COSTUMES WERE THE ONLY GOOD THING ABOUT THIS MOVIE AND WHAT A SHAME BECAUSE THEY BLEW IT WHEN THEY HAD THE CHANCE TO DO SOMETHING GOOD WITH THIS RESOURCE. THIS IS NOTHING BUT A POLITICALLY CORRECT MOVIE. THE LANGUAGE AND CONVERSATIONS IN THIS MOVIE YOU CAN TELL IS 21ST. CENTURY. THE PEOPLE OF THAT TIME HAD A LOT MORE HONOR AND COURAGE THAN WHAT WAS PORTRAYED AND ALSO LOYALTY. THE SCENES IN THIS MOVIE AT TIMES MAKES YOU WANT TO LAUGH WITH DISGUST. YOU CAN TELL PEOPLE OF THESE TIMES ARE NOT TOUGH BUT WEAK AND DO NOT KNOW ARE EVEN HAVE A IDEAL WHAT REAL COURAGE, HONOR, BRAVERY AND DEDICATION MEANS. REMEMBER THESE MEN GAVE OF THEIR LIVES FOR THE FREEDOM THAT WE HAVE IN THIS GREAT STATE OF TEXAS. GOD BLESS TEXAS.
  
  
• Another Fictional Alamo ...
  By on 2004-04-22
  The new Alamo film gets some historical details correct, but the way that it portrays the characters is just as fictional as earlier movies. Here are some examples. Crockett makes a speech when he first arrives. A person in the crowd makes claims about all his fantastic doings; Crockett says, "That was an actor on the stage." Complete fiction ... this was made up by the writers. Yes, many of his exploits were not true and were dramatized by an actor. My point is that there is no way the writers could know if Crockett said those words. Another example is when Crockett expresses surprise that "the fighting is not over." Again, a fictional line. In fact, most of what comes out of Crockett's mouth in this movie is all make-believe. His long dialogues with Bowie over his legend is as contrived as it comes.

  Travis is portrayed Ok but does not demonstrate the courageous spirit that the real Travis must have possessed. I can't see this movie's version of Travis writing the famous `Victory or Death' letter.

  Bowie on the other ironically comes across in this movie is as "Bigger than Life" as ever. Frequently we seen him strutting in, blowing hot air through his nostrils, and thrusting his knife out on the table. I guess the filmmakers thought that they had to compensate for deflating Crockett's legend.

  And by the way, Crockett's death scene is supposedly accurate --- according to de la Pena's diary. However, what is in the movie is not what Pena described. It is not even close!!! I keep reading people saying that they finally got Crockett's death scene correct. Have those people even bothered to read the what Pena says? Pena's diary is controversial anyway. Nobody will ever know for sure how Crockett died.

  What the filmmakers have done is to present a fictional version that they believe is more accurate because they've chosen to 'read' the history from a certain point of view. How is that different from what John Wayne did in 1960? It is not different at all. Just because the views in the new movie might be more attractive to modern audiences does not make it more accurate.

  And I'm not sure if the views expressed in this movie are all that attractive. It makes it look like their was very little love lost between the Anglo and Tejano defenders in the Alamo. From what I know, they all stood united against Santa Anna's injustice. Juan Seguin truly loved and respected his Anglo companions in the Alamo. At least John Wayne's film presented a positive spin on Mexican culture. The new film again uses fictional lines to suggest that the Tejano defenders think their Anglo comrades are all `drunks.' It also implies that they are only fighting with them because they are enemies of Santa Anna. This is again inaccurate. In my opinion, this film only give fuel to present day racism on the side of both Anglos and Mexicans.
  
  

• needs a new script
  By on 2004-04-25
  This movie was pretty good, but some minor adjustments are in order. The script was a BIG PROBLEM, they pointed out the obvious to often, and the personalty of some characters are off, like Davey, I mean who would play the violin in front of the entire Mexican army? The begining could have been different, instead of starting showing everyone dead, they could have shown something calmer to start off.
  
  
• What happened to the Mexican Point of view
  By A3M589XR2UF16P on 2004-08-15
  As a Texan of Mexican background.. I saw the 1960 Alamo with John Wayne and I also saw this new version. Funny both films bombed.. one becuase it was historically incorrect(1960) and the other becuase no one outside of TEXAS could care less. Like the earlier film Pearl Harbor.. it was too much pro american, but at least that one gave a good view on both sides.
  I also think it should have been rated R and give us a real in your face feel for the what these men were going thru.. like Saving Private Ryan. As a mexican I got not enough insight on what was the real purpose behind the attack and the actor who played Santa Anna was too old.. poor casting did not help and what happened to the Massacre of Goliad soon after the fall of the Alamo.The battle of San Jacinto was poorly staged.In closing if your gonna do a historical movie.. at least get some facts and then make a good story around it. Get the point early and stage the battle scenes properly..Hope the DVD is better..
  
  
• Excellent, unfairly maligned film for mature audiences
  By A1RS2B50ROG7H5 on 2004-10-05
  The viciousness of the invective that has been hurled toward this film has been stunning. Many reviewers seem to struggle to balance their ignorance with their arrogance, unfairly maligning this fine film. Roger Ebert seems one of the few professional critics to have understood the film.
  
  This is a wonderful disk, with outstanding picture and sound transfer. Most notable among the extras is the commentary by historian Hardin and military advisor Huffines - particularly useful for those who cannot wrap their minds around the differences between popular culture, history, and art. The deleted scenes are a definite plus, but there is so much more that could have been included that this creates hope for a future expanded edition.
  
  As for the film itself, while it is the most historically accurate version of the Alamo story, there is still much to nitpick over. But, as is the responsibility of a popular culture interpretation of historical events, Hancock fully captures the spirit of what was going on in at that particular time and in that particular place. Lovingly recreated is the world of 1836 Texians - American and European immigrants, as well as native Tejanos - uniting in revolt against an oppressive regime in an effort to gain independence. The principals, the fiery Houston, the celebrated Crockett, the fierce Bowie, and the young, unproven Travis, are portrayed as real humans rather than as demigods. Each has his obstacles to overcome, and each shows significant growth as their fates are played out. The actors, particularly Thornton in an Oscar-worthy role, as well as Patric, Wilson, and the marvelous Emilio Echevarría as General Santa Anna, are to be commended for their interpretations of these enigmatic characters.
  
  Hancock has provided us with a thoughtful, intelligent, deliberate, and often subtle film, certainly an explanation for the film's lack of box office success. Even Burwell's score suffers from these "shortcomings." Comparisons to John Wayne's 1960 The Alamo are as inevitable as they are pointless, but it's like comparing 2004's The Passion of the Christ to 1961's King of Kings - they are not remakes, but variations on a theme, each with their distinct points of view, merits, and shortcomings.
  
  I abhor criticizing a film for what it is not rather than what it is, but, knowing how much was cut from this film, I sincerely hope that a director's cut will be forthcoming, so we can see Hancock's vision as he intended. That's when I will give it its fifth star.
  
  
  

• The Alamo
• The History Channel Presents The Alamo
• Glory
• Gettysburg (Widescreen Edition)
• The Patriot (Special Edition)