User Reviews

Epic western upon the state of Texas's fight for independence in 1836 . The usual band of diverse personalities including Davy Crockett (Billy Bob Thorton) , Jim Bowie (Jason Patrick) , Colonel Travis (Patrick Wilson) defend a small fort against very big Mexican raiding party commanded by general Santa Anna (Emilio Echevarria) . It's until the spectacular crushing spotlight of total slaughter and revenge executed by Sam Houston (Dennis Quaid) when the movie comes alive at all . Previously meeting final tragedy , they contend with each other and finally understand the meaning of life and come to respect each other . It was a troubled issue but with millions dollars budget weighing heavy in the conscience of the producer Ron Howard and director John Hancock led to a real flop and didn't had the wished box office . Big budget production features an impeccable musical score by Carter Burwell and Billy Bob plays the violin , besides it has an incredible number of extras for the Mexican army .

The film is correctly based on historic events . The stalwart but tragic defense has become one of American history's most often repeated legends,although historical research has revealed a few facts that go unmentioned.For instance,Sam Houston,commander in chief of the Texas forces,never felt that the crumbling mission could stand up to a siege,and ordered frontiersman Jim Bowie to destroy.He didn't ,however,and rescinded the order and sent attorney turned colonel William B.Travis to defend it.The force that remained in the mission the date the siege began,is estimated at between 182 .Of these less than 20 were actually Texans,the rest including Bowie and another frontier legend,Davy Crookett were volunteers.Early all of them believed that reinforcements were only a short time away.Santa Anna Launched a pre-dawn attack.To the strains of ¨deguello¨a battle march indicating that no quarter would be given,or no prisoners taken,some 1800 Mexicans troops stormed the fort.They were thrown back by the cannon and rifles of the defenders,they rushed again,and were repulsed a second time.Eventually Santa Anna sent another wave of troops who broke the outer defenses and forced the Texans to retreat,fighting hand to hand.When the fighting was over,there were no survivors among the defenders.The myth that the garrison fought to the last man ,however isn't quite accurate,since the evidence indicates that Davy Crockett and several others were captured and possibly tortured,then executed.That they died bravely has never been disputed.William Travis who at least according to legend,invited all who would stay and die with him to cross the line in the dirt,fell near a cannon at the north wall.And Jim Bowie,already deathly ill from a sickness that had recently claimed wife and children,fought from his sickbed near the main gate.Like many others among the defenders Bowie was armed with the formidable hunting knife named for him.The legendary defense served as a rallying point for the beleaguered Texas.Although Santa Anna ,who lost at least 600 of some 3000 troops against a force of less than 200,referred as a small affair,the valor of the defenders gave the surviving Texan troops something to remember and thus they did,six weeks later at San Jacinto,but a new battle cry had been added to the annals of American history:¨Remember the Alamo¨

John Lee Hancock's THE ALAMO is often sluggish, mired in his effort to provide 'detail' in an attempt at honesty, and it is nearly 90 minutes before action fans get their money's worth (and they do; the Alamo's siege and 'last stand' are mesmerizing), but all that being said, the film is a remarkable re-evaluation of one of America's best-known legends.

While each of the story's principals (David Crockett, James Bowie, William Barret Travis, Sam Houston, and Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana) are de-mythologized, it is Crockett (brilliantly conceived by Billy Bob Thornton) who captures and holds your attention. Neither the folksy backwoodsman (as portrayed previously by Fess Parker and Arthur Hunnicutt), nor the hero answering an oppressed people's call for help (John Wayne's 'take' on Crockett), Thornton's Crockett is a well-dressed country 'sophisticate', who plays the violin and the political game in Washington very well. As the film opens, he attends a Washington production of "The Lion of the West", based on his fictional exploits, with a leading man dressed in what we today consider the 'Official Crockett Uniform' of buckskins and a coonskin cap. The character on stage, and the legends surrounding him which would ultimately incorporate the Alamo as it's final act, is the 'DAVY Crockett' we all know, but the 'real' David Crockett, according to Hancock, is an opportunist who sees political rebirth in Texas, and arrives hoping the battle is already over. Thornton is masterful, showing Crockett's ambition, his fear of having to 'live up' to the legends surrounding him, and his gradual emergence into a true hero, who would defy Santa Ana with his last breath.

The other leads aren't given as much screen time for character development, with the exception of Dennis Quaid's Sam Houston, a heavy-drinking pragmatist with a political agenda and ambitions of his own. Patrick Wilson's Travis is a failure as a father and husband, hoping to rebuild his life and reputation in Texas; Jason Patric's Bowie is a glowering, unsavory adventurer/businessman, involved in slave trafficking, and terminally ill during the siege (Hooker does, however, bow to legend, allowing the dying Bowie a chance to fire his pistols at the Mexicans before being overwhelmed). Emilio Echevarría, the first Mexican to ever play Santa Ana in an American film, has gotten bad press for his portrayal of the leader as a loud-mouthed, insensitive, lecherous egotist, but from all accounts, that WAS what the real Santa Ana was like.

While the slow pacing of most of the film is a problem, the film's final half hour appears rushed, as the Alamo's fall jumps quickly into Sam Houston's victory over Santa Ana, at San Jacinto (an event that occurred after a momentous six weeks of defeat and tragedy barely touched upon by Hancock). While it is understandable that the film makers wanted an 'upbeat' ending, it comes across as jarring, nonetheless.

If you like your heroes and history 'bigger than life', the 2004 ALAMO will disappoint, and you should stick to John Wayne's version. If, however, you want a new perspective, and are willing to dispense with the preconceptions of the past, this film has a LOT to offer!

I've rarely been as surprised by the reviews I've read here - or disagreed with them more - than I was for this film. Most of the ones here are negative and call this film boring, poorly done and lacking in character development.

I am very easily bored. At just over 2 hours, I found this film captivating. Poorly done? John Lee Hancock's film is one of the most effectively produced I can remember. Not one moment of this film was shot on a sound stage. They took 50 acres in Texas and actually rebuilt the entire city of San Antonio de Behar and the Alamo and shot the entire movie in situ.

But the most amazing aspect of these reviews is the repeated accusation of lack of character development. I came away from this film understanding for the first time who William Barrett Travis, David Crockett, James Bowie and Sam Houston really were. The human underneath the legend as it were. David Crockett (Billy Bob Thornton) has a great line in this movie: "If it were just me, simple David from Tennessee, I might go over that wall one night and take my chances. But this Davy Crockett feller - people are watching him". Lack of character development? I don't think so.

The piece de resistance, though, and the one that made me take fingers to keys and write this review (something I almost never do) was the review which claims there was no tribute given to Tejano assistance in the Texas Revolution. Did this person see the same film I did? Or did he/she take a bathroom break every time Juan Seguin's character was on screen? The PRIMARY thing I learned from this historically accurate-as-possible-when-making-a-movie film was ... ta da .... the involvement of the Tejanos! I had never really considered before that there was a brother-against-brother aspect to the Alamo, but it was very implicit in this film.

Ignore the negative reviews, particularly if you are a history buff, and see this film.

Making a film about the Alamo in 2004 was a risky business. On the one hand, you have the traditional story which doesn't always stand up to close historical scrutiny. One the other, you have revisionist history which often tosses out the inconvenient, replacing it with material which is just as suspect, but politically correct.

This film takes the middle road which, like all compromises, is guaranteed to leave both sides unsatisfied. I believe this simple fact underlies many of the poor reviews this film received.

It is to the film's credit that it presents the most historically credible version of the events leading up to the birth of the Republic of Texas. To be sure, there are still points which may be quibbled over. But without the benefit of a time machine, it's difficult to come up with a more reliable exposition of the known facts.

And that is, to many critics, another of the film's weaknesses. The average movie goer wants to be entertained and reacts negatively to any obvious attempt to educate him/her in the process. That's a sad commentary on our society, but that's the way it is. This movie could have been more entertaining, but then it wouldn't have been as educational. I appreciate accuracy and educational value in historical films, so I really liked it.

The bottom line is this... If you're looking for a familiar retelling of the Alamo story which sticks to the established mythology, this isn't for you. If you're looking for a complete retelling which turns the entire story on its ear, this isn't for you. If you're looking for mindless entertainment, this isn't for you. If you're looking for a real story of real people who changed the face of America, this is a really good film.

"The Alamo" is the most accurate depiction of this historical event in years. The Billy Bob Thornton performance is the zenith of the movie's strength. His portrayal of David Crockett is worth the price of admission. It places the previous actors, Fess Parker and John Wayne, in a cartoon like, position in this dramatic role. One must see this film on the big screen to appreciate it's panoramic impact. Much of the action takes place in the Alamo itself, however, there is the extra benefit of the battle that took place at the San Jacinto Battle grounds. I found it a refreshing presentation of this film genre. All of the performances were deeply felt, and Billy Bob's is especially outstanding. Dennis Quaid as Sam Houston also turns in a remarkable performance. This was a long awaited movie, and well worth the wait. Plan on a long film.

Apart from colorful and dramatic sequences that play lavishly over the screen, imparting a generally correct and truthful sense of place as well as history, this is a movie of words. Too many in some places and too few in others.

This is not the cartoonish Alamo of Fess Parker or John Wayne. Thankfully so. But neither is it a summary of all that was actually good or bad about the seminal event that created "Texas" as a concept bigger than life and arguably still representative of the changing frontier in North America.

To put it briefly, I liked what was here but came away dismayed by what was not here. Any movie that presumes to portray an actual and well-documented historical event must do more than touch on this or that fragment of fact. The production staff is obliged to accept what is presented to them by the writers, the actors, and the director -- leaving on the cutting room floor only irrelevant scraps. I have the feeling that procedure was not followed here. Too many threads holding the story together are missing.

For example, the single most important motive lying at the heart of the Texas rebellion is inadequately explained. Was it merely greed and personal ambition on both sides that created the conflict? Or racial and ethnic disputes? Or Manifest Destiny? There is absolutely no clear picture to be gained from this movie that sets in perspective what the fuss was all about. Yet we have glorious and stirring speeches (or at least aphorisms) emanating from all parties, delineating character rather well but existing only in an isolated truth here or a compelling argument there.

Somewhere on that cutting room floor, I suspect, are scenes that focus less on individual character and more on the fact that "Texians" were a unique combination of English-speaking and Spanish-speaking citizens of the newly-created nation of Mexico, a remote outpost or colony of the central government that grew too large for that government to handle. In that sense, it was just like any other historical event reflecting a desire on the part of a distinct group of persons living at the edge of an empire to achieve self-government.

When seen thus, the merging of cultural differences that characterize Texas even today presents a unified entity of mutual interest. What holds this story together, as very ably shown in bits and pieces of the film, is how important it is to recognize what humanity holds in common in spite of apparent differences.

Little wonder that Billy Bob Thornton as Davy Crockett steals the show. (Unlike Dennis Quaid as a one-dimensional caricature of my collateral ancestor Sam Houston.) This movie could have been another thirty minutes longer and mutually subtitled to get at the heart of its message. No Oscars for the current cut.

Greetings again from the darkness. Having grown up in San Antonio and lived in Texas most of my life, I was quite anxious and apprehensive about this movie. When news first broke a few years ago regarding this project, Ron Howard was listed as the director and I could not have been more relieved. His treatment of "Apollo 13" was nothing short of outstanding. A few months ago, when the delay in release was announced, I found out Howard was no longer directing and the reins had been turned over to Hancock. It was then I began to worry. Sure enough, the obvious weakness in this film is the inconsistent direction and chopiness of the story. On the other hand, the lead actors are all fantastic! Patrick Wilson as Travis is just how the stories were told. Jason Patric brings Jim Bowie (and is extremely impressive knife) to life. Dennis Quaid does an OK job as Sam Houston, although maybe a bit heavy handed in his approach. No question, though, that the movie and story belong to Billy Bob Thornton as Davy (he prefers David) Crockett and Emilio Echevarria as Santa Ana. The arrogance of Santa Ana is chillingly portrayed and Billy Bob continues to prove that he is one of the best actors in the world. He becomes his characters. The crucial battle scene (portrayed accurately as being in the dark) is done fairly well, but the bravery and destiny of those involved is heart-breaking. I would have loved to have seen Ron Howard's version, but am impressed with the accuracy of the storyline of Hancock's film.

I really saw this by accident, as the movie I had intended to see was not showing. Mainly, everyone just sat around in the Alamo, "jawing" while Santa Ana's men were camped outside. The person who played Travis seemed awfully young for the role. Both Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie were well done although I miss the traditional scene where the "line is drawn in the Sand" to divide those who want leave and those who want to stay and fight ,and dying Jim Bowie begs them to carry him over to the "stay and fight side'! The scenes of the Alamo being stormed were good, but somehow to me the movie lacked pazazz! Instead of ending with the deaths of the defenders, we went on to see Sam Houston defeat Santa Ana on the banks of the San Jacinto River and no credit was given the defenders of the Alamo for the 5 days that their defense had given Houston to prepare. Santa Ana was portrayed as something of a cartoon figure.

Released in 2004 and directed by John Lee Hancock, "The Alamo" is a Western about the 1836 siege and fall of the famous Spanish mission-turned-fortress by Santa Anna's army of a couple thousand disciplined troops. The Alamo is defended by a ragtag assortment of roughly 200 soldiers, militia men and volunteers, including the famous frontiersman & politician Davy Crockett (Billy Bob Thornton), loose cannon Jim Bowie (Jason Patric) and by-the-book militarist Colonel William Travis (Patrick Wilson), the latter two regularly butting heads. Sam Houston (Dennis Quaid) is on hand as a significant peripheral character.

The more popular John Wayne version from 1960 is just all-around more entertaining than this generally dreary rendition, although this version certainly earns points for being more realistic plus giving Santa Anna considerable screen time (excellently played by Emilio Echevarría), the latter of which the Wayne version doesn't do at all. Not to mention, this version ends with the humiliating defeat of Santa Anna & his army in a mere 18 minutes just six weeks after the fall of the Alamo. The rallying cry of Sam Houston & the Texian Army was naturally "Remember the Alamo!" You could say that Wayne filmed the Spirit of the Alamo with everything that goes with it, like big historical speeches, while the newer film goes for a more realistic telling, including de-mythifying the various legends. When it comes to historical accuracy, this version is about as close as any Hollywood movie gets.

But keep this in mind: No movie has ever been made, or will ever be made, about the Alamo that's thoroughly accurate, except for the obvious gist of things. Why? Because ALL of the defenders were killed. Even the Mexican eyewitnesses who were there disagreed on the major events that took place. For example, there are those who claim Davy Crockett was killed in the assault, as shown in Wayne's version, while others say he survived the battle along with 5-6 others only to be captured, lined up, and executed, as essentially depicted in this film. So any movie you see about the Alamo is going to contain a lot of conjecture.

Dimitri Tiomkin's score in Wayne's version is a dramatic, thrilling and tragic multifaceted piece that captured the slow build-up, eventual battle and aftermath. Carter Burwell's score in this version is mediocre by comparison; while certainly adept and adequate, it's essentially a funeral dirge that puts a dreary overcast over the proceedings.

BOTTOM LINE: I've seen this version of "The Alamo" twice and have mixed feeling about it. I prefer the more modern, realistic tone of this version to Wayne's rendition, as well as the time devoted to Santa Anna & his men, not to mention the inclusion of the Battle of San Jacinto. On top of this, the movie's spiced with numerous good-to-great bits, but – overall – it just comes across too flat and dull. Something needed to perk it up out of the cinematic doldrums. The depiction of the Battle of San Jacinto does this, of course, but it's the last 12 minutes of the film and too little too late. Perhaps too many cooks spoiled the broth.

The movie runs 134 minutes and was shot in near Wimberly, Texas, forty miles north of San Antonio

GRADE: C+ (5.5/10)

The Alamo is directed by John Lee Hancock, who co-writes with Leslie Bohem and Stephen Gaghan. It stars Billy Bob Thornton, Jason Patric, Patrick Wilson, Dennis Quaid, Emilio Echevarria and Jordi Molla. Music is scored by Carter Burwell and Dean Semler is the cinematographer. Story is a recreation of The Battle of the Alamo that ran for 13 days during the Texas Revolution of 1836.

On release it was met with disdain at worst, indifference at best, and now historically it stands as the second biggest box office failure behind Cutthroat Island. The pre release word of mouth wasn't good, and with "difficulties" of the financial and creative kind leading to Ron Howard leaving the directors chair-and Russell Crowe and Ethan Hawke bowing out of roles for two of the main characters, the film has never had an equal footing from which to try and sell itself as a worthy epic. Yet if there is a western styled war film most likely to improve with age, then Hancock's Alamo is it. You see, in time it's hoped that people can embrace that this take on the Alamo legend thrives on humanistic depth, telling it not as a "hooray" hero piece, but as it was, men doomed to die. And more pertinent, men who "knew" that in all probability, they were waiting for death to come.

Now that's a hard sell. It's highly unlikely that we will ever get an Alamo film to please everyone, because ultimately the story is a sombre one, an unforgiving 13 days of sadness and bitter disappointments. No matter how it gets dressed up, with Duke Wayne bravado or otherwise, this was a futile engagement. There's no chest beating stirring of the emotions for the outcome of this battle, for example such as the British being allowed to withdraw gracefully from Rorke's Drift, this is bleak history. It was a bold approach by Hancock and his team, to strip away the glitter and paint it in fallible humanistic greys. Heroic pop culture characters like Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie are not defined by glory rah rah rah, but by being men dealing with the harsh realities of war as best they can. It's telling that when Crockett turns up at the Alamo, he is genuinely stunned to learn that the fighting is not over, his plans for a comfortable life in politics vanquished the moment he sets foot upon Alamo turf.

Hancock should be roundly applauded for having the courage to craft such an honest depiction of the siege, and it's not as if we aren't warned about it, either in history as fact, or during the downbeat opening five minutes of film! So a film rich with in depth characterisations, then, but also a picture layered over with considerable technical skill. Hancock himself only really misfires by having a tacked on coda that shows Houston defeating Santa Anna and gaining his surrender. Who made the decision for this "uplift" I'm not sure, but it feels forced and doesn't have the impact intended. It would have been more telling and poignant to just have a title card flash up to tell us that Houston defeated Santa Anna in 18 minutes. We don't need to see a hurried recreation, the sombre mood needed to be kept up right to the last end credit rolled. For that's the true pain of The Battle of the Alamo.

However, Hancock gets mostly great performances from his leading cast members (Thornton hugely impressive as Crockett) and shoots his battle scenes with brutal distinction. His overhead shots are superb, especially as the Mexican army attacks for the final and telling time. The 100s of soldiers swarming over The Alamo looks like ants converging on a desert oasis, the hopelessness of the defenders of Mission San Antonio de Valero is never more evident than it is here. Semler and Burwell aid the mood considerably. The former is inspired by much of the film being set at night, utilising fires and candle lights to enforce the shadows (of death) hanging around the characters, while the textured brown, red and yellow hues used for the landscape gives off a parched beauty that lends one to understand why these men fight for the land they occupy. Burwell scores it evocatively, where tender swirls of emotion sit neatly along side the more broad action strains of the brass variety.

The lavish sets and costuming, including some tremendous hats, are all good on production value, to round out a tip top production. It cries out for revisits by those who dismissed it so casually back on its release. Certainly I myself found it helped considerably knowing now that this was not some rousing spectacle, but that it's a detailed character story leading up to a sad and inevitable conclusion. That coda and some under nourished support characters stop it from being a fully formed classic from the genre, but that aside, it's still one terrific and thoughtful piece of film making. 9/10

Texan John Lee Hancock certainly has the name to direct this revisionist epic but it lacks the bluster, hysterics of the liberties with the truth John Wayne production. Instead it is a prosaic and po faced film that feels too long and when the action finally comes you are reminded of Zulu and at one point you even sense Michael Caine will enter the Alamo shouting at the Mexicans not to fire any more cannons.

Davy Crockett (Billy Bob Thornton) is a man living up to his legend but offered a monetary incentive of land and political power to fight for an independent Texas which at the time was held by Mexico. General Sam Houston (Dennis Quaid) is a boorish drunk politician organising a land grab, Jim Bowie (Jason Patric) is ill with TB but swaggers with an out-sized knife. Lt Colonel William Travis (Patrick Wilson) the earnest military leader who needs to earn respect from his troops.

The film by wanting to flesh out its main characters ends up making the narrative choppy. As we wait for the epic battle, it just feels like an interminable hiatus but the film never misses a trick to show up Crockett as epic. If I had spotted him playing the fiddle I would had taken a pot shot at him.

The Mexican leader is portrayed as an arrogant cartoon villain but the film's big mistake is not to include the history of Texas and give the audience who are not versed with American history some kind of potted history lesson of the lone star state that was not part of the USA and under Mexican control who as far as they were concerned were well within their rights to keep control of it.

The film has tremendous sets and art direction, it tries to address the issue of slavery, the irony that Mexico abolished slavery and the whites wanted independence so they could maintain it. You see Bowie's slave thinking for a moment that he might had been set free and the film ignores the fact that other heroes in this movie were also slave owners.

In the usual thoughts of The Alamo, you begin to think, Hardcore Action, Superheroes like Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie. Boy, you were wrong. The main reason for this film's bad rap is because the trailer marketed it as a Braveheart or Saving Private Ryan, this one proves to find itself in the more personal side of war. Despite constant bombardments by the Mexican army the film keeps a low-action tone until the last half hour or so. It, instead of focusing on the battle to defend the Alamo, John Lee Hancock depends on the "soldiers" defending it.

The film lays more on the shoulders of Sam Houston(Denis Quaid), Jim Bowie(Jason Patrick), William Barret Travis(Patrick Wilson) and Davy Crockett, The Lion of the West(Billy Bob Thorton). You would go in expecting Crockett to be the John Wayne infalable, super courageous, bear killing immortal but instead Billy Bob Thorton gives a human depiction of the legend. You can see the fear in his eyes and the determination in his soul with his suprise that the war ISN'T over when he arrives like he thought. He repeats to everyone, he can't jump the mississippi or fight bears. This, without a doubt is one of Thortons best performances. He dosen't take control and lead the Americans, this is left to Willam Travis, created flawlessly by Patrick Wilson.

An unexpectedly good Performance by the newcomer, he shows how Travis was inexperienced but still had the courage, inteligence and determination to fight who or whatever was thrown his way. When the time comes, he gives a speech to lead his men no matter how difficult the task is. He has a great quarrell with Jim Bowie for control, until finally the sick Bowie is forced to give Control to Travis because of his ailness. Bowie is played dead on by Patrick, he, even on his deathbed takes as many enemies to the grave with him before they steal the last minutes of his life. It was painful to watch Bowie do up the buttons of his waistcoat to join the battle, struggling to hold on to his own life. The men of the Alamo knew no help was coming especially from Houston who would not sentence his men to death trying to hold an old spanish mission.

The great Houston played by Denis Quaid in a simply "scrumtralescant" performance as the drunk war man trying to salvage what he could of his reputation by giving Texas it's freedom. Every carachter has their moment; Travis's speech, Bowie's attempt to do battle, Houston's "remember the Alamo!" and of course, one of the best scenes I have ever experienced in film when Crockett plays the violin along with the Mexican artillery march. This short moment is a scene of edenic quality inside the filthy deathbound fortress. Heaven visits the men as they live a minute or two of harmony in the dark hours of the seige, mexican and american alike.

By all this film proves it's excellence with it's spectacular battle scenes and outrageous sets deserving of an Oscar nomination, as well as Hancock's unique portrayal of lonely men in a war for their home. This film has found a high place in my favorites and is third(behind the passion and Eternal sunshine) as the best movie of the year so far. Hancock deserves awardment, as well as the rest of the Alamo. If I were to give this any other rating than A+, 10/10, two thumbs up, I would be a traitor to the world o film that I love so. I will always remember the Alamo.

Well, at least this one is better than the John Wayne Alamo. And far more accurate than the Disney version in Davy Crockett. It is a bit broadly acted, but then again, that might reflect the big Texan personalities of the time. The action sequences are excellent, and it appears to be fairly historically correct. Sam Houston had a chance to rescue this group, but knew it was a trap by Santa Anna. The film was better than most Westerns, but not really a classic. I would still recommend it for the average viewer.

In World War II many Japanese soldiers fought according to the Samurai's code of Bushido, the way of the warrior, battling to the last man and committing sepuku rather than surrendering. And then there's the kamikaze business.

The response of Americans to this was one of mixed contempt and bewilderment. Repeatedly, we still hear on TV documentaries some variation on the expression, "The Japanese fought to die for their country. We wanted to live for ours." It was said that banzai attacks were made by soldiers crazed by drugs or hopped up on saki. "Fanatics," we called them.

We have in this movie a reflection of that ethos, only here they are called heroes because they're on "our" side. It's never convincingly explained why they threw their lives away. Maybe, for any number of reasons, they wanted to exchange fire with the Mexicans -- "The drunk delight of battle with my peers."

I know that's a discomforting thought. In behavioral science it's called the social construction of reality.

It's a well-done movie. Hancock is an efficient and perceptive director. The script is more thoughtful and less condescending than John Wayne's version of the story, and the acting is better too, particularly Billy Bob Thornton, who is an amazingly versatile actor. As Davy Crockett his flabby and expressive face radiates a gleam of mischief and irony most of the time, while at other moments he seems to be contemplating a bust of Homer. He's outstanding. Dennis Quaid is good too, an actor who always brings something interesting to each performance -- as Sam Houston, a husky voice and determined frown -- but he's not on screen that much.

The battle scenes are well staged. The script gives all of the Americans and their compadres a courage touched by doubt. It also treats the Mexican soldiers as human beings. (It's a good thing our neighbors to the south aren't North Koreans or Iranians, eh?) But there is a heavy -- Santa Ana. A real grease ball of a heavy too, with an unprepossessing face painted like a corpse in a funeral parlor, thin lips, an arrogant sneer, and a complete disregard for the lives of his men or anybody else. "What are the lives of soldiers? They are like chickens." Needless to say, any legitimate claims Mexico might have had on Texas aren't gone into.

And yet this is an improvement over John Wayne's 1960 rendering. In the earlier film, the Americans are mostly comic figures playing lowbrow tricks on one another -- if you want to start a fight you have to knock a feather off your opponent's nose. Wayne's men all die super heroic deaths, with a mortally wounded Wayne deliberately blowing up an ammunition magazine, taking himself and dozens of the enemy with him. It's not exactly a "kamikaze" death but it will do. In this more recent movie, the men die for the most part just like everybody else inside the walls, except for Crockett who disdainfully invites the Mexican soldiers to perform their variation of harikiri on him.

The special effects deserve mention too. I really don't know much about the Alamo or the military technology of the time but it's interesting to see cannonballs with fuzes, which sometimes sputter out. The camera even shows us the point of view of a Mexican cannonball soaring through the sky and plopping down in the middle of the Alamo's zocalo. And to see the effects of grapeshot or cannister on massed troops. In most movies set around this time or a bit later, in the Civil War, we never get to see a cannonball hit the ground. There is simply an explosion and a few stunt men are tossed into the air. Grapeshot is never shown and I don't know why, because in close quarters it was murderous, far more devastating to attacking troops than musket fire. Grapeshot turns a cannon into a huge shotgun full of bullet-sized balls. Cannister shot takes the shell into the midst of the enemy before it explodes and sprays its little iron balls about. It was responsible for most of the deaths among the men of Pickett's charge. At any rate, technology is given its due.

The movie ends after the battle of San Jacinto. I'm not familiar with Texas' history but I know something about movie scripts and this battle seems to be in the movie mainly because we won it. It's the equivalent of Doolittle's raid on Tokyo at the end of the unfortunate "Pearl Harbor." What I mean is that it provides a victorious ending, with Sam Houston astride a rearing white charger and waving his sabre. This story really ended with the defeat at the Alamo.

I can't help wondering what this story would be like if the movie had been made by Mexico. How hard would it be to paint Texas as a secessionist province of the national territory, not unlike the Confederate South, except that Texas was being supported and populated by a foreign power?

A nice symbolic touch. The Alamo is surrounded by Mexican soldiers who persistently play the Deguello, a song meaning "no mercy." It is sunset and Davy Crockett says, "I know what's missing," and he takes out his violin, goes to the roof, and using the Mexican band as an accompanying orchestra he smoothly begins to improvise a tune which ends in a sprightly jig. A nocturne in which one lonely fiddle defies a marching band, a cavalry march turned into a violin concerto.

It's a better movie than I'd expected it to be. I'd recommend watching it. You'll get involved, even if you're already familiar with the events themselves.

The Alamo was truly filled with great people, and this film is their story. The story of American hero's and the Mexicans who slaughtered them. This is a great story, but the film is far from great, in fact it only has one thing keeping it from being horrible, that is Billy Bob Thornton. The story is one of the most inspiring ever to be filmed, to bad they had to ruin it. The screenplay is horrible, it is filled with wooden dialogue, and character clinches. In fact the only character development anyone gets is the sight of their child, or them saying they love them in a letter. The acting is wooden all around except for Billy Bob Thorntons amazing and touching performance as David Crocket, he almost makes the film worth watching. The direction is amazingly bad, everything is labored and shot all wrong, in fact I would advise for any would be film director to watch this for what not to do. The visual effects work, but are not awe inspiring. A labored and generally boring picture. Watch only for Thorntons performance.

I consider myself quite open minded when it comes to film genres, as I will, basically, watch anything regardless of what type of film it is. Of course, I have my preferences; but I believe that a good film will shine through whatever genre it hails from. However, if I was to choose a genre as my 'least favourite', historical period drama would probably take the honours. That, coupled with the fact that I consider American history to be one of the most boring subjects ever means that, basically, I am in the wrong movie with The Alamo. However, since I have spent two hours of my life watching this film, I feel I have the right to comment, and that is something I intend to do:

Basically, this film suffers because it's BORING. If you're going to tackle a dull subject, the least you can do is tackle it in a way that is going to be interesting for the audience. Intrigue can be accomplished via a number of methods; character development is one of them, a strong story is another; but this film manages to capitalise on neither. Main characters die and major events happens and, quite frankly, I couldn't care less. This is not good for a film that is supposed to be portraying an important historical event. The Alamo also gives off a very 'cheap' impression, and that coupled with the fact that it received an almost completely incognito release makes the audience feel that they have stumbled upon a made for TV film. The fact that the battles are poorly, and very much under, done doesn't exactly bode well for the film either. This film is also a personal landmark for Dennis Quaid, as it is his second terrible film of 2004 (the other being, obviously, The Day After Tomorrow). At least Billy bob Thornton approaches his role with gusto, but his over-American performance hardly saves it.

Basically, you could do something better with this part of your life. If the subject of The Alamo interests you, then I recommend finding a book on the subject or maybe even checking out one of the earlier films, as they're bound to be better than this dismal affair.

An excellent piece of the kind of real value and craftsmanship not seen enough today. Once in awhile a film comes along that stirs those who have not been spoiled by too much gratuitous violence, too many special effects and too much low humor. It should come as no surprise that it seems tedious to those who have developed a taste for these. This movie would certainly be boring to the jaded, empty-hearted souls whose only purpose in viewing films is to expose themselves to the latest technique for stirring their prurient interests. This film will hold its own and be watched and respected long after most of the time-wasting nonsense being made today has been forgotten. That this kind of work is being done gives hope for our cinematic future.

A much anticipated updating of the Alamo story touted to be historically accurate in every respect. A very tall order for a topic which to this day motivates extreme passions. In brief, the production team tried to do too much. The subject matter required a long running time to set up the plot, which today is much less understood - or misunderstood (!) than when John Wayne's film neatly followed Republic's "The Last Command" and Disney's Davy Crockett shows. Randy Quaid's Sam Houston, and the post-climax Battle of San Jacinto were poor choices. Old Samjacinto - and the film - would have been better served by a briefer cameo like that provided by Richard Boone in the 1960 version. Clearly the most compelling character in this offering was Thornton's Crockett; not surprising since he's the defender most written about by Alamofiles. Frankly Thornton's performance is the only element raising this production to 5-star. It is superb and really captures the essence of Crockett as described in various histories. The title should have been "Davy Crockett at the Alamo," but perhaps would have needed Disney's paid release. Even the Alamo set, proclaimed in pre-production hype to be historically accurate in all details fell short. Most disappointing, as set designers reduced the size of the courtyard in front of the chapel; I suppose for photography purposes. Wayne's production did the same, in an even more inaccurate rendition of the mission. Finally, a production like this really, really needed a Sam Peckinpaw to accurately depict the savagery of the final battle. Mexican accounts (the only reliable eye-witness ones) are pretty clear and self-damning as to the butchery that took place. According to their written reports and letters, the real battle was even more brutal than the final shootout in The Wild Bunch; but I suppose needed to be cut short to make time for San Jacinto, and to avoid violating PC rules whereby savagery not imposed by Anglo-Saxons must be muted or eliminated altogether. Watch this one for Thornton and when he's not on the screen fast forward with the remote!!