The Alamo (2004) User Reviews (323)

Interesting rendition of the mythic Alamo mission with impressive battles

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 24 July 2005]

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the crumbling mission could stand up to a siege,and ordered frontiersman Jim Bowie to destroy.He didn't ,however,and rescinded the order and sent attorney turned colonel William B.Travis to defend it.The force that remained in the mission the date the siege began,is estimated at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¨

Flawed but Entertaining Epic...

[cariart · 7/10 · 11 April 2004]

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!

A tricky subject done well

[rbsjrx · 7/10 · 31 December 2006]

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.

Surprised at the negative reviews

[tidepride · 11 October 2004]

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.

Above Average Epic With Historical Accuracy

[mOVIemAN56 · 7/10 · 11 May 2005]

Another version of the Alamo battle has been released and this is it. The Alamo recreations of the past in such films as The Alamo: Thirteen Days to Glory and John Wayne's version have both been very popular but just touch base on the facts.

The story is the one we learned in grade school. Davy Crockett (Billy Bob Thornton has come to the Alamo so he can earn a piece of land once the war for Texas independence is won. He is now under the command of Jim Bowie (Jason Patric) and William Travis (Patrick Wilson) and is defending a small, unfinished mission near San Antonio.

Slowly Sam Houston (Dennis Quaid) makes his away across Texas but is not permitted by the government to make an attack on Santa Anna's forces. Slowly the Alamo is surrounded and violent skirmishes occur around it. Eventually an all out night-charge is called on and the Alamo is overrun.

The same story but it is done a little more interesting this time with better acting. Instead of young Alec Baldwin as Travis we get small time actor Patrick Wilson and does a fine job. Billy Bob Thornton does a fine job after his disastrous Bad Santa (2003) and really brings out the character of Davy Crockett never really done before.

The battles are nicely done: not to much gore, believable deaths, and good visuals. Filmmaker John Lee Hancock brings out a fine Alamo film which is just short of being a great film. Now some accuracies brought out. Unlike most films showing the bed stricken Bowie standing up and firing off shots then swinging his knife, Bowie is finally made out to what actually happened, not being able to stand up and barely able to move. It is quite sad actually. No 1459 Mexicans are killed in this which makes it much better than the 1987 version where a bullet is fired and it kills ten guys. In actuality, historians believe that around two hundred Mexicans were killed, double that wounded.

The movie is very good. It has some good action and some fine acting. The plot is thin at a couple of points and Santa Anna is made out to be a Bond villain but it's fine. It is well worth a trip to the video store.

The Alamo. Starring: Billy Bob Thornton, Dennis Quaid, Jason Patric, Patrick Wilson, and Emilio Echevarria.

3 out of 5 Stars

Billy Bob Triumph

[dhaufrect · 7/10 · 25 April 2004]

"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.

Not What I Waited "Forever" For, But A Good Re-Telling..

[scott88-4 · 7/10 · 8 June 2006]

Being a self-confessed HUGE Alamo fan (not many of those up here in Canada I imagine), I knew that this film was coming for years, and waited anxiously. Upon arrival however, I heard the stories that made me begin to think, "Oh no...". First, the involvement of Disney. God...does everything they touch turn to bile? That worried me. Then, the self-dismissal of Ron Howard as director. I had understood that Howard wanted to take the film in a bit of a different direction, make it "edgy" and show the violence of the siege in all its "glory". In fact, it was a bloody final battle and not at all as pretty as previously shown by countless other films. But, of course, Disney slashed the budget and were probably horrified that there was going to be blood and cruel violence in their war epic. How appalling I'm sure!!!! Howard left soon afterward.

Whle I thoroughly enjoyed the characters and embraced Billy Bob as Crockett, I couldn't give this long awaited friend a "10". While Jason Patric was admirable as Bowie, I though Dennis Quaid a poor cast as Houston. The sets were breathtaking and period perfect. Costuming and weaponry wonderful and score was above average. Some scenes in particular I thought really well done were the Crockett "fiddle duet" with the Mexicans, Crockett plinking on the fiddle while the Mexican army crept through the darkness to surprise the sleeping garrison, Travis' speech to the doomed troops, and the final minutes of the assault as Crockett looks to the young boy and realizes some sort of destiny.

I really think the final assault scene could have been longer. After all, telling a story is crucial, but the last assault might have been a bit longer in my opinion. AND it was, much to Disney's delight I'm sure, totally bloodless. Now I know there are a lot of opinions here already that probably applaud the lack of blood and brutality (why would we have that in battle scenes anyway????), but come on! There was much more blood and carnage in John Wayne's version as well as in classics such as "Zulu" and the beautifully bloody "The Wild Bunch". We get to see a glimpse of the head shot Travis as well as a bloodied Bowie, but they are quite tame. The battle scenes were wonderfully staged and the night/pore-dawn assault a treat for the eyes (as it truly happened BTW), but I thought it too antiseptic. The final battle for the Alamo was extremely brutal, sadistic, and cruel in fact. Hand to hand fighting was ferocious, yet the film really showed none of it. I would have liked them to show this side of the battle instead of trying to give us a little "Fess Parker". But then again, when Disney's involved, you know there is going to be some problems. I'm not asking for a horror show here...just a little more realism and some uncomfortable moments. Remember, the real event was as nasty as they come and the defenders slaughtered in a gruesome manner. Jeeez, even John Wayne got a little blood on him!! Way to go again Disney. I wish Hancock would have pushed a bit more for some darker moments.

Overall though, a good entry and easily the best of all the Alamo films. Billy Bob was a magnificent choice as DC and made it much more enjoyable for me.

Since this film bombed so badly at the box office, I don't see any more Alamo films being made in my lifetime....too bad. Let's hope Disney doesn't look to get involved in a "Custer's Last Stand" and/or a "Rourke's Drift" type of film. The farther they stay out of the WAR film biz, the better.

A few words to describe many

[B24 · 7/10 · 17 April 2004]

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.

ALAMO 2004 needed a better set up but ending was very good

[duraflex · 7/10 · 14 June 2007]

I am glad this movie included the victorious BATTLE OF SAN JACINTO which occurred about 6 weeks after the siege of the Alamo. Amazing to see that 800 Texans defeated 1600 Mexicans in 18 MINUTES.

The battle at the Alamo was the prelude to that victory at San Jacinto over Santa Anna where his life was traded for Texas independence.

Other movies left this out and it's important in explaining how Texas split from Mexico to become the 28th state of the United States.

What this film did not clearly develop were the historical circumstances that led to the Alamo battle. Mexico had encouraged white settlements in the area and then decided otherwise. White Texians and Mexican Tejanos lived in relative peace together in the San Antonio area. They even fought together at the Alamo and at San Jacinto.

Included on the DVD is a deleted scene from the 2004 movie which showed Mexican General Cos and his defeated Mexican troops marching out of San Antonio after a battle that happened PRIOR to the Alamo. Cos had agreed to leave the settlements alone but Santa Anna broke that pledge. Those scenes should NOT have been deleted.

The beginning of Alamo 2004 is too murky. What this movie needed was a better set up and a voice-over narrative to more clearly explain what was going on.

HOW THE WEST WAS WON employed this technique and it used Spencer Tracy as the narrator. BEN-HUR used the technique as well. Both of those were historical fiction based on historical fact.

Both were enormously successful. This movie should have been as well.

very slow, but has it's moments

[badger-37 · 5/10 · 7 April 2004]

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.

A Perfect Blend Of History and Hollywood

[jknfecteau · 10/10 · 29 January 2005]

After writing a phd dissertation and spending months doing research on the Alamo at The DRT library and across Texas, I became convinced that I might not live long enough to see a theatrical release that would finally do the history justice. The IMAX Alamo film is very good along historical lines, but due to budget limitations not to mention physiological IMAX constraints, it did not capture the scope and depth of the event. But make no mistake about it - this Alamo film does both. The Alamo's major participants are three dimensional flesh and blood mirror images of those one will find in their diaries, letters, books and first hand accounts of those who knew them. Even the Mexican dictator, Antonio Lopez Miguel De Santa Anna, is no longer a cardboard demon - he anticipates what Mexico will become without the stern hand that must come down to crush "the American pirates." Also, for the first time, the Tejanos who fought against their brothers and sisters in the Texas cause are well represented. The battle sequences culled from Santa Anna's own battle plans and the accounts of those who carried them out and those who survived, leave no nuance to the imagination and vividly demonstrate that even a chaotic retreat can turn into an unmanageable enemy force, overwhelming the west and north walls of the Alamo. The bloodbath, fury, chaos and desperation pulls the viewer into the center of a swirling vortex of courage and carnage. Patrick Wilson is his superb as Colonel William Barret Travis, the defacto commandante of the doomed fortress. For once, the multi emotional Travis is captured with all of the guilt ridden memories of his humiliating trial in Alabama, and the indecision that plagues his early confrontations with his sceptical Texan force. The ennui and angst of command did take a toll. But Travis' courage and conviction converge in a heart wrenching moment in front of his command, making the case for death with purpose. Jason Patric makes one wicked Jim Bowie and the fact that the Congress of the U.S is still trying to unravel some of his land swindles initiated almost two centuries ago underscores his portrayal. Bowie's legendary prowess in brawling, bilking and beating those around him is well known and Patrick's every move makes you instantly and consistently aware that Bowie was every bit the bad ass. But Bowie was also a romantic of epic proportions and flashbacks to his tragic marriage to Ursula Verimendi give a poignant underpinning to his deadliness. Billy Bob Thornton steals the show as David Crockett - but then - how could he miss? As Dennis Quaid said; "Billy Bob is David Crockett - A hillbilly actor playing a hillbilly actor." Thornton's performance is staggering. A self proclaimed over achiever and withering self critic, Thornton understands the very human David Crockett of his autobiography and letters, juxtaposed with the Davy Crockett of legends. It is a harrowing performance - particularly when Crockett realizes the Alamo is doomed. "David Crockett might drop over these walls and take his chances," he confides to Bowie. But Davy Crockett, the legend cannot. "People expect things," he tells Bowie. "I've been on these walls all my life." There is a palor and sadness that is worked beautifully by the modest film score. The photography paints Greek tragedy. These were and are real people. Many, many fans of the John Wayne ALAMO miss the overblown (but fun) saintliness of the celluloid 60's epic.For some, THE ALAMO 2004 is filled with defenders who were too human, historical facts be damned. But when Micajah Autrey and David die, I couldn't help but feel the pain of retrospection they both felt at that horrible moment. Add to this a wealth of metaphysical angst that is a subscript of this masterpiece. Tejano Catholic Voodoo guarantees the time, place and purpose of Bowie's demise. "Did it matter?" a dying Bowie asks a doomed Travis. "Buck's" face is a mask of hope and despair. These men will die not knowing if giving their lives will matter to anyone but themselves. Director John Lee Hancock does a marvelous job with subtleties that encompass great portions of Travis, Bowie and Crockett 's personality in particular. Did Crockett intentionally hit Santa Anna's epaulet? A second viewing revealed a gold reflection in the pupil of David's eye as he fires. How did Crockett die? He dies going down swinging inside the Alamo Church - but you never see his body. He dies a second time as one who refused to surrender. But you never see his body. ...And in the beginning of the film as you see the bodies of the defenders being carted away, you see Bowie and Travis, but not Crockett's. The last scene of the film is not a replay of the Crockett fiddle scene. There he is, playing over a nighttime San Antonio, alone - with no one in sight - and Billy Bob's "David" satisfied and almost bemused face in the final scene. What a gorgeous shot and a perfect way of tipping the hat to legend as well as a establishing while questioning the nature of immortality.

When history is relevance and universal, what more could we ask? I feel for the people who made this movie. In this climate of blind nationalism - embracing history not despite of its flaws but because of them will not garner the recognition this film so richly deserves. There are those that truly appreciate your efforts and applaud you for THE ALAMO fim I've waited to see all of my life. This one like the real battle, will be remembered. Thank you so much!

What is Everybody's problem?

[espenshade55 · 7/10 · 29 October 2004]

Spoiler's if you don't know your history

This was a good movie. It was strong historically, powerfully acted, well written and well directed.

I've heard a lot of people complain about how the characters were portrayed and that it was undermining their sacrifice and making them look less heroic. This is the first time I've ever heard a long line of critic's criticize a movie for adding in some historical facts in order to make the character seem human.

This film received the most ridiculous criticism I have ever heard and some of these were from professional critics. The worse of these came from my local news paper critic, because I'm nice I wont mention the paper or the guy's name, but he criticized the fact that they showed Jim Bowey dieing in sick bed when the Mexican army barged in rather than actively participating a great deal in the battle. Last time I checked Bowey was dieing of tuberculosis and they showed him buttoning up his shirt, taking out his guns and fighting the best he could to the bitter end. I don't know what these people expected to do, have him jump up off of his death bed and start kungfuing everyone?

All of these men were portrayed in a realistic, powerful and skillfull way.

Don't listen to the nut jobs who are dishing out this undo criticism. See it and see the true story of the Alamo and the great men who gave there lives to defened it.

Noble failure

[flickmanic · 5/10 · 7 October 2006]

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!!

Still sends chills up the spine

[lg9times · 7 October 2004]

Despite what some people says, this new version of the Alamo still packs a punch. For those of us who are taken by the saga of the Alamo, you will not be disappointed. The acting in no way lessens the impact or the bravery of these men who chose to, for what ever reason, stay and pay the ultimate price for their beliefs. Billy Bob Thorton's portrayal of David Crockett is nothing short of brilliant. It is by far the best portrayal of David Crockett I have ever seen. Some of the characters seem a little thin but not enough to to ruin the experience. Go with your gut on this one. I don't think you will be disappointed. I believe an honest effort was made to tell the tragic story of these brave men.

not just fiddlin' around

[ferguson-6 · 6/10 · 16 April 2004]

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.

Boring? Only for the jaded and empty of heart.

[r-e-witt · 7/10 · 30 November 2004]

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.

An okay Epic

[Robert_duder · 6/10 · 25 June 2005]

This particular period epic seems to be the popular one to hit the gong for. I heard nothing but bad reviews and people's nasty comments. I had always looked forward to seeing it regardless because I like historical epics and there has been some less than stellar ones as of late. The Alamo didn't disappoint me at all. In fact I thought it was very heartfelt and real rendition of the circumstances surrounding the infamous battle. John Lee Hancock uses the characters sparingly and makes a movie all about the battle which is really what it's about. Despite there being some significant characters he takes a different approach by not being afraid of making them second to the infamous battle itself.

The Alamo is the historical story of Texas, before it was Texas. The Americans want the land as does the Mexicans and the only thing standing between them is the small fort of The Alamo, a strategically placed, vitally important abandoned mission where a rag tag group of countrymen have been sent to hold up against thousands of Mexican soldiers led by the Mexican leader himself Santa Anna. Among the American group are infamous historical figures Congressman David (Davey Crockett) and Jim Bowie determined to free Texas and make it part of the United States.

The highlight of acting to me in this film is Billy Bob Thorton, a man that I'm not crazy about in his personal life but nonetheless is one hell of an actor. He portrays the now aging Congressman Davey Crockett. He plays the man with such emotion and intensity and as an audience he's the character you feel the most compassion for. He seems wise, and experienced and you can't help but feel like you're in the presence of a legend. Jason Patric also does a good job as the ailing and dying Jim Bowie. He shows strength and hostility as quickly as he shows compassion and weakness. Despite this films apparently numerous historical inaccuracies I still think this film captures this time period and this battle better than most epics do. I think the inaccuracies are ignorable considering the work that Hancock did with the characters and the battle. Despite these characters importance and most of the film spent building them up, he doesn't hesitate to drop them quickly and unemotionally to the spoils of war. It's shocking and makes you snap back when you see someone who has been a main character for the last two hours eliminated in literally seconds. He also focus' in not only on the American side but we see the fear and desperation in the eyes of the Mexican troops. With this different approach to the period piece it does lose a little of what might be dramatic story and therefore does make it drag more than one would like. Also Dennis Quaid, who is one of my favorite actors, is pointless and misused in this film and despite his battle being important, nonetheless feels tacked on and useless by the time it comes around. His character is vapid and has no depth whatsoever. I really do think anyone who loves history or epics will really enjoy watching this. It won't blow you away but there is enough in it to satisfy and I enjoyed watching it.

6/10

one more go around with davy crockett and jim bowie making their last stand

[dougbrode · 7/10 · 15 March 2006]

Want to see the most historically accurate film ever made about the Alamo? This is it, so true to the facts that the final battle takes place entirely in the dark, ending just before dawn, as the actual fight did. Not only that, Crockett is captured alive and executed later, likely the case in real life. Strong production values give this a striking and unglamorous look. Best of all is Billy Bob Thornton, who probably comes closer to recreating the real Crockett than any other actor ever has. (Sorry, Duke . . Fess). So much for the good stuff. Jason Patric is as dull and listless as Bowie as he has been in every other movie he's ever made, and Dennis Quaid is hardly the right person to capture the great Sam Houston. You might guess that in the PC age (that's political correctness, not personal computers), the role of Juan Seguin, Spanish defender of the Alamo, would be made focal and given to a top Latino actor (Antonio Banderas?) but he's still on the sidelines and played by an unknown. The real downfall, though, is that in trying for historical accuracy (and succeeding), the filmmakers failed to bring this alive as drama. Just one quick example of how poorly thought out the film is: Susannah Dickinson and her infant child are focused on throughout the film, but they forgot to let viewers know that they both survived the fight - they simply disappear! And while the Alamo battle is well staged, the follow up fight at San Jacinto is absurdly abbreviated and so plays as an anti-climax. Perhaps if Ron Howard had directed, as originally planned, with Russell Crowe opposite Billy Bob, this might've been one of the great ones.

Mediocre

[toprahman · 5/10 · 9 April 2004]

I don't mind long movies, as long as it has substance, but the length here in The Alamo seems dragged. They spent nearly 90 minutes of the movie building up to the inevitable. I know that they had to develop the main characters and give them something to fight for, but this never happens. Besides Col. Travis's moving speech you never get a sense of what these Texans are fighting for. No one really understands the significance of The Alamo itself. If the movie spent some time explaining the significance of the Alamo and not on characters the movie would have been better. The main characters themselves were your typical one dimensional heroes, and the actors played them for all they were worth except Dennis Quaid who disappointed me with his Sam Houston. Overall if you are a big war buff give it a try, don't expect to be blown away. this movie just hangs in mediocrity.

Good, Not Great

[Big_Hersh · 7/10 · 9 April 2004]

I went and saw a sneak preview of THE ALAMO last night, and it was entertaining. Whether it is a correct historical view is yet to be determined, but it has a nice cast of characters. It is a mixture of war, comedy, drama, and romance. Billy Bob Thornton play Daniel Boone, and provides most of the funny one-liners of the movie. Dennis Quaid plays an alcoholic General, Sam Houston. The battle scenes were very realistic, and this makes up for the rather lengthy and slow plot. I would recommend reading up on your Alamo history, for it may be beneficial when viewing the movie, it was for me. It is worth seeing, but don't expect too much, for you will most assuredly be disappointed.

A total distortion of history

[DCLastcolony · 1/10 · 21 February 2010]

When will a movie about what The Alamo was really all about be made? It is now the twenty-first century and yet here we have, once again, a movie that essentially celebrates a republic -- Texas -- founded on slavery. Mexico abolished slavery in 1829, an important fact totally omitted from this film. White Texans were rebelling against their government in Mexico in no small part because they wanted to preserve slavery. They were, in effect, terrorists fighting against their own government in Mexico City that wanted slavery abolished. The Texan victory over Mexico in 1836 assured that slavery would continue. If Mexico had prevailed at the Battle of San Jacinto, which followed the Texan defeat at The Alamo, slavery would have ended in Texas in 1836 instead of thirty years later. The movie adds at the end that Texas was admitted as the 28th state into the Union in 1845, but omits that it was admitted as a slave state. Is that fact unimportant or irrelevant? So here we have once again a film that distorts history and overturns elemental morality by arguing that those who were, in effect, fighting for slavery were really fighting for freedom. And by the way, it was not only Jim Bowie who owned slaves, as the movie briefly acknowledges, but also Sam Houston and Davy Crockett as well. How heroic is that? I guess we will have to wait for an African American writer and director to finally get this story right.

This historian loved it

[wforstchen · 9/10 · 11 May 2005]

I was definitely part of the Baby Boomer Davy Crockett phenomena. Heck, I actually won a contest of Davy Crockett look alike when I was four years old in Newark NJ, and as I look back, I believe that wonderful and completely fictional television series by Disney, helped to trigger my interest in history, which has been my career now for over thirty years, starting as a middle school teacher and now a college professor, along with a number of books published.

I eagerly looked forward to this film's release and I regret now, that for one of the few times in my life I listened to critics who absolutely trashed a film so that I never went to see it on the wide screen. Made the same mistake with Blade Runner when it first came out!

So it was wait until Starz picked it up and frankly, I was blown away. I actually went out the next day and rented the wide screen DVD version to check it out more closely and will definitely buy it, I love it that much.

This is the best of all the attempts to tell the story of the Alamo. Sure, I grew up on the Crockett and Alamo legend, but I also got a healthy dose of cynicism about the whole thing when examining it from the Mexican perspective, particularly in relationship to the slavery issue and the promises made and broken by Houston and Austin to the Mexican government. This film, though it dances more than a little around those issues still at least touches on them.

But what really caught me was the attention to historical accuracy in relationship to the battle itself. I'll claim that for the first time every, a film captured the "feel" and truthful presentation of late 18th and early to mid 19th century linear warfare. Other films always make it look absurd, but here you see how it did work, manuevering masses of troops up to then deliver terrifying volley fire at close range then charge with the bayonet.

The weapons and how they were used was dead on perfect, right down to the use of canister by the artillery and regardless of what one critic said about shells, they were indeed used and the incident with Travis and the spurting fuse was perfect. Formations, volley fire, skirmishers, the awesome and terrifying Mexican pioneer troops, whoever was responsible for the setting and staging of this battle did a brilliant job. The set was perfect as well, down to the finest detail. The cinematography as well, especially the stunning scene from a high angle shot, the charges coming in from all sides at once, the defenders getting overwhelmed.

I'd rate this movie up with Zulu as a film about a small determined garrison standing against impossible odds, which is a great archetypal story.

In contrast, "Patriot" which drew so much critical acclaim was absolutely gut tearing, in a nauseating sense, when it came to any semblance of historical accuracy regarding battle and every year now I have to deprogram my students regarding its retched attempt at showing what Revolutionary period warfare looked like. For that matter I'll put Gettysburg and of course Gods and Generals in the same miserable league.

I do not understand why so many critics are trashing the acting and casting. Bill Bob Thorton and Jason Patric are superb. I was awed by Thorton's approach to the legendary Crockett character. Much of what was and still is believed about Crockett is all myth (and yeah even admitting that breaks this Baby Boomer's heart). Crockett was a character created by American theater and the first of the nickel and dime novels of the 1820-30s. He was something like a Schwartznegger cult character for his time, even while still alive, but his exploits were all legend. Thus the stunningly truthful scene of him confessing what really happened in a fight against Indians, the incredible acting when he kills, almost by accident, a Mexican soldier and you immediately sense that this is the FIRST man he has ever actually killed and he is horrified by it. . .and how in the end (SPOILERS AHEAD) he is trapped by his own legend into becoming a hero regardless of his fears. A historian that I studied under in graduate school wrote about the Alamo and was the first to tell me that Crockett, according to Mexican sources, survived the fall of the garrison and was executed after wards. I remember not wanting to believe it (Baby Boomer here, remember, Davy Crockett went down swinging). The debate varies, did he willingly surrender and beg for his life, was he wounded, overwhelmed and then executed. . .we will never know, but the screenplay does address it, and does it well.

A fictional scene undoubtedly, but still profoundly moving, Crockett playing the violin during sunset of the final night of siege. A beautiful scene that is haunting.

In closing, my thumbs up as a historian for this work. It is not a film that many would care for, no love interest, no ridiculous heroics, no Mel Gibson trying to do a Daniel Day Lewis, then sweeping off the girl in the low cut bodice after slaughtering a plentitude of foes, just a gritty, straight forward war story that is profoundly moving.

Only negative. The perpetual scowl of Quaid as Houston. Though his big final scene, the Battle of San Jacinto, is darn good as well, especially when done through the POV of Sequin, and the terrible dilemma faced by Mexican-Texans fighting on the Anglo side.

Better Than Average Old West Story - The Alamo

[arthur_tafero · 6/10 · 22 November 2018]

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.

5/10

[Razor-1 · 5/10 · 8 April 2004]

I was disappointed with The Alamo because I thought it could have been better. There were scenes which were enjoyable. Billy Bob's character, Davy Crockett, is one of the only highlights acting-wise in this one. In my opinion, he comes close to stealing the show. Although it isn't really that difficult in this film. Something about it just didn't work for me. It's tough to put a finger on exactly what it was. Possibly just that the slow beginning didn't draw me in as it should have. Possibly the ending. Who knows. It was nice to see from a historical perspective, as some youth these days may not know much about the real story behind Texas as a state. As a film though, it fell a little short for me.

A Beautiful human portrayal of War, Great in the best sense of the word.

[Le_Canadien · 13 April 2004]

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.