tidepride

When "arty" direction becomes a distraction, it's over-done and that's exactly what happens in this movie. It also has enough plot holes to drive a Mac truck through. Other than that it's not a bad movie.

That sounds like a joke, but it isn't. It really isn't a bad movie. It has a very intriguing plot, and the flashback presentation works very, very well. It starts off slowly, but picks up interest and speed about a third of the way through. Definitely worth staying with.

Josh Hartnett does a very good job, as does Rose Byrne, who appears to be an up and comer with this role and the role of Breseis in Troy. Matthew Lillard and Diane Kruger are acceptable, but Diane is nowhere near as good as she was as Helen of Troy.

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.

I sat down on a Saturday night at 9:30 to watch this movie. I watched it through twice before I went to bed that night, twice again on Sunday, and now it's Monday night and I've just watched it all the way through again. And I NEVER do that!

I came to this movie with little or no expectations. I had not read the book (but I will!), although I knew it had been a bestseller for awhile, and was on Oprah's list. I hadn't even paid any attention to who was in it, so was thrilled to see one of my very favorite actresses, Ellen Burstyn.

I can't really tell you what made this movie speak to me the way it did. I had a very happy childhood, and so couldn't relate on that level at all. The cast was phenomenal, particularly Sandy Bullock as Siddalee.

All I can say is what someone before me already said - this is one you should judge for yourself, not by what others say.