Alamo

I really don't understand the mostly venomous reviews for this film. It was the most historically accurate film ever made on the subject and the acting, for the most part,was exemplary; although, I must admit it is far from my favorite performance by Quaid. But Thornton, Patric, and Wilson were tremendous; I cannot imagine anyone else playing those 3 roles as well as they did! It is a sad commentary on the preferences of our society in general when a film this good and on this type of subject does so poorly. I hate to pose this question, but could it be due to a Texas/war backlash due to our current administration and the Iraq situation? Or as a movie-going public, do we prefer to be "dumbed-down" these days? Anyway, I highly recommend this film!

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.

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.

"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.

There will always be comparisons between this film and John Wayne's bloated 1960 epic of the same name. The 2004 version is a much better film for a number of reasons. The acting in Hancock's Alamo is of a personal nature; Billy Bob Thornton's David Crockett is a man haunted by his own fame, Jason Patric's Jim Bowie wrestles with demons unleashed by his wife's death, and Patrick Wilson seeks desperately to find a new life amid the chaos of revolution. Dennis Quiad as the hard-drinking, self-destructive Sam Houston may be the one weak spot in the cast. Even the defenders of the Alamo look as if they belong in that crumbling mission on the edge of San Antonio de Bexar. A friend of mine noted that "it looks like a made-for-TV movie," but he wasn't be especially critical of the film. What he meant, I believe, is that the normal scope and sweep of historical dramas was not present in this film. But the film did not suffer. Again, to pick on the Duke (and I'm a John Wayne fan), his Alamo certainly had vista galore; but the direction and story sat on its chest like a concrete block. Keep this in mind; the 1960 version is about a group of heroes valiantly defending their makeshift fort--the film seldom lets you forget that. Hancock's is about ordinary men in extra-ordinary circumstances where death is not some abstract thought. They are going to die and they are frightened.