Solemplex
To me, this movie is perfection.
Raetsonwe
Redundant and unnecessary.
Keeley Coleman
The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;
Erica Derrick
By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.
Neil Welch
A small number of Texans defend the Alamo against invading Mexicans, buying time for Sam Houston's army.This retelling of the Alamo makes efforts to be historically accurate (John Wayne's 1960 version, by contrast, was more interested in the myth). It is dark and dirty, and the three key characters among the defenders - Travis, Bowie and Crocket - are far more conflicted and flawed than their earlier equivalents. And in many ways that is a good thing, because the nobility they display in their doomed defence is all the more striking by virtue of its contrast.It's also worth saying that the action sequences are well staged, and the performances are all very good. The negative reviews on IMDb aren't wholly deserved.
CJ Max
This was generally not bad. I've studied the Alamo in books. The main characters were okay, with Jason Patric excellent as Jim Bowie, but the actor playing Sant Anna, I felt was miscast, and not the dynamic commander you expected. Though meant as entertainment, the Alamo compound itself jarred my eye being wrongly laid out, but only because I know some of the history, which does work against you in such a film. If only they had it a bit more like the Alamo compound used in John Wayne's epic. I felt after the battle ended at the Alamo the film should have ended, instead of trying to follow on to San Jacinto, as it was it these scenes, the lack of numbers in extras than those who were actually there was very evident. One man equal to ten or even twenty men may work in wargaming, but not in a film. As for the demise of Crockett as shown, wasn't really needed. Anyway, I prefer this version to that made in 1960.
screenman
It's the third millennium and time for yet another revisionist movie. Most commentators seem to agree that this version of the Alamo siege is the most historically authentic of them all. Well, that's as may be. I'll have to take their word for it. I'm no student of American history.However; it is supposed to be entertainment. It's a movie. It's not billed as a documentary, nor even a docu-drama. If I really want historical accuracy I'll opt for a documentary. Or read scholastic history books (though even they are often inaccurate). When I watch a movie, I want entertainment. I'd like authenticity too - but not at the cost of viewing pleasure.This revisionist piece stars Billy Bob Thornton, along with wooden Mr Quaid. Adequate, but not exactly top drawer. It runs for some 2 hours 17 minutes, but - goodness me - it seems a great deal longer. I felt as though I had sat through the entire '13 days of glory'. I don't believe I have ever experienced a more gloomy, maudlin, self-indulgent piece of theatre. Incidental music assumed the substance of a dirge.There's also a fair share of soul-searching in John Wayne's original epic, but that's offset by spectacle, comedy, and irony in the grand old style of Hollywood sagas. Wayne's 'director's cut' ran for well over 3 hours, but was hacked down to about 2 and a half for its release.I love John Wayne's version. It may be preposterous, over-blown, and have little regard for truth. But it's a truly great movie - lavish, well-paced with progressively-building tension, and beautifully filmed. There's a script that intelligently meets every dramatic turn, with characters that are interesting and varied. And, of course, there's Big John himself - larger than life, full of panache and unique style, and a tremendously capable actor. He's balanced against Richard Widmark's surly, scathing Bowie. And the whole thing is bolted in place by a grand music score from Dimitri Tiomkin. As a movie; it's a classic tour-de-force on par with 'Zulu'.Give me Wayne's romantic mythologising any day. As they say in 'Liberty Vallance' - when the legend becomes truth, print the legend'. Purists are welcome to Billy Bob & Wooden Quaid's revisionism; for me it's just a relentless bore and a half. Despite its presumptions of historical fidelity; I didn't enjoy watching it. And what's the point of that?Not recommended.
John Dunn
When I first saw this on DVD, I thought instantly this would get an Oscar nomination, at least. The music is powerful enough to make you cry. This, I believe was Carter Burwell at his best. There are some scenes that made me cry like a baby. Especially before the battle, where the defenders are writing letters to their loved ones. Plus, the end part where it's just Crockett, and five others including Bowie (who was sick, dying in bead). The acting is great, especially Thorton's. Why critics hate this film is beyond me. With a powerful soundtrack, you can see the scenes from the movie in your head as it's playing. This, in my opinion, is the best film about The Alamo ever and there will be no more made because of how accurate this one is!
