kurt-2000 Just simply a wonderful story of how average people defeated a dictator. For years I've felt badly for the people of Mexico, and how their future of land and resources was lost. But the Battle for the Alamo presents the case for why Santa Ana had to be defeated. I'm sure you've seen the 1960 version of this story with John Wayne, but this film is worth viewing as well. Colorful in so many respects. It was worth watching.

Wuchak 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)

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.

SimonJack The filmmakers went to great effort and expense to have a definitively accurate movie about the Alamo. The Alamo fort, dress and military uniforms, weapons, livestock, and setting were reproduced exactly to the 1830s. But, while this 2004 film may have hit the mark as the most historically accurate, it loses out in appeal and interest otherwise. The loss is in a very weak script, mostly bland characters and poor acting. There are likely accurate records of the Alamo defense, Santa Ana's deployments and the battle and defeat from accounts of survivors. Among those were the messengers sent out, Mrs. Dickinson, Joe, and others who left before the battle. But there was no written record of the dialog and discussions between the main characters and others. So, this is all fiction, as it is in most films. And the fiction in this movie is mostly dull and lifeless. The script had no energy, emotion or passion. Then, there is the cast. I'm not one for picking on directors and producers for "miscasting" actors, but this movie tempts me to make an exception. Only one role stands out in this film – that of Santa Ana by Emilio Echevarria. He did an excellent job with an interesting piece of script. But, after him, all the rest of the principals fall flat. I have seen Dennis Quaid and Billy Bob Thornton in some very good roles. But they are terrible in this film. Again, it may be partly due to the bad script and poorly imagined dialog. Except for some snarls from Jason Patric, there's nothing to remember about James Bowie from this movie. Patrick Wilson is fair as Travis, but is just too young for the part. Quaid over-acts with most of his lines, and when he doesn't have a line or word to speak, even his grimaces and frowns seem forced and unnatural. This is the worst I have ever seen him in any film. The biggest goof, I think, is in the character of Davy Crocket, and Thornton's portrayal. Except for the one short scene demonstrating his expert marksmanship, Davy Crockett comes across in this film as a wimp. There's nothing in this role that suggests a pioneering woodsman, adventurer, or frontier hero. Indeed, the filmmakers instead wrote a character who apologizes for his exaggerated image of folklore. So, they wrote a 21st century apology or correction into a story taking place in the early 19th century. Sure, we know that there were many overly- inflated tales about Crockett then. But did the real Davy Crockett go around meekly apologizing for the made-up image of him? I can't understand the filmmakers casting Thornton as Crockett – especially since they wanted to be as accurate as possible. Thornton doesn't fit the "build." Crockett had a large frame and was a tall man. The Davy Crockett Almanac and Book of Lists (2000, by William R. Chemerka), gives a description of Crockett as "about six feet tall and 200 pounds, no surplus flesh, broad shouldered, stood erect, of great physical strength, fine appearance, swarthy complexion…" In the early 1800s, the average male height in the U.S. was about 5 feet, 7 inches. That would have made Crockett stand over most other men by 5 inches. A tall man, indeed. While Thornton is 6 feet tall today, the average height is 5 feet, 11 inches to 6 feet. So, he's about average; and in the film, many of the players around him were taller and bigger. The role called for someone in the range of 6 feet and 4 to 5 inches. The 1960s John Wayne Alamo seemed to be more accurate in the physical proportions of its cast. One last historical sidestep in the movie has to do with the end of the battle. A few months before the Alamo, Texans had defeated the Mexican army and driven it out of Texas. The Mexican soldiers apparently were wary of the determined and feisty Texans who were defending their land. So, as the last of the Alamo defenders fell, the Mexican officers couldn't restrain their troops who walked among the fallen defenders and continued shooting and bayoneting the bodies. Perhaps that would be a little too much realism or accuracy to show in a film that appears to be a "feel-good" tale about the past.