Sorry, this movie sucks

n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

As a historical war film, THE ALAMO isn't bad at all. It tells an interesting, rarely-covered story in a mostly realistic way, and it has enough workable performances from the lead actors turning legendary figures into real-life characters to make it worth a watch. The main problem with it lies in the existence of the 1960 John Wayne version of the story with the same name; that movie was an epic, full of drama, action, and pathos, and by comparison this is weak sauce indeed.Both films are lengthy but I didn't start to fidget in the Wayne version as I did here. The battle scene in this version, when it comes, is more realistic but less gripping and somehow less violent than in the Wayne version. The casting is a mixed bag too. I like Patrick Wilson but he's just starting out here and has a lot to learn; his performance is much more mannered than in a film like BONE TOMAHAWK. Jason Patric barely registers and Dennis Quaid's role is rather pointless. Best of the lot is Billy Bob Thornton, whose Davy Crockett is a typically offbeat and unique portrayal, but other than that THE ALAMO is merely so-so.

Personally, I have never understood the adulation for the Texicans who died at the Alamo. These were for the large part a group of swindlers, cheats, reprobates, adulterers and who knows what else lowlifes who were fed up with the good ol' USA and decided to hitch their fortunes and futures to the government of Mexico. When things didn't go their way on that account, they decided hell, let's form our own country, our agreement with Mexico be damned, driving the Mexican military out of Texas.Things didn't go so well after that, at least at the Alamo. But America loves its pseudo history and heroes, so we continue to make movies that tend to whitewash the ugly parts of our history. That is not the case with this movie, which gives us the clearest account of the men who fought it out at the Alamo, warts and all. We finally get to see these legends put in the perspective of what and who they really were, and it isn't flattering, to say the least. Indeed, one doesn't come away from this movie feeling much sympathy for the defenders of the Alamo. Davy Crockett shows up thinking the fighting has already ended, and as his friends die around him during the final battle, he expresses not any patriotic or heroic thoughts, but regret that he got his friends into "all this." Bowie, Travis and the rest are cut down without fanfare, or a star turn at dying with dignity and profundity. As Santa Ana tells his officers, "what are soldiers lives but like those of chickens?" Apparently, that goes for the Texicans as well.Speaking of Santa Ana, he comes off quite well in this film. Was he a dictator? Sure. Dictators were the norm at that time. Was he cavalier in sending his troops to their deaths by marching them into fire in wave attacks? Not according to the way wars were fought at the time. Santa Ana was prescient (in the movie, at least) by realizing that the Mexican people would forever be under the foot of the Americans if they couldn't defend and hold their territory. He declared the Texicans to be pirates, and adopted a "no prisoners" policy. In the movie, he calls the Texicans "bandits," which they were. The discipline of the Mexican army stands in stark contrast to the rag-tag Texicans, who indulge in a false sense of security by convincing themselves that the Mexicans would never be able to reach the Alamo quickly, as doing so meant marching 300 miles in the dead of winter. Well, guess what? They did it, taking the Texicans totally by surprise (and suffering tremendous casualties in the process). The hubris of the Texicans shows - they had no idea what they were up against in Santa Ana's army. Worse, as Bowie tries to negotiate a truce, Travis fires off a cannon shot, provoking Santa Ana in declaring that no prisoners will be taken, though he does show compassion by allowing any Mexican in the mission to leave under a flag of truce before the battle ensues.The professionalism of the Mexican forces also stands in stark contrast to the Texicans. The clear chain of command in the Mexican army allows for discussion of tactics and philosophy, even if Santa Ana stands as final arbiter in making a decision. Compare this to the "every man for himself" power struggles going on between Bowie and Travis, and one realizes there was just not enough time available to the Texicans to gel into a disciplined fighting force that could win the day.Visually and story wise, this is a very good film. The casting is good all around, with Billy Bob Thornton producing a unique and honest portrayal of Crockett. Where the film fails - and fails miserably - is in the musical score, which is boring, repetitious, and in many places at odds with what is happening on screen. This is no more true than in the final Alamo battle scene, which would have been more effective without any music. One doesn't expect or want a John Williams Star Wars-style composition for this scene, but almost anything else would do. The score is completely at odds with the battle, leading nowhere, highlighting nothing, without crescendo or climax. It is really awful.I think the film would have been much improved had the subject of slavery (Mexico outlawed it, Texas wanted it) been more deeply explored. And there are many other aspects of those 13 days - raids and other pre- battle operations - that never seem to get mentioned or even hinted at in the movies.That aside, this movie is definitely worth seeing at least once. I find the denouement after the final Alamo battle to be both anticlimactic and entirely unnecessary. The Sam Houston-led battle is under-manned, small of scale and looks cheap, especially as it follows the battle at the Alamo itself.I give it a 7 out of 10, with most of the stars withheld due to the lousy score.

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)

Texan John Lee Hancock certainly has the name to direct this revisionist epic but it lacks the bluster, hysterics of the liberties with the truth John Wayne production. Instead it is a prosaic and po faced film that feels too long and when the action finally comes you are reminded of Zulu and at one point you even sense Michael Caine will enter the Alamo shouting at the Mexicans not to fire any more cannons.Davy Crockett (Billy Bob Thornton) is a man living up to his legend but offered a monetary incentive of land and political power to fight for an independent Texas which at the time was held by Mexico. General Sam Houston (Dennis Quaid) is a boorish drunk politician organising a land grab, Jim Bowie (Jason Patric) is ill with TB but swaggers with an out-sized knife. Lt Colonel William Travis (Patrick Wilson) the earnest military leader who needs to earn respect from his troops.The film by wanting to flesh out its main characters ends up making the narrative choppy. As we wait for the epic battle, it just feels like an interminable hiatus but the film never misses a trick to show up Crockett as epic. If I had spotted him playing the fiddle I would had taken a pot shot at him.The Mexican leader is portrayed as an arrogant cartoon villain but the film's big mistake is not to include the history of Texas and give the audience who are not versed with American history some kind of potted history lesson of the lone star state that was not part of the USA and under Mexican control who as far as they were concerned were well within their rights to keep control of it.The film has tremendous sets and art direction, it tries to address the issue of slavery, the irony that Mexico abolished slavery and the whites wanted independence so they could maintain it. You see Bowie's slave thinking for a moment that he might had been set free and the film ignores the fact that other heroes in this movie were also slave owners.