The Alamo

it good movie

Great movie, recommend it to every one!

I rented this movie to help my son with his homework on The Alamo for his history class. He made a 100 on his school work! So I'm very happy and the movie wasn't boring so that helped also.

First of all, no historical film is 100% accurate. Although I love the St. Crispin's Day speech, I suspect that that is not exactly what Henry said before the battle. That being said, as a person who has studied and taught the Alamo for years, this is very, very good.I absolutely love that the director has added little filagrees to the movie standard blockbuster directors would never even know about. For example, in the very first scene, you see Francisco Esparza, a Mexican soldier, grieving over the body of his brother Gregorio, one of the defenders who died inside the church. The scene was just a moment with no dialogue, but it shows that the film makers actually had learned about the complicated relations between the loyalists and the rebels.Except for Dennis Quaid, whose Sam Houston was all bluster and no finesse, I think the cast was very good. The center of this story is Billy Bob as Crockett. Sorry John Wayne - Billy Bob is the Crockett against all future Crocketts will be measured. He shows a charm and humanity we have not seen in the role before. You can believe his pain, understand his fear, and appreciate his courage - not as a cardboard superhero, but as a frail and imperfect human.The parts of Bowie and Travis played by Jason Patric and Patrick Wilson are solid and are actually age appropriate (as opposed to Widmark and Harvey). You actually learn a great deal about them as real men as well as the complicated realities of the Revolution.If it seems like I am slamming the 1960 version of the story, I am. That would be better titled John Wayne goes to San Antonio. If you want to enjoy a good historical presentation of one of the iconic military events in history, this is the one. Enjoy.

By now, anyone reading this has read all the negative reviews by all the "smart" people. Forget all of that #%$&!, clear your mind of all expectations, and just watch the movie. I found the story fascinating, and very well-told by this movie. After watching it, I immediately read several extensive volumes and watched a number of documentaries about the Texas Revolution, the Alamo, and the key players whose lives ended there.Having never met David Crockett, William Travis, nor Sam Bowie in person, I can't know what they were like, but the on-screen depictions of these men seemed very much in line with the accounts I have read. Yes, the movie did take some liberties with the chronology of events, but that is commonly done in movies in order to develop the characters more completely. This movie helps us understand who these men were who fought this battle and what they must have gone through in the 2 weeks leading up to their deaths. Stories like this are never about the events as much as the people who shaped them. This movie did an excellent job of depicting these men as real flesh-and-blood people, without diminishing their status as authentic heroes.Most of the negative reviews seem to be from people with political axes to grind, mostly on the left but some on the right, too. Some "smart" people complain about this movie because they believe it showed the Alamo defenders as larger-than-life heroes, instead of the ignorant, racist, opportunistic thieves that the "smart" people know them to be. These people have never read the history. Others complain because they believe the movie unfairly depicted the Alamo defenders as ignorant, racist, opportunistic thieves.Historical figures are real people who did extraordinary deeds. They are not the hideous nor the flawless caricatures that some people want them to be. The defenders of the Alamo were real people, and the movie did an excellent job of helping us see them as such.After watching the movie a couple of times, watch it again as one of the project historians gives a scene-by-scene commentary. It is also excellent.

I am sure there are some parts of this movie that are inaccurate, but that's OK. The story and the history of this event is muddled and filled with legend. Of all the Alamo movies that have been made, this is the best. The best acting, best scenery, and best in keeping it real. The John Wayne version was OK, but had too much corny acting and too much "John Wayne" in it. Thorton does a much better job as Crockett, although the fiddle playing was fictional, it was a nice touch. My favorite parts are the development of the characters. We get to see into the Mexican army, and hear their dialog. We get to see into the Texans and feel their courage mixed with despairaty knowing they are doomed to be killed.

Some day we'll forget the Alamo and take a deep look of why the early days og texas was so embattledthey wanted to have slavery to be the law, so they could grow cotton cheaplyall the major characters were pro enslavement and died fighting for itreadForget the Alamo for the true story of Texas, even today

There is really only one good Alamo movie, and when one approaches a subject that has received both awesome reverence and total mythology, no one will be pleased. With the 1960 movie a person knew what to expect. Expansion of the myths, a glorious epic without regard to facts, and just a lot of fun to watch. So many key points of the 1960 movie never took place, according to historians. But that didn’t matter to selling a story. This movie doesn’t make some of the same historical errors as the 1960 movie, but in making some of the roles more human, it just slowed down the movie such that at times it became boring. I did not like the casting of the Davy Crockett role but to each their own. For me, it almost got to the point that I really did not like this movie. But 3 stars for at least a decently entertaining movie on a difficult subject. Difficult because many will go into the movie with preconceived ideas of what happened.

A far better telling of the battle than the turgid John Wayne effort, this is an epic and well-staged historical drama, but for all it's costumery and accurate period detail this is still an exercise in perpetuating the mythology and untruths regarding the American theft of Texas.Missing from the movie is the context of the event; filibustering (the act of slowly settling then taking over areas of other lands from their rightful governments) had been an imperialistic tactic of Americans for many years, especially involving large parts of Mexico; President Santa Anna (as usual portrayed in the most negative terms) was only reasserting Mexico's authority with a vehemence that was not unusual for the period – any country, including our own – would unhesitatingly deal brutally with such a threat in order to protect sovereign territory.This needless battle which damaged the Mexican Army a little more than expected, has become an iconic event in American history little questioned by anyone other than educated Americans and rightfully resentful Mexicans.So what about the film?The director takes what he (and American critics) thought was an apolitical view, but it's still pretty jingoistic; the battle scenes are well re-enacted - as a thrilling adventure movie it has strong characterisation, good pacing and spectacular visuals - it's a fine entertainment and broadly follows facts as they are widely known (though to quote from a notable John Ford film – "This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend".) the true part is the defeat of Santa Anna at the Battle of San Jacinto due to strategic errors and an overstretched supply chain; to his credit, director/writer Hancock does reference slavery with his inclusion of African-American characters - Mexico supported abolition very early on, something Texans were not happy about (note the scene with Bowie and his servant when he tells him to leave).Despite my admittedly highly critical views, this is a good popcorn historical action film, rather like Robin Hood or the Greek myths – view it as such - not as hard fact - and you`ll enjoy it.I can hardly blame the film-makers for not wanting to upset a state where the cult of gun ownership is like following sports – once Texas ultimately becomes a predominantly Spanish-speaking state, perhaps it`s history will be properly revised.The standard UK DVD has an 18-minute “making of” featurette and a 4-minute set tour, plus some deleted scenes (all further blackening Santa Anna`s character and wisely left on the cutting room floor).English subtitles are available and on-screen subtitles are provided for the Spanish dialogue.

This film, though not overly heavy in combat scenes, goes into accurate detail about the events before, during, and after the events surrounding the Alamo. Events such as the Texian provisional government in San Felipe arguing over their allegiance to Mexico through their oath to the Constitution of 1824, arguments between the War Party and Opposition Party over a desire to invade Matamoros to beat the Mexicans at their own game or taking a defensive posture, through to Sam Houston asking Jim Bowie to destroy the Alamo (part of the reason Bowie chose not was because he didn't have the Oxen needed to carry away the Alamo's cannons, which Houston had requested he seize prior to the demolition).As a film this is naturally not 100% accurate, there are a few details missing, i.e. the few Texians remaining in Bexar raising a banner in the plaza of San Antonio in defiance of the approaching Mexicans which consisted of a Mexican tricolour with two gold stars for Texas and Coahuila (not depicted), the Mexicans raising the "No Quarter" flag prior to their attempt at parley which resulted in Travis firing the cannon (in the film, the former happened after the latter, when in reality the Mexicans raised the flag first), the Mexicans immediately firing their howitzers following Travis' shot of defiance.Also not depicted is Louis "Moses" Rose being the alleged sole Texian to cross Travis' line in the sand, also, another event not depicted was Travis sending Juana Navarro Alsbury, Jim Bowie's cousin-in-law, to negotiate an honourable surrender on the 4th of March. Another slight error is the fact that much of the real siege took place during uncharacteristic cold weather. Another event not shown was the Texian Master-of-Ordnance attempting light to gunpowder in the chapel in the final moments of the battle, only to be killed by a musket ball with his torch inches from the powder, which would've destroyed the entire chapel.Aside from these minor historical inaccuracies and missing events, the film is highly enjoyable. I recommend it, despite being a box office failure.

This is probably close to the real events as any reconstruction is ever likely to get. Davy Crockett never wore a coonskin cap, that was the stage version which has stuck. The other characters seem very realistic and more real human than the John Wayne version.Also shown was that Sam Huston knew exactly what he was doing as General in charge and attacked the Mexican Army when he was ready. It also showed Huston's statesmanship in making the defeated Mexican general sign over all rights to Texas rather hang Santana from the nearest tree as several Texans urged Huston to do.This seems to be the real Alamo.

Impressed with this film and quite historically accurate, unlike the John Wayne 1960 version, although that's still worth watching as well and a classic. Well acted and filmed. Shows the aftermath of the battle and gives you a real flavour of the times. Definitely recommend even if this may not be quite your cup tea. You cant help but feel sorry for the defenders of the Alamo and the Mexican forces at the end. Watch it.

Americans love to dwell on their martial episodes and this is a fine example of the modern genre. Everyone looks satisfyingly dirty, there is a fearful deal of prosing, and a lot of bloody action. Given the number of famous historical names that even I could spot I am guessing the average American filmgoer must have been in histo-heaven; even Juan Sequin gets his day in the sun. The technical side of the attack is carefully considered (the zapadores are a fine sight) and little is left to chance - I am reminded of The Last Of The Mohicans here. The cast give their all with Davy Crockett (Billy Bob T) being satisfyingly nuanced; the evil Darth Santa Anna - on the other hand - is a dreadful rotter. An epic tale told at length.The rip-snorting fiddle tune at the Ball is "Listen to The Mockingbird" composed some years later but just as welcome.