[Patrick Sun]

I think I dozed off during the first 30 minutes of the film, but it picked up some steam until the inevitable outcome at the Alamo. The final coda piece felt somewhat tacked on, but it was good for some closure given its impact on Texas and the relatively new United States at the time. Even with the early nap for me, the film felt about 15 minutes too long.

Billy Bob Thornton (as Davey Crockett) produced plenty of chuckles throughout the film as he poked fun at the way his legend had preceded him.

I give it 2.5 stars or a grade of C+.

[Robert Crawford]

This thread is now the Official Review Thread for "The Alamo". Please post all HTF member reviews in this thread.

Any other comments, links to other reviews, or discussion items will be deleted from this thread without warning!

If you need to discuss those type of issues then I have designated an Official Discussion Thread.



Crawdaddy

[ThomasC]

Mediocre storytelling and character development made The Alamo a bore until the battle began. The battle scenes were intense and involving, and I felt no need for R-rated gore.

I think a(n) extended/director's cut on DVD might be the remedy to help this film, because I felt that I didn't know the characters as well as I should've, and the reasoning for the battle wasn't explained very well. Alamo buffs probably wouldn't notice, but I knew very little about the Alamo before I saw it, so I think a longer cut might help explain things better.

This movie is recommended for those who enjoy historical/war movies, highly recommended for the Alamo buff, and all others would probably not care for this movie at all.

out of

[Chris]

Very dissapointing.

The first hour or so was tied up in moments that at best acted as a foreward in a book, with details that didn't matter much to the end action and scenes which had little baring on the outcome of the film.

The movie just plodded for the first thirty minutes and offered not a lot of reason to stay involved.

You received some contrived backstories you didn't need, and other backstory that you did need, you didn't get.

I can see now why this movie was bumped back from Oscar contention season, and why Ron Howard passed on it.

As a historian, I also wonder what made them think this is "historically acurate" because compared to every written history account of the events, there are some serious blunders.

I just can't recommend it.

/