In 1836 General Santa Anna and the Mexican army is sweeping across Texas. To be able to stop him, General Sam Houston needs time to get his main force into shape. To buy that time he orders... See full summary »
Historical drama detailing the 1835-36 Texas revolution before, during, and after the famous siege of the Alamo (February 23-March 6, 1836) where 183 Texans (American-born Texans) and Tejanos (Mexican-born Texans) commanded by Colonel Travis, along with Davey Crockett and Jim Bowie, were besieged in an abandoned mission outside San Antonio by a Mexican army of nearly 2,000 men under the personal command of the dictator of Mexico, General Santa Anna, as well as detailing the Battle of San Jacinto (April 21, 1836) where General Sam Houston's rag-tag army of Texans took on and defeated Santa Anna's army which led to the indepedence of Texas. Written by
During production, local news stations sent helicopters to get aerial footage of the Alamo set. This was causing so much interference that everyone on the set was told to give the copters "the finger" so they could not use any footage. See more »
In March of 1836, Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna was about 42 years old. Emilio Echevarria, while his birth date is publicly unknown, is (visibly) significantly older, not close to resembling how Santa Anna looked at the time. See more »
I saw this movie on opening day with high expectations. I am somewhat of an Alamo buff and wanted to see the event portrayed better than ever before. And it certainly was. The historical aspect was perfect. I've read up on the Alamo before, and all the details were accurate: the clothing, guns, uniforms,the way the battle unfolded, and even the weather. The acting, especially Billy Bob Thornton's, was excellent. Almost Oscar worthy. The casting was just as good. Each actor fits their rolls with almost uncanny perfection. Although Hancock isn't quite Spielberg, he is exceptional because he did a good job on the film, and he put a LOT of care into it. (no props, stage lighting, a 50 acre set, not to mention historically perfect)
The Alamo is no doubt a controversial film. Those who slam it seem to revert to the fact that it should have been directed by Ron Howard, and been more gory, glamorized, and shouldn't have been so compressed (the original version was over 3 hours). More Hollywood, is basically what they're saying. It's these same people who compare it to John Wayne's version, saying it should have focused on artistic merits rather than history. Personally, I don't know if these people would know the whole PURPOSE of the Alamo if it ran over them with a steamroller. Hancock's vision was to make an Alamo that actually had some history to it. He wanted to tell the story right for once. The way I see it, The Alamo has as many if not more artistic merits of John Wayne's version, but adds historical accuracy and tells it true, without sacrifcing the drama.
The acting, casting, and directing are great, the historical value superb, and the battles (especailly on widescreen) are breathtaking. Sure, it would have been better with more scenes and blood, but this is the best Alamo movie I've ever seen, and a good film anyway. Not perfect, but pretty darn close. 9/10 Stars.
51 of 60 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?