Featured Audience Ratings

• Wildaly M

  
  The Alamo was just not a good film. I did not like the acting, it was overdone and there's too much talking going on. The film tried to portray some men as heroes when, for example, the character Jim Bowie just seemed like a drunkard, slave-owning bastard (maybe America tries to… More
  The Alamo was just not a good film. I did not like the acting, it was overdone and there's too much talking going on. The film tried to portray some men as heroes when, for example, the character Jim Bowie just seemed like a drunkard, slave-owning bastard (maybe America tries to portray him as a hero when in my perception he's not?. It's just not an interesting film.

• Jeff "

  
  The Alamo is the perfect example of a film that really good, but has gotten so much bad press because it was a box office bomb. The Alamo is a very underrated film that is an interesting history lesson as well as an entertaining film. Yes, it's a period piece, and it doesn't… More
  The Alamo is the perfect example of a film that really good, but has gotten so much bad press because it was a box office bomb. The Alamo is a very underrated film that is an interesting history lesson as well as an entertaining film. Yes, it's a period piece, and it doesn't have exciting, thrilling explosion. But the film is nonetheless an accomplished piece of work with a good enough cast to keep the viewer interested. I would recommend this film to people interested in history, and those interested in the Battle of the Alamo. There's a pretty good cast at hand here, and the film is one of those films that shouldn't be dismissed. The battle scenes are impressive, and will appeal to history buffs for sure. I think it's always impressive to see real events recreated and I thought that John Lee Hancock created a worthwhile historical film that will definitely appeal to history buffs. The Alamo shouldn't be regarded as a bad film. Just because the film bombed, doesn't mean films suck. There are tons of great films that have failed at the box office. If you're interested in the subject, then I recommend watching this film. But to the others expecting a solid action film, you will be sadly disappointed. A must see film for the history buff.

• Richard C

  
  boring. C-

• Chris W

  
  This has a few problems that the 1960 version also had (mainly with uneven pacing), but is still a few hairs better. If I could I'd give it 4.25/5. As far as a letter grade, I'd give it as close to an A- as possible without it actually being an A-. This is an entertaining,… More
  This has a few problems that the 1960 version also had (mainly with uneven pacing), but is still a few hairs better. If I could I'd give it 4.25/5. As far as a letter grade, I'd give it as close to an A- as possible without it actually being an A-. This is an entertaining, thoughful and quite accurate depiction of the battle at the Alamo. It's still guilty of taking liberties of course, but nonetheless stands as the most accurate portrayal of the battle to date. The music by Carter Burwell is good, the camera work is not too shabby, and the set and costumes are just fantastic. The best part of the film is the casting, but more specifically, the performances they give. The highlights are Billy Bob Thornton as Billy Bob Thornton and Dennis Quaid as Sam Houston. Jason Patric is also good as Jim Bowie, and Patrick Wilson is decent as WIlliam Travis, but maybe slightly underwhelming. I really liked that these characters are presented as more human than in previous depictions. It was also nice to see more of the political side of things, and to get a better look at events from Santa Anna's perspective. It's unfortunate that this film din't do well at the box office and that most people crap all over it. It's a good movie that is worth seeing, so give it a chance.

• Coxxie M

  
  Dennis Quaid is as exciting as a banana

• Lorenzo v

  
  <i>"You will never forget"</i> Based on the 1836 standoff between a group of Texan and Tejano men, led by Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie, and Mexican dictator Santa Anna's forces at the Alamo in San Antonio, Texas. <center><font size=+2… More
  <i>"You will never forget"</i> Based on the 1836 standoff between a group of Texan and Tejano men, led by Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie, and Mexican dictator Santa Anna's forces at the Alamo in San Antonio, Texas. <center><font size=+2 face="Century Schoolbook"><b><u>REVIEW</u></b></font></center> I was expecting a little more from this film, but it really didn't start to take off until more than hour into the picture. Most historical films take some liberties with thought-provoking statements and/or comic relief. This film, however, simply delivered factual rhetoric for the first hour. It wasn't until the second hour that the actors seemed to get into character and the story really picked up. I will probably research some of the scenes that I saw to see how "accurate" they may or may not have been. It was the end sequence that I was really waiting for. I know from history that the final battle ended in a matter of minutes. Supposedly the reason for this was that Santa Anna took a nap every day around 4pm. Houston became of aware of this and launched his attack right after 4pm, catching the Mexican leader literally asleep at the switch. I didn't really see anything to prove or disprove this fact in the film. It would have been nice to see, however. Overall, a watchable film. Special credits goes to the superb sets and costumes. The acting was good, but more could have been done to enhance the script.

• Tim S

  
  There is some nice cinematography, Thorton's Crocket was entertaining and the slow build-up to the actual battle was nice, but the film feels disjointed and underplayed. Not that great of a film, but definitely worth it for the historical significance.

• Al S

  
  Spectacular and extroadinary. Deeply moving, captivating and absolutely breathtaking. A fierce, powerful and excellent epic filled with emotion, drama and awsome battle sequences. It's a triumph. It's a totally compelling true story. The cast is truly outstanding, they… More
  Spectacular and extroadinary. Deeply moving, captivating and absolutely breathtaking. A fierce, powerful and excellent epic filled with emotion, drama and awsome battle sequences. It's a triumph. It's a totally compelling true story. The cast is truly outstanding, they consume theirr roles with intelligence and dedication. Dennis Quaid is magnificent. Billy Bob Thorton is brilliant. Jason Patric is teriffic.

• Curtis L

  
  Lots of patriotic junk, but the battle scenes were fun, and Billy Bob playing the violin is alright too. Especially when he gets shot lots.

• Aaron N

  
  Sadly underrated movie, with an especially good performance from Billy Bob Thorton as Davy Crocket.

• Nate Z

  
  [center][font=Arial][color=darkred][img]http://img316.imageshack.us/img316/6254/photo206zi.jpg[/img][/color][/font][/center] [font=Arial][color=darkred][/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred]The Alamo was originally going to be the jewel in Disney's 2003 Oscar crown. It… More
  [center][font=Arial][color=darkred][img]http://img316.imageshack.us/img316/6254/photo206zi.jpg[/img][/color][/font][/center] [font=Arial][color=darkred][/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred]The Alamo was originally going to be the jewel in Disney's 2003 Oscar crown. It began with a star-studded pedigree: Ron Howard directing, a screenplay by John Sayles and Stephen Gaghan, and Russell Crowe starring. Things got dicey when budget figures were debated, and Howard insisted on an R-rated cut for authenticity. After some creative wrangling, Howard left to get his gore fix on with another flick (The Missing), Crowe went off to sea (Master and Commander), and Disney tapped Johnny Lee Hancock to direct in the wake. Trouble is, Hancock had only directed one previous film, 2002's The Rookie. The 90 million dollar movie was supposed to be released during December 2003, just in time for Oscar season. However, the editing needed more time, so Disney's supposed award-grabber was delayed until April 2004. Now, given the final PG-13 product, were the wait and creative compromises worth all the trouble?[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred]In The Alamo we follow the men of Texas, including surly drunk Jim Bowie (Jason Patric), idealistic Sam Houston (Dennis Quaid), girly aristocrat William Travis (Patrick Wilson), and legendary Davey Crockett (Billy Bob Thornton). They want to make Texas their home, but Mexican General, Santa Anna, has different plans and wants to reclaim the land for the glory of Mexico and, more importantly, for the glory of himself. As Santa Anna storms into Texas, a meager number of men take refuge in the Alamo, an old Spanish mission, and arm themselves for an eventual battle between the merciless General and his thousands of soldiers.[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred]The pacing of this movie is about as fast as a tumbleweed. An entire act of this movie involves Texans and Santa Anna’s men exchanging a shot here, a volley there, back and forth and back and forth for no reason. It certainly doesn’t build tension. It just squanders time, and this thing is 2 hours and 20 minutes long! If it weren’t for my free bag of popcorn I would have fallen asleep countless times during viewing.[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred]The acting of The Alamo may make you want to throw up a white flag yourself. Jason Patric spends the majority of his time on his back with teeth clenched, and when that's not the case he’s lookin’ to get his famous blade a cameo. Quaid seems to have a frog permanently lodged in his throat. The only performer who walks away unscathed from this wreck is Thornton. He gives a humanistic touch to the familiar character of Davey Crockett and shows the wear of living up to legend.[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred]Perhaps the most shocking thing about The Alamo is how shoddily directed it is. I know Johnny Lee Hancock has only one previous movie under his saddle, but my jaw hit the floor when I saw how flat his direction was. Scenes and angles are very awkwardly framed, everything is too flat or too rigid, his cinematography is an underwhelming mixture of silhouette shots and dusty hues, his sets look like a high school production, and his action scenes are staged without any sense of excitement or tension. Excluding one shot that shows the battle on all four sides of the Alamo, seen prominently in the trailers and TV spots, there isn’t a single shot in this entire film that looks competent. This is by far the worst looking $90 million film I have ever seen. It feels like Hancock was either hamstrung by execs or still reading a [i]Video Maker[/i] subscription. I can't get over how pedestrian this film looks.[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred]The script is another factor in driving down the entertainment. The makers strive for historical accuracy and to show both sides of the conflict without bias. So we get what all modern historical films feature now, namely the Famous People with Flaws. Bowie drinks a lot. Travis is unsure of himself and leaves his family. Boone doesn't live up to hyperbolic legend. This information is fine, but The Alamo tries so hard to get the characters accurate that it fails in getting the characters [i]right[/i]. I'm not calling for the return of myths, but The Alamo is so focused on the details that that's all these characters become: historical details instead of living, breathing people.[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred]The script also shirks any kind of detailed look at the role of minorities involved during the seige. Blacks hardly mention slavery (and Texas would go on to become the largest slave state), women are designated as care givers, either tending to the wounded or becoming floaty fantasies. The Alamo feels more like a eulogy than a film. And how many eulogies do people pay 5-10 bucks to go see?[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred]I think what ultimately sinks this movie for me is my roots. I’m not from Texas, I don’t know anyone from Texas, I don’t know if everything is bigger in Texas, and I don’t know if I’ve ever messed with Texas, but the lone star state clings to the martyrdom of the Alamo like the crucifixion of Jesus. When I was watching The Alamo I kept having one reoccurring thought: is this accomplishing [i]anything[/i]? In my assessment, no it did not. A bunch of Texans banded up in an old mission and fought Santa Anna, but there was no reason for it and nothing was really gained. Someone will argue that they held up Santa Anna and allowed Sam Houston to collect his army and eventually take down Santa Anna. I would counter that with, “You know what else could delay Santa Anna? Anything.”[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred]The Alamo is an overlong, overly serious, flat, uninteresting bore. It feels more like a textbook and less like a story. Sure it’s not the jingoistic flag-waver that John Wayne’s 1960 version was, and I can appreciate trying to get history right, but The Alamo is so insanely by-the-book serious that it’s as fun as a funeral march. It seems like the director and the producers were so afraid of telling the story of the Alamo wrong that they lost the ability to tell a good story. Only ardent history buffs, and maybe ardent Texans, will find anything appealing about this boring history lesson.[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred]Nate's Grade: C[/color][/font]

• Mike N

  
  So...my brother and his wife made me an offer I couldn't refuse last night. I am now my niece's Godfather. The thoughts rain down... [size=1](drip)[/size] [size=1]"Are you SURE you know what you're asking??"[/size] [size=1](drop)[/size]… More
  So...my brother and his wife made me an offer I couldn't refuse last night. I am now my niece's Godfather. The thoughts rain down... [size=1](drip)[/size] [size=1]"Are you SURE you know what you're asking??"[/size] [size=1](drop)[/size] [size=1]"I...I don't know how to respond..."[/size] [size=1](drip)[/size] [size=1]"I am now bound to this tiny human for life."[/size] [size=1](drop)[/size] [size=1]"Lalalalalalalala I love rain lalalala!"[/size] [size=1](drip)[/size] [size=1]"Will I be able to handle this?"[/size] [size=1](drop)[/size] [size=1]"[i]Raindrops keep fallin' on my heeeead...[/i]"[/size] [size=1](drip)[/size] [size=1]"What did I do to be honored like this?"[/size] [size=1](drop)[/size] [size=1]"At this moment, I cannot think of a more moving gesture."[/size] [size=1](drip)[/size] [size=1]"OK, this silence is fasting approaching [i]awkward[/i]..."[/size] [size=1](drop)[/size] I was awash with emotion. And me without my umbrella, too. A grand way to start out the week, I must say. The NeumFather...returns.

• Cameron J

  
  TV Guide describes it as a "re-creation". Yeah, they actually did start a small war and filmed it. Talk about method fimmaking. Remember The Alamo '04. Well, to be fair, that demand is pretty hard to live up to, considering that film brings not much more to the table… More
  TV Guide describes it as a "re-creation". Yeah, they actually did start a small war and filmed it. Talk about method fimmaking. Remember The Alamo '04. Well, to be fair, that demand is pretty hard to live up to, considering that film brings not much more to the table than a fine score and production to cover up editing faults, poor dialogue, improvable performances (Except from Thornton, uh-huh) and severe plodding. Ultimately, John Lee Hancock's "The Alamo", isn't bad, per say, but is still an underwhelming execution of the powerful piece in Texan history.

• Mike T

  
  Strikingly average "epic" that tries its best, but never quite reaches anything above mediocrity.

• Jason R

  
  Supposedly a more historical account about The Alamo compared to the beloved John Wayne epic, the film despite dragging in parts is really well shot, the acting was hit and miss some actors were better than others. All in all it was a good movie, just could have been slightly better.

• John M

  
  There are some slow moments in the movie but I was never really bored. It's an interesting movie to watch but it simply never becomes impressive or even emotionally powerful.

Read all 16 featured audience ratings