The Alamo (2004)
The roads cross at San Antonio de Bexar at a small, ruined mission called The Alamo--a place where myth meets history and legend meets reality. In the spring of 1836 nearly 200 Texans--men of all races who believed in the future of Texas--held the fort for thirteen days under siege by General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, ruler of Mexico and commander of its forces. Led by three men--the young, brash Colonel William Travis; the violent, passionate James Bowie; and the larger-than-life living legend Davy Crockett--the Texans and their deeds at the Alamo would pass into history as General Sam Houston's rallying cry for Texas independence. As well, their actions would become legend for their symbolic significance. … More
- PG-13 (for sustained intense battle sequences)
- Western , Drama , Action & Adventure
- Directed By:
- John Lee Hancock
- Written By:
- John Sayles , John Lee Hancock , Leslie Bohem , Stephen Gaghan
- In Theaters:
- Apr 9, 2004 Wide
- On DVD:
- Sep 28, 2004
- Box Office:
Related News & Features
Box Office Guru Preview: Ashton vs. Ashton - This Time It's Personal
– Rotten Tomatoes
No Friends? Inconceivable! Log in to see what your friends have to say.Login
Critic Reviews for The Alamo
Thanks to the skills of director and co-screenwriter John Lee Hancock and a deep cast of reliable veterans, this is an authentic and rousing version of the most famous battle in Texas history.
Absorbing yet ever-so-slightly jaundiced retelling.
With the notable exception of Thornton's Crockett, none of these characters engages you.
Although handsomely mounted, and boasting some historically immaculate dressing and impressive battle sequences, it's a movie that ultimately can't convincingly get behind the idea of sacrifice.
This dog of a movie confirms that in 1836 Texas was stolen from Mexico by a bunch of opportunistic bastards whose descendants went on to use similarly underhanded methods to steal the office of the White House in 2000.
There are great moments, though it's ultimately a lightweight film and certainly not an Oscar contender.
Not even good sets, plenty of historical detail, and Billy Bob Thornton can put life into director John Lee Hancock's slow-moving, poorly acted Texan saga.
Com exceção das performances de Thornton e Quaid, o filme traz caracterizações estereotipadas e freqüentemente se entrega ao sentimentalismo barato.
But is this 'Alamo' the definitive version? No, this is no History Channel presentation.
Like its sets of the Alamo...the movie attempts to do more than is necessary, bogging down in minutiae where traditional facades would have done just as well.
Sluggish, talky and unfocused, its downbeat revisionism robbing its historical figures of the iconic status that would have made their story worth retelling.
Remembering this Alamo is a lot easier with the fiddle in the capable hands of Billy Bob.
This film is mainly for people who are interested in history, not entertainment.
For much of the time, it's a desultory tour through period movie hell, complete with carefully aged costumes and cement-like chunks of exposition.
The Alamo feels fraught with compromise, both artistic and historical.
Hancock keeps what could have been a leaden behemoth accessible and engaging by drawing a bead on the personalities of the men who've loomed over history books, warts and all.
When it feels like its winding to a close, [director] Hancock inserts a five minute scene of Dennis Quaid shaving, and then the movie goes on for another 20 minutes.
The equivalent of one long drone from a stiff Social Studies teacher who can scarcely be bothered to add any sort of relevance to the topic.
...there's too much and too little simultaneously to make this a really good film.
Audience Reviews for The Alamo
A good historical film, but I've seen better. Quaid has one of his best performances (in my opinion), but that's not saying much. Thornton was good. Jason Patric and Patrick Wilson were m'eh.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.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.More
The Alamo Quotes
Discuss The Alamo on our Movie forum!