Creed II
Ralph Breaks the Internet
Mission: Impossible - Fallout
Homecoming
Log in with Facebook
OR
By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies, and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
Critics Consensus: Too conventional and uninvolving to be memorable.
Critic Consensus: Too conventional and uninvolving to be memorable.
All Critics (158) | Top Critics (38) | Fresh (46) | Rotten (112) | DVD (14)
It's dull, talky, and sometimes maudlin.
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.
It may be history, but it's too meticulous to be believable.
Something was missing from the film. It lacked punch.
Doesn't work despite Thornton's top performance.
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.
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.
Super Reviewer
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.
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.
boring. C-
View All Quotes
View All