|
Showing all 41 reviews...
|
|
 |
This was just not very good. Weak story. Could have been something special (with different writers, director, etc...)
5/10
30.6.2008 -
casserly5@ - age: 36-49
| | | | |
This movie is definitely a 6! Slightly above average. It's true character development was bad. They tell you little of what led up to the Alamo. Only students of history would know it is part of the Texan Revolution not the Mexican War or the Spanish American War. I'm not a big fan of turning Davey Crocket into a DORK like Billy Bob but my other history associate says it is historically accurate. It's better than alot of people say it is. It's not that bpring. It rekindles the "Cowboy and Indian" kid in you!
6/10
18.5.2006 -
eggplantj@ - age: 36-49
I am a directly related to Major Robert Evans. One of the Alamo defendants. I was really dissapointed with the way this movie was done. John Lee Hancock is a Texan and I thought he knew better. The death of David Crockett was depicted from a diary that has already been proven to be a forgery. His depiction of Col. Travis was really whimpy and indecisive. Travis was a lawyer for god sake. He had already been arrested for leading one revolt against mexico. Bowies depiction was pretty fair. And Billy Bob was the best David Crockett ever he was really human and his bravery was actual.
6/10
17.5.2006 -
walshthomas@ - age: 50+
I am disappointed at the views of so many here - our American culture is so shallow that if it does not reek of sex and conspiracy, or overrun by special effects, then to many it has no merit. I appreciated the comment bringing out the diverse leaders coming together as one of the tangential lines in the story. I understand the line in the sand is not historically known ot be factual or not, but was sorry it was left out. I also seem to recall that the Texians repelled 2 or 3 waves of the assault before being overwhelmed. From that sense, I wondered at its accuracy. I thought the set was well shown, laying out the lines of the fort that gave greater sense of the situation.
9/10
3.4.2005 -
gaijin79@ - age: 36-49
Very good movie you must see it.
10/10
30.10.2004 -
dico36@ - age: 13-17
[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
"Screamer"... I just read one of the post listed here stating how stupid it was for Crocket to say he was a "screamer"... then screaming as the Mexican soldiers ran him thru... That's not what was meant by "screamer". In the 19th century the term screamer, although not totally agreed upon by historians, would mean more along the lines of a person of stature, a noticed person, and NOT a fellow actually screaming. This director left many people who don't study history scratching their heads, or misunderstanding, because he used correct terms for the period, and left it to the viewer to know the history, and the language of the period. Shows the director had sand.
8/10
15.10.2004 -
lancegoebel@ - age: 36-49
I'm not sure why people are criticizing. I'm pretty sure no one here could make a movie like that. I thought it was a great movie. Great action and fun to watch.
10/10
2.10.2004 -
jbt252@ - age: 13-17
Although the interaction between the characters leaves the audience with a great many questions, overall This version of the Alamo was by far the best historical account. A Patriotic movie? , certainly, but let's face it the the Yanks have a right to be. Same as the rest of us.
8/10
9.7.2004 -
vergelter@ - age: 26-35
This movie had bad acting, a bad script and awful character development... The people in the Alamo were fighting for their lives and losing, and all I could think of was "who cares? ". Davy Crockett asking the Mexicans to surrender was an over-used, retarded Hollywood cliche and him saying "Be careful now, I'm a screamer" and then screaming like a little school girl was almost the lamest thing I've seen on film. And it was almost one bad joke or lame scene after another - I saw the Last Samurai and I felt relatively moved. I saw this movie and left annoyed because I'll never get that 2 hours of my life back. I wouldn't even watch this movie if it was on TV.
2/10
8.5.2004 -
jim_seeley@ - age: 26-35
Boring, too long!!! Only for bush's fan!
1/10
7.5.2004 -
rougelune7@ - age: 13-17
The movie was a great way to show the thriumph of texans in the battle of san jacinto. The dictator ship of santa anna and the accuratey was the best I have ever seen. As a historin it was grate.
10/10
3.5.2004 -
wjsheffield@ - age: 13-17
This movie totally rocked. Im not usually into these types of movies but... The Alamo was awesome... Gotta LOve DAVEY CROCKETT. Billy Bob stole the show. MORal of the story... Go see It.
9/10
2.5.2004 -
gibraltar26@ - age: 18-25
This was an awesome movie. The actors were well picked and it wasnt too much bragging about american history like usual. A overall great movie.
10/10
1.5.2004 -
jasperonix@ - age: 13-17
It was a good story, not to American and not too much Hollywood. Very good.
10/10
27.4.2004 -
joe__canuck@ - age: 18-25
Very disappointing film. The first 90 minutes was slow and boring. All the action is in the final 30 mintues. Definitely a rental, and that's being generous!
4/10
27.4.2004 -
gbazooka@ - age: 26-35
The almo was a great movie everone she go see it I think it was for all ages.
10/10
26.4.2004 -
zacks_bling_bling1@ - age: 1-12
Too long, too boring. About an hour longer than it needed to be. All of the people talking about whether it was accurate or not: why does it matter? The fact is the movie was just too long and drug out for it's own good. [...]
2/10
25.4.2004 -
engook@ - age: 18-25
Very bad, complete waste of time and money!
3/10
23.4.2004 -
pozcanon@ - age: 26-35
Very boring: somebody was snoring in the cinema.
2/10
22.4.2004 -
shazz1001@ - age: 18-25
What started out to be an enthralling history lesson fell through the scaffolding about two thirds of the way through. The portrayal of strong minds with conflicting viewpoints in isolating circumstances seemed to be leading to a fine dramatic conclusion. Then the 'we are smart, they... stupid; we are noble, they... savages' etc surfaced. Guess I'll have to wait for an Indie film to treat this event with the pathos it warrants.
5/10
20.4.2004 -
mj_brown@ - age: 50+
| | | | |
Did you ever notice every year America has to have one uber patriotic film? Reguardless of quality or historical accuracy. Independance Day, Pearl Harbour etc. This is one of those films that should be stuck where the sun never shines. Good thing I did'nt pay for it.
3/10
20.4.2004 -
xebulon_9@ - age: 36-49
| | | | |
The worst movie ever... those 10 bucks hurted!!!
1/10
18.4.2004 -
mayacaro@ - age: 18-25
Bad actors, Bad story, even bad jokes!
4/10
18.4.2004 -
lobillo45@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
To those who complained about no seeing enough battles, they were 100 men holding a mission. Did you expect to see a grand, sweeping, battle such as Waterloo? To those who complained about it being too wrapped up in the flag yippee yi yeah Americanism, I say you are letting your own anti-American bias show. Unfortunately, even through this movie seemed to deliberately stay away from that kind of nonsense, it did creep in near the very end. So I'm knocking 1 point of for that. I'm also knocking off 1 point for not ending when it should have -- ie:once the Alamo fell to the Mexicans. Instead, it continues for another 15 minutes or so to show us the Battle of San Jacinto, this I felt was the weakest part of the film. Apart from that it was a very well made movie, far better than the John Wayne version. Although I would have liked it to explain the animosity between Travis and Bowie. I won't go into whether or not is was historically acurate. [...]
8/10
17.4.2004 -
twodawgz@ - age: 36-49
| 
