Superior battle engagement scenes; but the 1960 version was better

Rating: 6/10 (21 August 2006)

It's an old dilemma with dramas based on historic events. Everybody knows what happened at the Siege of the Alamo. The question is how to present the events leading up to the inevitable; the 1960 version addressed that issue with deeper thought and sensitivity.
This version delivers less insight and background on Bowie, Crockett, Travis, and the other Alamo defenders than its predecessor. Nor does it tell you anything relevant about the invaders. What are these people (on both sides) fighting for and why are they willing to die for it? At first, it's hard to even differentiate which actor is playing which role. What little you do get suggests a sour, pessimistic view that the Alamo's defenders were just being stubborn and defiant in their defense of the fort, rather than have any ethical reasons for their actions. One scene even shows a lone survivor/prisoner mocking the victorious Mexican army after the Alamo has fallen. The line spoken here was meant to be.....what? Arrogant? Funny? Insulting? Defiant? It just comes off as being pathetic.
There are some interesting military battles, but the focus is solely on the guns, bombs, blood, gore, violence and destruction. Little is revealed about tactical strategy, or even casualties in the early skirmishes. The movie offers an all-too brief show of respect for the dead, showing one of them as a ghost playing a requiem song. The following engagement between Houston and Santa Ana is well-executed, but it's unnecessary in relating the Alamo story.
This movie is a decent watch, but you're better off with the 1960 version of "The Alamo."