Good Entertainment

Rating: 3/10 (29 December 2004)

The 2004 version of John Lee Hancock's Alamo may not have been historically accurate by any means, but it was Hollywood to the letter. I found Gerneral Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna one of the most interesting characters in the film, his lines did him justice. I do not want to take away Thornton's Crockett performance, it did give the viewer an inside look into a man who really did not want to be in the situation he found himself in - and in real life, Crockett was a man looking for the next vote, not the next fight. From the start I knew the movie was going to take a "Hollywood" turn, as history can be very boring to some, as being completely historically accurate would have flopped worse than it did. But if each viewer can watch it as entertainment verses true to life facts, I am sure they would be entertained. The battle of San Jacinto at the end did not do the actual battle justice, as it made Sam Houston appear to be a super hero leading his army to total victory. The Mexican army was not caught by surprise, as in real life, and the small skirmishes at the beginning were left out. The film also attempts to portray the Tejano rebels (Juan Seguin and his men) as being in total awe at the carnage carried out during the battle, when actually, the Tejano soldiers were some of the most brutal on the field. The movie gets my vote for entertainment at the very least. I rank it above John Wayne's 1960 version by a long shot - as Wayne merely fed the myth that has caused so much hatred and distrust over the years since the actual battle. If you can get over the alter ego persona of Houston, Bowie (especially Bowie), and Travis, I think you will enjoy the film. 3 out of 5 stars.