The Alamo (2004) More at IMDbPro »

I saw this movie on opening day with high expectations. I am somewhat of an Alamo buff and wanted to see the event portrayed better than ever before. And it certainly was. The historical aspect was perfect. I've read up on the Alamo before, and all the details were accurate: the clothing, guns, uniforms,the way the battle unfolded, and even the weather. The acting, especially Billy Bob Thornton's, was excellent. Almost Oscar worthy. The casting was just as good. Each actor fits their rolls with almost uncanny perfection. Although Hancock isn't quite Spielberg, he is exceptional because he did a good job on the film, and he put a LOT of care into it. (no props, stage lighting, a 50 acre set, not to mention historically perfect)

The Alamo is no doubt a controversial film. Those who slam it seem to revert to the fact that it should have been directed by Ron Howard, and been more gory, glamorized, and shouldn't have been so compressed (the original version was over 3 hours). More Hollywood, is basically what they're saying. It's these same people who compare it to John Wayne's version, saying it should have focused on artistic merits rather than history. Personally, I don't know if these people would know the whole PURPOSE of the Alamo if it ran over them with a steamroller. Hancock's vision was to make an Alamo that actually had some history to it. He wanted to tell the story right for once. The way I see it, The Alamo has as many if not more artistic merits of John Wayne's version, but adds historical accuracy and tells it true, without sacrifcing the drama.

The acting, casting, and directing are great, the historical value superb, and the battles (especailly on widescreen) are breathtaking. Sure, it would have been better with more scenes and blood, but this is the best Alamo movie I've ever seen, and a good film anyway. Not perfect, but pretty darn close. 9/10 Stars.