I was definitely part of the Baby Boomer Davy Crockett phenomena. Heck, I actually won a contest of Davy Crockett look alike when I was four years old in Newark NJ, and as I look back, I believe that wonderful and completely fictional television series by Disney, helped to trigger my interest in history, which has been my career now for over thirty years, starting as a middle school teacher and now a college professor, along with a number of books published.

I eagerly looked forward to this film's release and I regret now, that for one of the few times in my life I listened to critics who absolutely trashed a film so that I never went to see it on the wide screen. Made the same mistake with Blade Runner when it first came out!

So it was wait until Starz picked it up and frankly, I was blown away. I actually went out the next day and rented the wide screen DVD version to check it out more closely and will definitely buy it, I love it that much.

This is the best of all the attempts to tell the story of the Alamo. Sure, I grew up on the Crockett and Alamo legend, but I also got a healthy dose of cynicism about the whole thing when examining it from the Mexican perspective, particularly in relationship to the slavery issue and the promises made and broken by Houston and Austin to the Mexican government. This film, though it dances more than a little around those issues still at least touches on them.

But what really caught me was the attention to historical accuracy in relationship to the battle itself. I'll claim that for the first time every, a film captured the "feel" and truthful presentation of late 18th and early to mid 19th century linear warfare. Other films always make it look absurd, but here you see how it did work, manuevering masses of troops up to then deliver terrifying volley fire at close range then charge with the bayonet.

The weapons and how they were used was dead on perfect, right down to the use of canister by the artillery and regardless of what one critic said about shells, they were indeed used and the incident with Travis and the spurting fuse was perfect. Formations, volley fire, skirmishers, the awesome and terrifying Mexican pioneer troops, whoever was responsible for the setting and staging of this battle did a brilliant job. The set was perfect as well, down to the finest detail. The cinematography as well, especially the stunning scene from a high angle shot, the charges coming in from all sides at once, the defenders getting overwhelmed.

I'd rate this movie up with Zulu as a film about a small determined garrison standing against impossible odds, which is a great archetypal story.

In contrast, "Patriot" which drew so much critical acclaim was absolutely gut tearing, in a nauseating sense, when it came to any semblance of historical accuracy regarding battle and every year now I have to deprogram my students regarding its retched attempt at showing what Revolutionary period warfare looked like. For that matter I'll put Gettysburg and of course Gods and Generals in the same miserable league.

I do not understand why so many critics are trashing the acting and casting. Bill Bob Thorton and Jason Patric are superb. I was awed by Thorton's approach to the legendary Crockett character. Much of what was and still is believed about Crockett is all myth (and yeah even admitting that breaks this Baby Boomer's heart). Crockett was a character created by American theater and the first of the nickel and dime novels of the 1820-30s. He was something like a Schwartznegger cult character for his time, even while still alive, but his exploits were all legend. Thus the stunningly truthful scene of him confessing what really happened in a fight against Indians, the incredible acting when he kills, almost by accident, a Mexican soldier and you immediately sense that this is the FIRST man he has ever actually killed and he is horrified by it. . .and how in the end (SPOILERS AHEAD) he is trapped by his own legend into becoming a hero regardless of his fears. A historian that I studied under in graduate school wrote about the Alamo and was the first to tell me that Crockett, according to Mexican sources, survived the fall of the garrison and was executed after wards. I remember not wanting to believe it (Baby Boomer here, remember, Davy Crockett went down swinging). The debate varies, did he willingly surrender and beg for his life, was he wounded, overwhelmed and then executed. . .we will never know, but the screenplay does address it, and does it well.

A fictional scene undoubtedly, but still profoundly moving, Crockett playing the violin during sunset of the final night of siege. A beautiful scene that is haunting.

In closing, my thumbs up as a historian for this work. It is not a film that many would care for, no love interest, no ridiculous heroics, no Mel Gibson trying to do a Daniel Day Lewis, then sweeping off the girl in the low cut bodice after slaughtering a plentitude of foes, just a gritty, straight forward war story that is profoundly moving.

Only negative. The perpetual scowl of Quaid as Houston. Though his big final scene, the Battle of San Jacinto, is darn good as well, especially when done through the POV of Sequin, and the terrible dilemma faced by Mexican-Texans fighting on the Anglo side.

John Lee Hancock's THE ALAMO is often sluggish, mired in his effort to provide 'detail' in an attempt at honesty, and it is nearly 90 minutes before action fans get their money's worth (and they do; the Alamo's siege and 'last stand' are mesmerizing),but all that being said, the film is a remarkable re-evaluation of one of America's best-known legends.

While each of the story's principals (David Crockett, James Bowie, William Barret Travis, Sam Houston, and Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana) are de-mythologized, it is Crockett (brilliantly conceived by Billy Bob Thornton) who captures and holds your attention. Neither the folksy backwoodsman (as portrayed previously by Fess Parker and Arthur Hunnicutt),nor the hero answering an oppressed people's call for help (John Wayne's 'take' on Crockett),Thornton's Crockett is a well-dressed country 'sophisticate', who plays the violin and the political game in Washington very well. As the film opens, he attends a Washington production of "The Lion of the West", based on his fictional exploits, with a leading man dressed in what we today consider the 'Official Crockett Uniform' of buckskins and a coonskin cap. The character on stage, and the legends surrounding him which would ultimately incorporate the Alamo as it's final act, is the 'DAVY Crockett' we all know, but the 'real' David Crockett, according to Hancock, is an opportunist who sees political rebirth in Texas, and arrives hoping the battle is already over. Thornton is masterful, showing Crockett's ambition, his fear of having to 'live up' to the legends surrounding him, and his gradual emergence into a true hero, who would defy Santa Ana with his last breath.

The other leads aren't given as much screen time for character development, with the exception of Dennis Quaid's Sam Houston, a heavy-drinking pragmatist with a political agenda and ambitions of his own. Patrick Wilson's Travis is a failure as a father and husband, hoping to rebuild his life and reputation in Texas; Jason Patric's Bowie is a glowering, unsavory adventurer/businessman, involved in slave trafficking, and terminally ill during the siege (Hooker does, however, bow to legend, allowing the dying Bowie a chance to fire his pistols at the Mexicans before being overwhelmed). Emilio Echevarría, the first Mexican to ever play Santa Ana in an American film, has gotten bad press for his portrayal of the leader as a loud-mouthed, insensitive, lecherous egotist, but from all accounts, that WAS what the real Santa Ana was like.

While the slow pacing of most of the film is a problem, the film's final half hour appears rushed, as the Alamo's fall jumps quickly into Sam Houston's victory over Santa Ana, at San Jacinto (an event that occurred after a momentous six weeks of defeat and tragedy barely touched upon by Hancock). While it is understandable that the film makers wanted an 'upbeat' ending, it comes across as jarring, nonetheless.

If you like your heroes and history 'bigger than life', the 2004 ALAMO will disappoint, and you should stick to John Wayne's version. If, however, you want a new perspective, and are willing to dispense with the preconceptions of the past, this film has a LOT to offer!

For all the scoundrels & reasons for the Texan revolution, the Alamo was the price paid by them all & for it all. Alamo IS the most accurate (historically) film made to date. It showed all the warts of the founders of Texas & leading defenders of the Alamo, as well as the ultimate result, the massacre of those inside and the ruthlessness of Santa Anna. Billy Bob Thornton played Crockett to a "T", he showed all the range of the man that ultimately had to live up to his own legend. Most Texans will be disappointed in the land, power-hungry, drunken Sam Houston (Dennis Quaid),but he's there warts & all. I think it had been better if Ron Howard had been the director, but Disney wouldn't let him do his way, and John Lee Hancock did well, just not excellent. I'm Texan, born & raised, and this ain't no John Wayne movie, but for everything they took out to make it historically accurate, the things they put in made it a better and more passionate movie. All Texans that watch will get that hitch in their hearts and maybe more non-Texans will appreciate where our pride comes from.