Hancock’s film captured many aspects of the real Alamo. The film portrayed many actual events of the battle, so I would say that the movie is mostly historically accurate. The film began with a scene showing all of the Alamo’s defenders lying dead on the ground. Every man did, in fact, die defending the Alamo. Nobody knows for certain how many Texans were killed at the battle of the Alamo, but the movie showed an accurate estimate of the amount of men that historians and researchers believe were present at the Alamo. Next, a scene played showing William Travis with his wife signing divorce papers. It is true that Rosanna Travis broke off the marriage with William. In the movie, Rosanna brought William’s son, Charles, and a little girl with …show more content…
Many scenes cut back to show viewers what each character was doing and how they reacted to the situation. John Hancock’s 2004 adaptation of “The Alamo”, in my opinion, is not good enough to be shown in a history class. The film did a phenomenal job on the dressing and battle scenes, but the characters weren’t convincing. The battle of the Alamo was more than just a few rag-tag men fighting because they had nothing better to do. The movie did not fully capture my attention. The battle scenes were the most convincing scenes of the entire movie. Hancock focused mainly on certain characters’ viewpoints, and the main focus of the film was covered up and buried. It became muddled and lost early on. I, personally, did not like the film very much. Billy Bob Thornton’s portrayal of Davy Crockett and the last two battle scenes were the only good things about “The Alamo”. There is no way to sugarcoat my opinion. The movie was boring, and my attention strayed away from the television screen more than once. I often had to ask what was going on. Some scenes of the movie were not very clear, and I was left completely confused. The acting, besides Thornton’s, was poor. The actors did not capture the roles the way I believe they should