Maybe this “Alamo” would be better left forgotten.

Even after going millions of dollars over budget and having to move the release date back several months, there’s still only one thing the creators of “The Alamo” got right — being forced to sit through this 2 1/2-hour mess of Hollywood schlock makes it much easier to understand what the Texas soldiers were thinking before Santa Ana’s assault on the mission in 1836:

“Is it over yet?”

There’s a lot to dislike about “The Alamo,” but the real tragedy is that it could’ve been so much better. It’s not like this is a bad script — the last days of Alamo legends Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie and William Travis as they face off against the Mexican army is as compelling a story as filmmakers could hope for. The dynamic of real people, cornered in a defenseless mission, makes for some pretty great filmmaking opportunities.

But instead of portraying the main characters as real people with real personalities trapped in a very real situation, director John Lee Hancock — who took over after Ron Howard bailed from the already sinking ship — chose to make them into two-dimensional, clich‚ representations.

The movie is being billed as “historically accurate,” but if that’s the case, Sam Houston was nothing but a coward, Crockett was an aging superhero and Bowie was just a guy with a really big knife.

There are two directions “The Alamo” could have taken — shorter, but with more of a glossy Hollywood feel, or longer with the realism and emotion of “Braveheart.”

Unfortunately, it used the worst of both categories.

The film rambles on for at least an hour too long, repeating its stupid plot devices and catchphrases until the audience members wish they could escape.

But hey, it’s not all bad — at least they only shouted “Remember the Alamo” once.

One of the film’s few high points is its battle sequences, although they, too, are flawed.

The zoomed-out camera pans, made popular in “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy, does show the completely helpless feeling the Americans must have felt fairly well.

However, a PG-13 rating does little to help a film already struggling with credibility issues.

It’s hard to present a historical event as bloody as the Alamo without showing a few of the kills.

There’s a certain cinematic classiness to cutting away right before the big death scene, but it just makes it that much harder to connect with an already distant character.

Maybe Hitchcock could’ve pulled it off. But Hancock ain’t Hitchcock.

With so much to work with, it’s almost amazing this film turned out as terrible as it did. Following in the footsteps of its over-budgeted kin, “Pearl Harbor,” “The Alamo” falls short of making its audience actually care about a group of people facing their own imminent death.

John Wayne’s version may not have been the most accurate retelling of the Alamo’s story, but at least it wasn’t agonizing to watch.