The Alamo

I really don't understand the mostly venomous reviews for this film. It was the most historically accurate film ever made on the subject and the acting, for the most part,was exemplary; although, I must admit it is far from my favorite performance by Quaid. But Thornton, Patric, and Wilson were tremendous; I cannot imagine anyone else playing those 3 roles as well as they did! It is a sad commentary on the preferences of our society in general when a film this good and on this type of subject does so poorly. I hate to pose this question, but could it be due to a Texas/war backlash due to our current administration and the Iraq situation? Or as a movie-going public, do we prefer to be "dumbed-down" these days? Anyway, I highly recommend this film!

In the usual thoughts of The Alamo, you begin to think, Hardcore Action, Superheroes like Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie. Boy, you were wrong. The main reason for this film's bad rap is because the trailer marketed it as a Braveheart or Saving Private Ryan, this one proves to find itself in the more personal side of war. Despite constant bombardments by the Mexican army the film keeps a low-action tone until the last half hour or so. It, instead of focusing on the battle to defend the Alamo, John Lee Hancock depends on the "soldiers" defending it.

The film lays more on the shoulders of Sam Houston(Denis Quaid), Jim Bowie(Jason Patrick), William Barret Travis(Patrick Wilson) and Davy Crockett, The Lion of the West(Billy Bob Thorton). You would go in expecting Crockett to be the John Wayne infalable, super courageous, bear killing immortal but instead Billy Bob Thorton gives a human depiction of the legend. You can see the fear in his eyes and the determination in his soul with his suprise that the war ISN'T over when he arrives like he thought. He repeats to everyone, he can't jump the mississippi or fight bears. This, without a doubt is one of Thortons best performances. He dosen't take control and lead the Americans, this is left to Willam Travis, created flawlessly by Patrick Wilson.

An unexpectedly good Performance by the newcomer, he shows how Travis was inexperienced but still had the courage, inteligence and determination to fight who or whatever was thrown his way. When the time comes, he gives a speech to lead his men no matter how difficult the task is. He has a great quarrell with Jim Bowie for control, until finally the sick Bowie is forced to give Control to Travis because of his ailness. Bowie is played dead on by Patrick, he, even on his deathbed takes as many enemies to the grave with him before they steal the last minutes of his life. It was painful to watch Bowie do up the buttons of his waistcoat to join the battle, struggling to hold on to his own life. The men of the Alamo knew no help was coming especially from Houston who would not sentence his men to death trying to hold an old spanish mission.

The great Houston played by Denis Quaid in a simply "scrumtralescant" performance as the drunk war man trying to salvage what he could of his reputation by giving Texas it's freedom. Every carachter has their moment; Travis's speech, Bowie's attempt to do battle, Houston's "remember the Alamo!" and of course, one of the best scenes I have ever experienced in film when Crockett plays the violin along with the Mexican artillery march. This short moment is a scene of edenic quality inside the filthy deathbound fortress. Heaven visits the men as they live a minute or two of harmony in the dark hours of the seige, mexican and american alike.

By all this film proves it's excellence with it's spectacular battle scenes and outrageous sets deserving of an Oscar nomination, as well as Hancock's unique portrayal of lonely men in a war for their home. This film has found a high place in my favorites and is third(behind the passion and Eternal sunshine) as the best movie of the year so far. Hancock deserves awardment, as well as the rest of the Alamo. If I were to give this any other rating than A+, 10/10, two thumbs up, I would be a traitor to the world o film that I love so. I will always remember the Alamo.

Apart from colorful and dramatic sequences that play lavishly over the screen, imparting a generally correct and truthful sense of place as well as history, this is a movie of words. Too many in some places and too few in others.

This is not the cartoonish Alamo of Fess Parker or John Wayne. Thankfully so. But neither is it a summary of all that was actually good or bad about the seminal event that created "Texas" as a concept bigger than life and arguably still representative of the changing frontier in North America.

To put it briefly, I liked what was here but came away dismayed by what was not here. Any movie that presumes to portray an actual and well-documented historical event must do more than touch on this or that fragment of fact. The production staff is obliged to accept what is presented to them by the writers, the actors, and the director -- leaving on the cutting room floor only irrelevant scraps. I have the feeling that procedure was not followed here. Too many threads holding the story together are missing.

For example, the single most important motive lying at the heart of the Texas rebellion is inadequately explained. Was it merely greed and personal ambition on both sides that created the conflict? Or racial and ethnic disputes? Or Manifest Destiny? There is absolutely no clear picture to be gained from this movie that sets in perspective what the fuss was all about. Yet we have glorious and stirring speeches (or at least aphorisms) emanating from all parties, delineating character rather well but existing only in an isolated truth here or a compelling argument there.

Somewhere on that cutting room floor, I suspect, are scenes that focus less on individual character and more on the fact that "Texians" were a unique combination of English-speaking and Spanish-speaking citizens of the newly-created nation of Mexico, a remote outpost or colony of the central government that grew too large for that government to handle. In that sense, it was just like any other historical event reflecting a desire on the part of a distinct group of persons living at the edge of an empire to achieve self-government.

When seen thus, the merging of cultural differences that characterize Texas even today presents a unified entity of mutual interest. What holds this story together, as very ably shown in bits and pieces of the film, is how important it is to recognize what humanity holds in common in spite of apparent differences.

Little wonder that Billy Bob Thornton as Davy Crockett steals the show. (Unlike Dennis Quaid as a one-dimensional caricature of my collateral ancestor Sam Houston.) This movie could have been another thirty minutes longer and mutually subtitled to get at the heart of its message. No Oscars for the current cut.

"The Alamo" is the most accurate depiction of this historical event in years. The Billy Bob Thornton performance is the zenith of the movie's strength. His portrayal of David Crockett is worth the price of admission. It places the previous actors, Fess Parker and John Wayne, in a cartoon like, position in this dramatic role. One must see this film on the big screen to appreciate it's panoramic impact. Much of the action takes place in the Alamo itself, however, there is the extra benefit of the battle that took place at the San Jacinto Battle grounds. I found it a refreshing presentation of this film genre. All of the performances were deeply felt, and Billy Bob's is especially outstanding. Dennis Quaid as Sam Houston also turns in a remarkable performance. This was a long awaited movie, and well worth the wait. Plan on a long film.

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!