El Álamo

After writing a phd dissertation and spending months doing research on the Alamo at The DRT library and across Texas, I became convinced that I might not live long enough to see a theatrical release that would finally do the history justice. The IMAX Alamo film is very good along historical lines, but due to budget limitations not to mention physiological IMAX constraints, it did not capture the scope and depth of the event. But make no mistake about it - this Alamo film does both. The Alamo's major participants are three dimensional flesh and blood mirror images of those one will find in their diaries, letters, books and first hand accounts of those who knew them. Even the Mexican dictator, Antonio Lopez Miguel De Santa Anna, is no longer a cardboard demon - he anticipates what Mexico will become without the stern hand that must come down to crush "the American pirates." Also, for the first time, the Tejanos who fought against their brothers and sisters in the Texas cause are well represented. The battle sequences culled from Santa Anna's own battle plans and the accounts of those who carried them out and those who survived, leave no nuance to the imagination and vividly demonstrate that even a chaotic retreat can turn into an unmanageable enemy force, overwhelming the west and north walls of the Alamo. The bloodbath, fury, chaos and desperation pulls the viewer into the center of a swirling vortex of courage and carnage. Patrick Wilson is his superb as Colonel William Barret Travis, the defacto commandante of the doomed fortress. For once, the multi emotional Travis is captured with all of the guilt ridden memories of his humiliating trial in Alabama, and the indecision that plagues his early confrontations with his sceptical Texan force. The ennui and angst of command did take a toll. But Travis' courage and conviction converge in a heart wrenching moment in front of his command, making the case for death with purpose. Jason Patric makes one wicked Jim Bowie and the fact that the Congress of the U.S is still trying to unravel some of his land swindles initiated almost two centuries ago underscores his portrayal. Bowie's legendary prowess in brawling, bilking and beating those around him is well known and Patrick's every move makes you instantly and consistently aware that Bowie was every bit the bad ass. But Bowie was also a romantic of epic proportions and flashbacks to his tragic marriage to Ursula Verimendi give a poignant underpinning to his deadliness. Billy Bob Thornton steals the show as David Crockett - but then - how could he miss? As Dennis Quaid said; "Billy Bob is David Crockett - A hillbilly actor playing a hillbilly actor." Thornton's performance is staggering. A self proclaimed over achiever and withering self critic, Thornton understands the very human David Crockett of his autobiography and letters, juxtaposed with the Davy Crockett of legends. It is a harrowing performance - particularly when Crockett realizes the Alamo is doomed. "David Crockett might drop over these walls and take his chances," he confides to Bowie. But Davy Crockett, the legend cannot. "People expect things," he tells Bowie. "I've been on these walls all my life." There is a palor and sadness that is worked beautifully by the modest film score. The photography paints Greek tragedy. These were and are real people. Many, many fans of the John Wayne ALAMO miss the overblown (but fun) saintliness of the celluloid 60's epic.For some, THE ALAMO 2004 is filled with defenders who were too human, historical facts be damned. But when Micajah Autrey and David die, I couldn't help but feel the pain of retrospection they both felt at that horrible moment. Add to this a wealth of metaphysical angst that is a subscript of this masterpiece. Tejano Catholic Voodoo guarantees the time, place and purpose of Bowie's demise. "Did it matter?" a dying Bowie asks a doomed Travis. "Buck's" face is a mask of hope and despair. These men will die not knowing if giving their lives will matter to anyone but themselves. Director John Lee Hancock does a marvelous job with subtleties that encompass great portions of Travis, Bowie and Crockett 's personality in particular. Did Crockett intentionally hit Santa Anna's epaulet? A second viewing revealed a gold reflection in the pupil of David's eye as he fires. How did Crockett die? He dies going down swinging inside the Alamo Church - but you never see his body. He dies a second time as one who refused to surrender. But you never see his body. ...And in the beginning of the film as you see the bodies of the defenders being carted away, you see Bowie and Travis, but not Crockett's. The last scene of the film is not a replay of the Crockett fiddle scene. There he is, playing over a nighttime San Antonio, alone - with no one in sight - and Billy Bob's "David" satisfied and almost bemused face in the final scene. What a gorgeous shot and a perfect way of tipping the hat to legend as well as a establishing while questioning the nature of immortality.

When history is relevance and universal, what more could we ask? I feel for the people who made this movie. In this climate of blind nationalism - embracing history not despite of its flaws but because of them will not garner the recognition this film so richly deserves. There are those that truly appreciate your efforts and applaud you for THE ALAMO fim I've waited to see all of my life. This one like the real battle, will be remembered. Thank you so much!

"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!

I've rarely been as surprised by the reviews I've read here - or disagreed with them more - than I was for this film. Most of the ones here are negative and call this film boring, poorly done and lacking in character development.

I am very easily bored. At just over 2 hours, I found this film captivating. Poorly done? John Lee Hancock's film is one of the most effectively produced I can remember. Not one moment of this film was shot on a sound stage. They took 50 acres in Texas and actually rebuilt the entire city of San Antonio de Behar and the Alamo and shot the entire movie in situ.

But the most amazing aspect of these reviews is the repeated accusation of lack of character development. I came away from this film understanding for the first time who William Barrett Travis, David Crockett, James Bowie and Sam Houston really were. The human underneath the legend as it were. David Crockett (Billy Bob Thornton) has a great line in this movie: "If it were just me, simple David from Tennessee, I might go over that wall one night and take my chances. But this Davy Crockett feller - people are watching him". Lack of character development? I don't think so.

The piece de resistance, though, and the one that made me take fingers to keys and write this review (something I almost never do) was the review which claims there was no tribute given to Tejano assistance in the Texas Revolution. Did this person see the same film I did? Or did he/she take a bathroom break every time Juan Seguin's character was on screen? The PRIMARY thing I learned from this historically accurate-as-possible-when-making-a-movie film was ... ta da .... the involvement of the Tejanos! I had never really considered before that there was a brother-against-brother aspect to the Alamo, but it was very implicit in this film.

Ignore the negative reviews, particularly if you are a history buff, and see this film.

There will always be comparisons between this film and John Wayne's bloated 1960 epic of the same name. The 2004 version is a much better film for a number of reasons. The acting in Hancock's Alamo is of a personal nature; Billy Bob Thornton's David Crockett is a man haunted by his own fame, Jason Patric's Jim Bowie wrestles with demons unleashed by his wife's death, and Patrick Wilson seeks desperately to find a new life amid the chaos of revolution. Dennis Quiad as the hard-drinking, self-destructive Sam Houston may be the one weak spot in the cast. Even the defenders of the Alamo look as if they belong in that crumbling mission on the edge of San Antonio de Bexar. A friend of mine noted that "it looks like a made-for-TV movie," but he wasn't be especially critical of the film. What he meant, I believe, is that the normal scope and sweep of historical dramas was not present in this film. But the film did not suffer. Again, to pick on the Duke (and I'm a John Wayne fan), his Alamo certainly had vista galore; but the direction and story sat on its chest like a concrete block. Keep this in mind; the 1960 version is about a group of heroes valiantly defending their makeshift fort--the film seldom lets you forget that. Hancock's is about ordinary men in extra-ordinary circumstances where death is not some abstract thought. They are going to die and they are frightened.