Alamo

Despite what some people says, this new version of the Alamo still packs a punch. For those of us who are taken by the saga of the Alamo, you will not be disappointed. The acting in no way lessens the impact or the bravery of these men who chose to, for what ever reason, stay and pay the ultimate price for their beliefs. Billy Bob Thorton's portrayal of David Crockett is nothing short of brilliant. It is by far the best portrayal of David Crockett I have ever seen. Some of the characters seem a little thin but not enough to to ruin the experience. Go with your gut on this one. I don't think you will be disappointed. I believe an honest effort was made to tell the tragic story of these brave men.

"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.

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.

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.

Making a film about the Alamo in 2004 was a risky business. On the one hand, you have the traditional story which doesn't always stand up to close historical scrutiny. One the other, you have revisionist history which often tosses out the inconvenient, replacing it with material which is just as suspect, but politically correct.

This film takes the middle road which, like all compromises, is guaranteed to leave both sides unsatisfied. I believe this simple fact underlies many of the poor reviews this film received.

It is to the film's credit that it presents the most historically credible version of the events leading up to the birth of the Republic of Texas. To be sure, there are still points which may be quibbled over. But without the benefit of a time machine, it's difficult to come up with a more reliable exposition of the known facts.

And that is, to many critics, another of the film's weaknesses. The average movie goer wants to be entertained and reacts negatively to any obvious attempt to educate him/her in the process. That's a sad commentary on our society, but that's the way it is. This movie could have been more entertaining, but then it wouldn't have been as educational. I appreciate accuracy and educational value in historical films, so I really liked it.

The bottom line is this... If you're looking for a familiar retelling of the Alamo story which sticks to the established mythology, this isn't for you. If you're looking for a complete retelling which turns the entire story on its ear, this isn't for you. If you're looking for mindless entertainment, this isn't for you. If you're looking for a real story of real people who changed the face of America, this is a really good film.