Alamo

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.

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!

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!

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.

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.