The Alamo (2004)

Good movie but grossly overrated

It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

As a historical war film, THE ALAMO isn't bad at all. It tells an interesting, rarely-covered story in a mostly realistic way, and it has enough workable performances from the lead actors turning legendary figures into real-life characters to make it worth a watch. The main problem with it lies in the existence of the 1960 John Wayne version of the story with the same name; that movie was an epic, full of drama, action, and pathos, and by comparison this is weak sauce indeed.Both films are lengthy but I didn't start to fidget in the Wayne version as I did here. The battle scene in this version, when it comes, is more realistic but less gripping and somehow less violent than in the Wayne version. The casting is a mixed bag too. I like Patrick Wilson but he's just starting out here and has a lot to learn; his performance is much more mannered than in a film like BONE TOMAHAWK. Jason Patric barely registers and Dennis Quaid's role is rather pointless. Best of the lot is Billy Bob Thornton, whose Davy Crockett is a typically offbeat and unique portrayal, but other than that THE ALAMO is merely so-so.

I just finished revisiting this film, and despite some lingering quarrels with Davy Crockett's cheesy death scene and Dennis Quaid's overheated portrayal of Sam Houston, this movie is a wonderfully emotional experience for me as a native Texan. The macho and occasionally corny 1960 version with John Wayne, Laurence Harvey and Richard Widmark is, in my opinion, far inferior to this film. John Lee Hancock did a brilliant job of portraying the haunting fears and nagging doubts that the doomed and selfless defenders surely felt when they faced the grim reality that they were surrounded and alone. He also tried to hew pretty closely to the historic facts while engaging in the inevitable amount of dramatic license required for a Hollywood feature. I cringed when I heard that Billy Bob Thornton was cast as Davy Crockett, but he was a very pleasant surprise. His twangy Southern accent was a perfect fit for the role. The other pleasant discovery was the Hispanic actor who played Juan Seguin. This well-known Texas history story passed into the realm of heroic legend long ago, and that makes it difficult to portray without disappointing lots of viewers and history buffs who have rigid expectations. I give full credit to native Texan Hancock for even taking it on. The final siege sequence is visually stunning, inspiring, overwhelming, and heartbreaking. And the coda at San Jacinto provides an emotional catharsis. Great music score as well. I wish Hancock had been better served by a couple of the main performances, but I remain a fan of this film.

The filmmakers went to great effort and expense to have a definitively accurate movie about the Alamo. The Alamo fort, dress and military uniforms, weapons, livestock, and setting were reproduced exactly to the 1830s. But, while this 2004 film may have hit the mark as the most historically accurate, it loses out in appeal and interest otherwise. The loss is in a very weak script, mostly bland characters and poor acting. There are likely accurate records of the Alamo defense, Santa Ana's deployments and the battle and defeat from accounts of survivors. Among those were the messengers sent out, Mrs. Dickinson, Joe, and others who left before the battle. But there was no written record of the dialog and discussions between the main characters and others. So, this is all fiction, as it is in most films. And the fiction in this movie is mostly dull and lifeless. The script had no energy, emotion or passion. Then, there is the cast. I'm not one for picking on directors and producers for "miscasting" actors, but this movie tempts me to make an exception. Only one role stands out in this film – that of Santa Ana by Emilio Echevarria. He did an excellent job with an interesting piece of script. But, after him, all the rest of the principals fall flat. I have seen Dennis Quaid and Billy Bob Thornton in some very good roles. But they are terrible in this film. Again, it may be partly due to the bad script and poorly imagined dialog. Except for some snarls from Jason Patric, there's nothing to remember about James Bowie from this movie. Patrick Wilson is fair as Travis, but is just too young for the part. Quaid over-acts with most of his lines, and when he doesn't have a line or word to speak, even his grimaces and frowns seem forced and unnatural. This is the worst I have ever seen him in any film. The biggest goof, I think, is in the character of Davy Crocket, and Thornton's portrayal. Except for the one short scene demonstrating his expert marksmanship, Davy Crockett comes across in this film as a wimp. There's nothing in this role that suggests a pioneering woodsman, adventurer, or frontier hero. Indeed, the filmmakers instead wrote a character who apologizes for his exaggerated image of folklore. So, they wrote a 21st century apology or correction into a story taking place in the early 19th century. Sure, we know that there were many overly- inflated tales about Crockett then. But did the real Davy Crockett go around meekly apologizing for the made-up image of him? I can't understand the filmmakers casting Thornton as Crockett – especially since they wanted to be as accurate as possible. Thornton doesn't fit the "build." Crockett had a large frame and was a tall man. The Davy Crockett Almanac and Book of Lists (2000, by William R. Chemerka), gives a description of Crockett as "about six feet tall and 200 pounds, no surplus flesh, broad shouldered, stood erect, of great physical strength, fine appearance, swarthy complexion…" In the early 1800s, the average male height in the U.S. was about 5 feet, 7 inches. That would have made Crockett stand over most other men by 5 inches. A tall man, indeed. While Thornton is 6 feet tall today, the average height is 5 feet, 11 inches to 6 feet. So, he's about average; and in the film, many of the players around him were taller and bigger. The role called for someone in the range of 6 feet and 4 to 5 inches. The 1960s John Wayne Alamo seemed to be more accurate in the physical proportions of its cast. One last historical sidestep in the movie has to do with the end of the battle. A few months before the Alamo, Texans had defeated the Mexican army and driven it out of Texas. The Mexican soldiers apparently were wary of the determined and feisty Texans who were defending their land. So, as the last of the Alamo defenders fell, the Mexican officers couldn't restrain their troops who walked among the fallen defenders and continued shooting and bayoneting the bodies. Perhaps that would be a little too much realism or accuracy to show in a film that appears to be a "feel-good" tale about the past.

So far, The Alamo (2004) is the most accurate film made about this episode in the history of Mexico and Texas. But it also is full of unforgivable historical mistakes. Many things were changed since the fully Americanized 1960 the Alamo. Is the first time it is shown a preconceived plan from the Unites States to revolutionize Texas, but this film is still very much an Americanized story. They omitted again to almost all fighters in the Alamo and the Revolution of Texas were illegal immigrants and they are still shown as righteous heroes, even with the music in the scenes. Santa Anna was a son of a bitch and that if it is perfectly represented in this film. 1960's The Alamo was 200% Americanized, this one is 85%.Mistakes: *They use the word Texas all the time, even when they show the name of the cities, but Texas was not Texas in 1836. It was the State of Coahuila y Texas. *Santa Anna was not a dictator in 1836, he was constitutional elected president. He ruled Mexico as dictator from 1853 to 1855. *The Mexican Constitution of 1824 was not voided by Santa Anna, it was changed by a Conservative Congress 9 months after the battle of the Alamo. *In Mexico never existed coins with the face of Santa Anna, even when he was dictator, never ever. *The order to kill all the rebels, was an order from the Mexican Congress, not Santa Anna's. Santa Anna just ran anti-piracy law issued by Congress. *Santa Anna's character is an old, when he was 42 years in 1836. *The Mexican army was asleep when Houston attacked; they were not on guard as is shown in this film.Maybe my opinion is not worth much, because I cannot feel sorry for some people who fought for dismember my country after all my country gave to them (land in credit, no taxes, bilingual laws, etc.) if they had remained in their country they had not been killed by an army that only was defending its country. And for those who do not understand, just imagine a group of illegal immigrants along with some legal, creating a revolution in any U.S. state in order to annexing that state to Mexico. Can you understand me now?