Review of The Alamo (2004) by Benoit M — 13 Apr 2004

The history of the new production of [b]The Alamo[/b] is almost as storied as the event it portrays. It first started out as Ron Howard's directorial follow-up to his Oscar-winning [b]A Beautiful Mind[/b]. It had all the earmarks of a great film: a big budget three-hour epic that as I recall would have starred Russell Crowe (as who here I really have no idea). But then the bottom fell out of just about everything. Ron Howard went on to do [b]The Missing[/b] (bad), while Russell Crowe went onto [b]Master and Commander[/b] (very good).

The semi-aborted remnants we get are just as expensive, but also singularly uninspired and frankly, just boring. The film opens setting up the major characters in the battle. The movie goes to great lengths to establish that legends like Davey Crockett and Jim Bowie were all normal, very flawed people. Unfortunately, simply saying they're flawed without really showing it doesn't do very much to make them compelling at all. By far the bright spot is Billy Bob Thorton's performance as Davey Crockett. The famed congressman wasn't particularly looking for a fight when he came to Texas and he's quick to tell people he's not all that his legend is cracked up to be. Dennis Quaid is good, but underutilized as General Sam Houston; his character relegated to the sidelines of the story.

Structurally, the film disturbingly brought to mind [b]Pearl Harbor[/b], another mediocre attempt at a historical epic by Disney. There's a long and tedious build-up to the depressing main battle, followed by what feels like a tagged on attempt to end the film on a feel-good note so that the audience won't feel like they sat through a movie where everyone is slaughtered. Even worse, the siege of the Alamo is nowhere near as visually impressive as the attack on Pearl Harbor in Bay's film.

Claims that the film is the most historically accurate take on the battle are fairly well earned. A siege is a terribly drawn out affair, with long spells of nothing punctuated by violent interludes. So in that regard, one could say that [b]The Alamo[/b] excels at that perfectly. Unfortunately, that doesn't make the film very interesting. There is also an unsettling uniformity to the side of the Mexicans. I'm no expert in Mexican history, but the portrayal of Santa Ana struck me as pretty two-dimensional. He preens around, beds local beauties and generally ignores his senior officer's opinions all with a thin smirk on his face. Santa Ana came across more like a James Bond villain.

I'd say one of the few gutsy moves the film makes is a scene where Bowie makes it clear he is keeping his assistant because he's his property simple as that. The other is a scene that stems from recent debate that perhaps Crockett survived the onslaught, only to be executed later. However, that scene ends up feeling rather silly in its execution.

Technically, the film is just sort of...there. It's all rather average. The music is quite generic. Art direction, make-up and costumes are all rather spot on, but the cinematography is rather bleeched out. The movie isn't very colorful and at times just seems dark and blurry. I'm not talking a clear shot that's undergone digital shading. I'm talking about just plain [i]dark.[/i].

The only real battle to stir any emotion is the final assault. John Lee Hancock's direction lacks any real flair except to just document the action, which is also rather bloodless. I don't think anyone even died in the first half of the movie. Two shots did stand out though: one a shot from the point of view of a flying cannon ball and another a high crane shot encompassing the whole mission surrounded. Those two shots were just a hint of what this film could have been. Alas, it isn't.

It's possible that Hancock's original three-hour cut could improve matters, perhaps explaining just what did happen to those few women and children who stayed at the mission? Or how out of all of Texas, Crockett just happens upon the Alamo? Or perhaps most importantly, place the whole political situation in a clearer light as pre-battle history was quite glazed over in the beginning.

As I left the theater fairly unsatisfied, I recalled the pair of friends from John Wayne's version:

"Does this mean what I think it means?".

"It sure do.".

**/****.

Thoughts?