.: Roberts' Reviews - Movie Reviews :.

As a Canadian, maybe I was at a disadvantage watching The Alamo. In school we were primarily taught Canadian History so my American historical knowledge is pretty much extracted from what I saw on television or seen in the movies over the years.

With this void of reference, the movie was a bit of a surprise for me. The Alamo actually fell to the Mexicans? I had no idea. Davy Crockett was killed at the legendary battle? But what about his television show? Did the Mexican's really attack just one day before their big cannon was to arrive? With each passing scene, I seemed to be more out of touch with what I thought or understood about the infamous 1836 standoff.

What I did know however was all the Hollywood shuffling that took place during the production of the 2004 version. Made widely public last year was the fact that Ron Howard and Russell Crowe were set to direct and star, but there were arguments with Disney and both dropped out. I also knew that this movie was set to be released in December 2003 for Oscar consideration, but the studio pushed back the release explaining that director John Lee Hancock was still editing the film (yeah, right).

With all the negatives about the film found weekly on Entertainment Tonight and in Entertainment Weekly, the film was starting at a disadvantage before the lights even went dim in the theatre. Add to the mix that the historical geeks would be all over the film for inaccuracies (as they are with any film based on a factual event), and viola, instant we-can't-win cinema.

This Alamo tells the story through four central characters. There is the roughened James Bowie (Jason Patric) who has the respect of the men but is slowly succumbing to consumption; the young unrespected-at-first William Travis (Patrick Wilson) that is responsible for leading the troops against their formidable foe; the chiseled war veteran Sam Houston (Dennis Quaid) who is legendary in the eyes of the Mexican army; and of course, not donning a raccoon hat is the popular and charismatic Davy Crockett played wonderfully by Billy Bob Thornton.

These characters are known to anyone who has studied Texas history, but to us ignorant folk, we were at the mercy of director Hancock to educate us, and I must be completely honest here, I wonder just how many liberties the guy took.

For instance, did Davy Crockett really play his fiddle one night resulting in the respected non-action by the Mexican army for the first time in almost a week? Did Sam Houston actually refuse to help the Alamo only later to become a hero in folklore? And was James Bowie that ill that he fought Mexican soldiers from his deathbed? All could be true, and if so, I will be very embarrassed for my comments, but on the surface, it seemed unlikely.

What I have uncovered since my viewing is that these four characters were incredibly interesting. They all had huge egos and even larger drinking problems. Each had no luck with women (or women with them depending on the slant you want to put on things). They were a group that didn't particularly like each other, but rose to the occasion to defend the Texan frontier.

I wondered if spending time on the clashes these men might have had between each other would have been better than the gibberish each of these men orate while the audience awaits a form of battle. Not just gibberish I should add, but gibberish set to arousing music. The movie seems to be one rally-the-troops speech after another and there is a roaring musical score when anyone does anything other than speak. Sam Houston walks out of a tent.queue the music. James Bowie does up the buttons of his uniform from bed.queue the music. I go get more popcorn.queue the music. In fact, I haven't witnessed such gross placement of a films score since John Rambo accompanied an orchestra into Vietnam .

All this leads to an eventual battle, that quiet frankly, doesn't even live up to the production values of Braveheart some ten years earlier. We see explosions that throw people through the air, we see gunfire and bayonets, but I guess being Disney, there was no blood in the storage room beside Mickey's ears to use on the battlefield. It made me feel like I wasted $13 on something that could have been seen on afternoon television. For after all, a battle so gruesome as what was experienced should generate something more than a PG-13, no?

But it really wasn't so much the battle as it was the 2 hours of foreplay we are given that bothered me the most. The trailers had me enthused thinking I was about the see some heroic war where the little guy stood up the bully and lost. but not without a fight. Instead, I was subjected to long talks, fireside speeches and the deteriorating health of a major character. Compelling, but then why call the movie the Alamo ? I think Texans Who Await Death, would have been a more apt title. So, remember the Alamo ? I have pretty much forgotten it already.