A decent film that could have been so much better

Rating: 7/10 (5 October 2016)

Personally, I have never understood the adulation for the Texicans who died at the Alamo. These were for the large part a group of swindlers, cheats, reprobates, adulterers and who knows what else lowlifes who were fed up with the good ol' USA and decided to hitch their fortunes and futures to the government of Mexico. When things didn't go their way on that account, they decided hell, let's form our own country, our agreement with Mexico be damned, driving the Mexican military out of Texas.
Things didn't go so well after that, at least at the Alamo. But America loves its pseudo history and heroes, so we continue to make movies that tend to whitewash the ugly parts of our history.
That is not the case with this movie, which gives us the clearest account of the men who fought it out at the Alamo, warts and all. We finally get to see these legends put in the perspective of what and who they really were, and it isn't flattering, to say the least.
Indeed, one doesn't come away from this movie feeling much sympathy for the defenders of the Alamo. Davy Crockett shows up thinking the fighting has already ended, and as his friends die around him during the final battle, he expresses not any patriotic or heroic thoughts, but regret that he got his friends into "all this." Bowie, Travis and the rest are cut down without fanfare, or a star turn at dying with dignity and profundity. As Santa Ana tells his officers, "what are soldiers lives but like those of chickens?" Apparently, that goes for the Texicans as well.
Speaking of Santa Ana, he comes off quite well in this film. Was he a dictator? Sure. Dictators were the norm at that time. Was he cavalier in sending his troops to their deaths by marching them into fire in wave attacks? Not according to the way wars were fought at the time. Santa Ana was prescient (in the movie, at least) by realizing that the Mexican people would forever be under the foot of the Americans if they couldn't defend and hold their territory. He declared the Texicans to be pirates, and adopted a "no prisoners" policy. In the movie, he calls the Texicans "bandits," which they were. The discipline of the Mexican army stands in stark contrast to the rag-tag Texicans, who indulge in a false sense of security by convincing themselves that the Mexicans would never be able to reach the Alamo quickly, as doing so meant marching 300 miles in the dead of winter. Well, guess what? They did it, taking the Texicans totally by surprise (and suffering tremendous casualties in the process). The hubris of the Texicans shows - they had no idea what they were up against in Santa Ana's army.
Worse, as Bowie tries to negotiate a truce, Travis fires off a cannon shot, provoking Santa Ana in declaring that no prisoners will be taken, though he does show compassion by allowing any Mexican in the mission to leave under a flag of truce before the battle ensues.
The professionalism of the Mexican forces also stands in stark contrast to the Texicans. The clear chain of command in the Mexican army allows for discussion of tactics and philosophy, even if Santa Ana stands as final arbiter in making a decision. Compare this to the "every man for himself" power struggles going on between Bowie and Travis, and one realizes there was just not enough time available to the Texicans to gel into a disciplined fighting force that could win the day.
Visually and story wise, this is a very good film. The casting is good all around, with Billy Bob Thornton producing a unique and honest portrayal of Crockett. Where the film fails - and fails miserably - is in the musical score, which is boring, repetitious, and in many places at odds with what is happening on screen. This is no more true than in the final Alamo battle scene, which would have been more effective without any music. One doesn't expect or want a John Williams Star Wars-style composition for this scene, but almost anything else would do. The score is completely at odds with the battle, leading nowhere, highlighting nothing, without crescendo or climax. It is really awful.
I think the film would have been much improved had the subject of slavery (Mexico outlawed it, Texas wanted it) been more deeply explored. And there are many other aspects of those 13 days - raids and other pre- battle operations - that never seem to get mentioned or even hinted at in the movies.
That aside, this movie is definitely worth seeing at least once. I find the denouement after the final Alamo battle to be both anticlimactic and entirely unnecessary. The Sam Houston-led battle is under-manned, small of scale and looks cheap, especially as it follows the battle at the Alamo itself.
I give it a 7 out of 10, with most of the stars withheld due to the lousy score.