subject deserves better

Rating: 5/10 (2 April 2008)

As a native Texan, I learned the story of the Alamo early on and it became, as I think it does for most Texans, part of my psyche. The subject carries a lot of emotional investment, so it should come as no surprise that I want any movie made about it to be a good one. And so it was with 2004's 'The Alamo.' My hopes were high, despite reading about a troubled production, that this time they would get it right. The 1960 John Wayne epic had its heart in the right place (too much so, really) and succeeded admirably at times, but too often Wayne indulged himself in dumb comic relief and unreservedly hackneyed sentiment. That movie cried out for a better director. In terms of historical accuracy, this latest version of the famous battle comes out ahead, but in terms of cinema, it does not. It thankfully never reaches the depths of silliness Wayne's version did, but neither does it reach the heights of glory and drama that earlier film achieved, particularly in the climactic battle scene. The battle scenes here are often eerily quiet and lack the intensity of that earlier film. Of the four central characters (Travis, Bowie, Crockett, and Houston), Jason Patric does best as Bowie, in a very different portrayal than Richard Widmark's. Here Bowie is almost the epitome of 'cool,' a far cry from Widmark's impulsive hothead, despite succumbing over the course of the story to 'consumption' (tuberculosis). Billy Bob Thornton provides an interesting 'alternative' reading of Davy Crockett as well, more showman than hero... a better storyteller than soldier. His fame precedes him and also entraps him; he confides to Bowie at one point that if everyone wasn't watching him, he might just jump over the Alamo walls and make a break for it. Dennis Quaid is Sam Houston, who figures more prominently in this 'Alamo' than the previous one. Quaid seems to struggle at times to get his head around the complicated Houston, a fearless yet reckless leader of men who struggles with his own weaknesses and is often his own worst enemy. It is an adequate performance. Where 'The Alamo' really fails is in young Patrick Wilson's wholly inadequate portrayal of William Travis. There are several reasons Travis is the most important character in this story, but I think the main one is that, of the four men, he is the one who is known for only one thing- commanding the Alamo. Crockett, Bowie, and Houston are all famous for other endeavors, pursuits, and achievements. Travis alone is inextricably linked to this famous battle. You simply cannot tell the story of the Alamo well without telling the story of Travis well, and this 'Alamo' doesn't. The script is part of the problem but it's more than that. Instead of the gallant, swashbuckling hero Laurence Harvey portrayed, Travis seems more of a bookworm, annoying more than inspiring. Say what you will about Harvey's over-the-top, flamboyantly-costumed leader, but he made the character a mythic figure and was without a doubt the best thing about the 1960 film. Wilson's Travis by comparison seems more like a nervous high-school kid. In the earlier version, Travis got on everyone's nerves because he was a strict disciplinarian, a stickler for military detail; in the 2004 film, he gets on everyone's nerves because he's, well, a nerd. Probably neither portrayal is particularly accurate; however, one can definitely see Laurence Harvey's character writing that he will "never retreat or surrender," as the real Travis did. So it is this flaw more than anything that ultimately sinks the latest 'Alamo.' Here and there are some good scenes and intelligent retellings of the people and places surrounding the famous siege. The Mexican leader, Santa Anna, is entertainingly interpreted as sort of a Mexican mafia chieftain. There is a memorable scene where Thornton's Crockett recounts a battle with Indians that ends in a somewhat stomach-churning manner. And there is the slightly curious ending, which portrays the Battle of San Jacinto, where the Texans under Sam Houston actually defeated Santa Anna and his army and won their independence. The makers of 'The Alamo,' 2004 edition, had their hearts in the right place just as John Wayne did, but for all their good intentions missed the mark, just as he had.