Not What I Waited "Forever" For, But A Good Re-Telling..

Rating: 7/10 (8 June 2006)

Being a self-confessed HUGE Alamo fan (not many of those up here in Canada I imagine), I knew that this film was coming for years, and waited anxiously. Upon arrival however, I heard the stories that made me begin to think, "Oh no...". First, the involvement of Disney. God...does everything they touch turn to bile? That worried me. Then, the self-dismissal of Ron Howard as director. I had understood that Howard wanted to take the film in a bit of a different direction, make it "edgy" and show the violence of the siege in all its "glory". In fact, it was a bloody final battle and not at all as pretty as previously shown by countless other films. But, of course, Disney slashed the budget and were probably horrified that there was going to be blood and cruel violence in their war epic. How appalling I'm sure!!!! Howard left soon afterward.
Whle I thoroughly enjoyed the characters and embraced Billy Bob as Crockett, I couldn't give this long awaited friend a "10". While Jason Patric was admirable as Bowie, I though Dennis Quaid a poor cast as Houston. The sets were breathtaking and period perfect. Costuming and weaponry wonderful and score was above average. Some scenes in particular I thought really well done were the Crockett "fiddle duet" with the Mexicans, Crockett plinking on the fiddle while the Mexican army crept through the darkness to surprise the sleeping garrison, Travis' speech to the doomed troops, and the final minutes of the assault as Crockett looks to the young boy and realizes some sort of destiny.
I really think the final assault scene could have been longer. After all, telling a story is crucial, but the last assault might have been a bit longer in my opinion. AND it was, much to Disney's delight I'm sure, totally bloodless. Now I know there are a lot of opinions here already that probably applaud the lack of blood and brutality (why would we have that in battle scenes anyway????), but come on! There was much more blood and carnage in John Wayne's version as well as in classics such as "Zulu" and the beautifully bloody "The Wild Bunch". We get to see a glimpse of the head shot Travis as well as a bloodied Bowie, but they are quite tame. The battle scenes were wonderfully staged and the night/pore-dawn assault a treat for the eyes (as it truly happened BTW), but I thought it too antiseptic. The final battle for the Alamo was extremely brutal, sadistic, and cruel in fact. Hand to hand fighting was ferocious, yet the film really showed none of it. I would have liked them to show this side of the battle instead of trying to give us a little "Fess Parker". But then again, when Disney's involved, you know there is going to be some problems. I'm not asking for a horror show here...just a little more realism and some uncomfortable moments. Remember, the real event was as nasty as they come and the defenders slaughtered in a gruesome manner. Jeeez, even John Wayne got a little blood on him!! Way to go again Disney. I wish Hancock would have pushed a bit more for some darker moments.
Overall though, a good entry and easily the best of all the Alamo films. Billy Bob was a magnificent choice as DC and made it much more enjoyable for me.
Since this film bombed so badly at the box office, I don't see any more Alamo films being made in my lifetime....too bad. Let's hope Disney doesn't look to get involved in a "Custer's Last Stand" and/or a "Rourke's Drift" type of film. The farther they stay out of the WAR film biz, the better.