Accurate battle scenes, but a flat film otherwise

Rating: 6/10 (2 November 2013)

The filmmakers went to great effort and expense to have a definitively accurate movie about the Alamo. The Alamo fort, dress and military uniforms, weapons, livestock, and setting were reproduced exactly to the 1830s. But, while this 2004 film may have hit the mark as the most historically accurate, it loses out in appeal and interest otherwise. The loss is in a very weak script, mostly bland characters and poor acting.
There are likely accurate records of the Alamo defense, Santa Ana's deployments and the battle and defeat from accounts of survivors. Among those were the messengers sent out, Mrs. Dickinson, Joe, and others who left before the battle. But there was no written record of the dialog and discussions between the main characters and others. So, this is all fiction, as it is in most films. And the fiction in this movie is mostly dull and lifeless. The script had no energy, emotion or passion.
Then, there is the cast. I'm not one for picking on directors and producers for "miscasting" actors, but this movie tempts me to make an exception. Only one role stands out in this film – that of Santa Ana by Emilio Echevarria. He did an excellent job with an interesting piece of script. But, after him, all the rest of the principals fall flat.
I have seen Dennis Quaid and Billy Bob Thornton in some very good roles. But they are terrible in this film. Again, it may be partly due to the bad script and poorly imagined dialog. Except for some snarls from Jason Patric, there's nothing to remember about James Bowie from this movie. Patrick Wilson is fair as Travis, but is just too young for the part. Quaid over-acts with most of his lines, and when he doesn't have a line or word to speak, even his grimaces and frowns seem forced and unnatural. This is the worst I have ever seen him in any film.
The biggest goof, I think, is in the character of Davy Crocket, and Thornton's portrayal. Except for the one short scene demonstrating his expert marksmanship, Davy Crockett comes across in this film as a wimp. There's nothing in this role that suggests a pioneering woodsman, adventurer, or frontier hero. Indeed, the filmmakers instead wrote a character who apologizes for his exaggerated image of folklore. So, they wrote a 21st century apology or correction into a story taking place in the early 19th century. Sure, we know that there were many overly- inflated tales about Crockett then. But did the real Davy Crockett go around meekly apologizing for the made-up image of him?
I can't understand the filmmakers casting Thornton as Crockett – especially since they wanted to be as accurate as possible. Thornton doesn't fit the "build." Crockett had a large frame and was a tall man. The Davy Crockett Almanac and Book of Lists (2000, by William R. Chemerka), gives a description of Crockett as "about six feet tall and 200 pounds, no surplus flesh, broad shouldered, stood erect, of great physical strength, fine appearance, swarthy complexion" In the early 1800s, the average male height in the U.S. was about 5 feet, 7 inches. That would have made Crockett stand over most other men by 5 inches. A tall man, indeed. While Thornton is 6 feet tall today, the average height is 5 feet, 11 inches to 6 feet. So, he's about average; and in the film, many of the players around him were taller and bigger. The role called for someone in the range of 6 feet and 4 to 5 inches. The 1960s John Wayne Alamo seemed to be more accurate in the physical proportions of its cast.
One last historical sidestep in the movie has to do with the end of the battle. A few months before the Alamo, Texans had defeated the Mexican army and driven it out of Texas. The Mexican soldiers apparently were wary of the determined and feisty Texans who were defending their land. So, as the last of the Alamo defenders fell, the Mexican officers couldn't restrain their troops who walked among the fallen defenders and continued shooting and bayoneting the bodies. Perhaps that would be a little too much realism or accuracy to show in a film that appears to be a "feel-good" tale about the past.