Good, Could have been Great

Rating: Null/10 (21 April 2004)

Ok, I've given myself some time to think about what it was that really bothered me about the film. I can't fault the performances; they were all excellent (would have liked more Juan Seguin). The slow time of the set-up to the battle also worked for me as there was some interesting character establishing moments. I think I enjoyed the film up until right before the big battle.
Now I know the difference between entertainment and history, however, so much was talked about this film being the "definitive" portrayal of events that I wanted a wee bit more accurate moments on screen. Length of the film did not seem to me a problem and these few key elements would not in-fact have required much more screen time.
*spoilers*
Several minor inaccuracies didn't bother me Travis left his wife for her infidelity, what's with the thatch roofs on the set, why are the cannon facing the main gate below ground and not on the ramp they are suppose to be, the well was finished in time as Santa Anna cut off the river flowing into the fort, etc) but I think these were important to the story:
*Travis also sent someone to meet with Santa Anna under parlay when the army arrived. His cannon shot was in answer to the terms of surrender with discretion, not a childish temper tantrum to Bowie
*Bowie and Neil had already made the decision to "die in these ditches" so it wasn't Travis's prompting of Bowie that makes him admit the place should be defended
*During the siege, the Texans didn't make only one sortie, but actually made several through out. In this film we just have people huddled down during cannonade.
*The lull that seems to be inspired by Crocket playing the fiddle and one upping the Mexican band, was in fact a part of Santa Anna's plan to lull the defenders into sleeping after over 10 days without sleep. He knew they would be slow to wake.
*Mexican soldiers shivered on the ground for more then 1/2 hour before the cry of "Viva Santa Anna" started going up, rousing the defenders before the actual assault began
*Come on guys, what about the defenders stopping 2 attacks so that the final one happened in light not darkness. We have one single assault caring the fort here, ignoring the 2 botched 1st attempts and the chance to display the bravery of the Mexicans having to cross the bloody ground 2 times
*If you are going to take from Pena's diary, it wasn't just Davy that surrendered/was captured
*What about the man who didn't stay? You can leave out the line if you want, but one man wasn't inspired by Travis to stay to the end. What about James Bonham coming back through the lines with word of Fannin not coming?
*Not a single mention of Goliad? Hello, almost 400 men shot in the back on Palm Sunday? Seems to me that the cry at San Jacinto was "Remember the Alamo . . . Remember Goliad".
*San Jacinto - the Mexicans weren't surprised by the Texans suddenly being there. They were camped facing each other, and waited for Siesta time to attack. Also Castillion was shot not clubbed when he crossed his arms. Santa Anna put on a disguise and tried to escape, his own men gave him away later when they recognized him.
*Santa Anna just a bit too much of a cartoon villain here. A little hard to believe this is the strong man who was elected again and again president of Mexico.
There, I've vented what bothered me. On the bright side the film does have great performances, surpasses all the other films in accuracy (still the above needle me), and the battle scenes are directed very well - VERY well for an inexperienced action director. In spite of my complaints, I look forward to the DVD, and hope it is the Director's cut - and may have a few of the above in it.