I humble myself before God and there the list ends.

Rating: 2/10 (27 April 2005)

So, I really didn't like this film at all. I know that seems like there is nothing that I like lately, but for some very strange reason the quality of pictures seem to be diminishing rapidly. As I attempt to watch as much as I can from the video store wall, I cannot help but discover the poor nature of nearly everything Hollywood is releasing. The Alamo is no different. Here we have a group of men lost in a production befuddled film that would rather have the perfect "visionary" shot instead of actually telling a decent story. Creativity and originality seem to play second fiddle (pun is intended) to safe moments where our director could easily say "historically correct" instead of showing us any ounce of the truth. There had to be some darkness in that bottomless pit known as the Alamo, yet Hancock didn't seem to focus on that at all. I cannot help but wonder what type of film this would have been for Ron Howard and Russell Crowe to complete. Literally, this film felt like a second-hand thrift store. "B" actors filling in for table scraped parts that Crowe and Howard didn't want. Jason Patric, Patrick Wilson, Dennis Quaid, and Billy Bob just didn't seem to fit the mold that I was hoping to see. They did not accurately portray the "Wild West" as I was hoping to see. Instead, I felt I was watching this glorified account of death done by pretty actors that would give the ladies a reason to go to the theater.
Perhaps I am a bit to bitter about this film. I know that I should only dwell on the positive, but as each film progresses with poor results, it is hard to even see the positive. In fact, after the several films I have just watched I am nearly to the point of saying that Hollywood has gone completely to the dark side. I understand that his was a historical picture, but does that mean that creativity and originality are thrown out the window and into oncoming traffic? I would hope not, but apparently Hancock had other thoughts. From watching the special features of this film in which Hancock talks about the production of this film, he focuses so less on the actors performances and more on the actual set that you can only calculate why there was less attention to the actors and more on the scenery with the final product. As I watched the glorious overhead shots, the wondrous cannonball pan-through, and several other fantastical war scenes, I couldn't help but think to myself on how this should have been a story about people, not places. I do not think that Hancock accomplished this, or  really from the looks of it  tried.
With a central focus on the scenery and less on the acting, this creates a level of acceptable mediocrity with our actors. Honestly, there wasn't one that stood out in the crowd as a "riveting" performance. Each did their parts, brought some historical honesty to their lines, but overall it was Billy Bob being Billy Bob playing Davie Crockett and Jason Patric being Jason Patric playing Jim Bowie. I don't know if this makes sense or not, but I could not see these actors in their corresponding roles. I half-expected Dennis Quaid to come out of the forest at the end, ripping his shirt off, and pulling a Last of the Mohicans right there in front of God and his country  but he did not. In fact, he really didn't do anything except utter fragmented sentences from his dialogue that created this smart aura around him, when actually it was nothing more than Dennis Quaid being Dennis Quaid playing Mr. Houston. It was, to use a favorite word of mind, pathetic. I couldn't get the actors out of my mind. I couldn't see them in their respective roles, and this hurt the film. Directors have to realize that big names do not equal big film. Smaller, independent names could have carried this film on their shoulders better than these veterans did. Again, I cannot ponder enough about what the dynamics of this film would have been like if Randy Quaid were to jump aboard. Has the two brothers done anything together? I think The Alamo would have been a grand beginning.
Overall, this feature did not impress me. I know it bombed horribly at the box office, and now I can see why. There was nothing of value throughout the entire picture. From the uninsightful acting, the glamorized vision of war, and even the complete lack of structure (needing to focus more on man instead of nature), The Alamo proved that big budget can ruin a good history lesson. Sadly, I am not sure what could have saved this picture outside of a complete gutting. Have you ever walked into a room in which the walls were so moldy that you knew that you were going to have to rip them down to build a solid frame? Well, that was the feeling behind The Alamo. The walls to this picture were moldy and completely unstable leading to a flimsy frame. If only more time would have been spent working on the important elements instead of the "Hollywood" moments, this may have done a bit better. Until that time arrives, I do not recommend this film to anyone, especially those with any sort of passion for our nation's history. I do believe it would cause mass professor spitting and a rebirth of the duel.
Grade: * out of *****