Friday 5 May 2006

The Alamo (2004)

Let's be clear up front -- by and large I hate war movies and however well-done they may be, they will never convince me that there is a valid point behind the carnage.  This one was as depressing to me as any and the attempt at accuracy only made it seem slower and draggier.  The brave band may have defended the Alamo for thirteen days, but as one critic said, it felt more like the Hundred Years War!  And it's not exactly as if there could be any suspense engendered since we all know that everyone ended up dead.  Mind you, the classic version with John Wayne and Laurence Harvey was actually an hour longer.  Most of the cast in this version were undistinguished with the possible exception of Billy Bob Thornton as Davy Crockett.  Not that I could ever figure out why the Congressman from Tennessee was at the Alamo in the first place.  Dennis Quaid as General Sam Houston seemed quite content to sacrifice these men, expecially since his forces were later capable of defeating the Mexican army in eighteen minutes.  Would someone please tell me where the glory is in this scenario.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Santa Ana won at the Alamo simply by virtue of superior forces but his mistake was to behave dishonourably by killing all though he considered this suitable since
those at the Alamo were effectively invaders on Mexican soil.   Houston applied the lessons of history by letting Santa Ana overreach and divide his forces before
taking what was decisive action.   What was surprising, if the film was accurate,
was the totally insouciant way both those in the Alamo and Santa Ana guarded
their lines.   In view of this it is amazing that it took 13 days to overrun the Alamo.   As for the film, surely Jason Patric's dying man in bed deserves mention
of only to wonder why.
mgp 1449

Anonymous said...

Even the old tacky John Wayne version was better than this tripe.
http://journals.aol.co.uk/acoward15/andy-the-bastard/