ALAMO

MOVIE REVIEW BY JON NELSON

Rarely in cinematic history has a film been produced that satisfies both historians and movie critics. “Alamo,” a 2004 effort by director John Lee Hancock (who also did some of the screenplay), was a box office flop. Entertainment Weekly only rated it a C+, while Rotten Tomatoes gave it a mere 29% favorable review. Other reviews were similarly mixed, and the film seems to have lapsed into obscurity. This is, as I will argue, a tragedy for Alamo is one of the most accurate and entertaining historical films ever made.

This is not the place for an in-depth summary of the plot; interested readers may consult any number of fairly recent books on the subject that are well-written and entertaining as well. Interestingly, many of the critics complained of some of the film’s alleged historical inaccuracies; to cite but one example, David Crockett’s demise is shown as an execution after the battle, (rather than early on in the fighting), when he had allegedly been captured and turned over to Santa Anna’s executioners. Certainly, this is disputable, although there is at least one major historical reference to this actually happening. But historical films rarely get every detail correct, and Hancock’s version, even if false, helps to make for a more interesting story line, as well as adding to the luster of the Crockett legend.

To be sure, one could quibble about some other minor discrepancies, such as the fact that Juan Seguin is presented as quite the noble figure, when in fact he changed sides several times during the battle for Texas independence. And, while Crockett is shown playing “Listen to the Mockingbird” on his fiddle, that song wasn’t written until 1855. But none of this is important; certain liberties must always be taken when producing history based films, and those done herein do not distract from the film in any way; indeed, they make for a more interesting story. Trivialities aside, most of the film is in fact extremely true to the historical facts, at least as far as can be ascertained after nearly two centuries.

The acting is superb throughout. Billy Bob Thornton as Crockett, Dennis Quaid as Sam Houston, Jason Patric as Jim Bowie, and newcomer Patrick Wilson as William Barrett Travis all deliver Oscar-deserving performances. I was particularly impressed with Wilson, who brought Travis to life in a way that no earlier film version has been able to do. The film also shows Crockett to be a far more complex and interesting historical character than the traditional image of a backwoods frontiersman that so many schoolchildren (and television viewers from the 1950s) have been taught. Crockett, one of American history’s most intriguing characters, is shown as a man caught between two worlds: the traditional one as he himself had created in his largely fanciful “autobiography,” and the much more sophisticated individual who knows he can’t run away from certain death because to do so would tarnish his image forever. Alamo is masterful in its portrayal of these most interesting men.

Hancock and the producers are careful not to jump back and forth too often between time sequences, a technique that can serve to make a history-based movie unnecessarily hard to follow for the uninitiated. The flashbacks are few, but are necessary to illustrate essential foundations to the story line. Even though every pupil in American schools knows the story and that no one survives the battle (which is shown in the first scene for anyone who didn’t know the outcome), Hancock does an amazing job in creating suspense as the story moves forward to its inevitable outcome.

Alamo is by far the most accurate and entertaining film ever produced on the subject matter. The acting is superb. The sets, clothing, weaponry and other props are all handled with skill and accuracy. At once riveting and suspenseful, it succeeds at virtually every level. On a scale of one to ten, with ten being best, I would give it a 9.