Review of The Alamo

Want to see the most historically accurate film ever made about the Alamo? This is it, so true to the facts that the final battle takes place entirely in the dark, ending just before dawn, as the actual fight did. Not only that, Crockett is captured alive and executed later, likely the case in real life. Strong production values give this a striking and unglamorous look. Best of all is Billy Bob Thornton, who probably comes closer to recreating the real Crockett than any other actor ever has. (Sorry, Duke . . Fess). So much for the good stuff. Jason Patric is as dull and listless as Bowie as he has been in every other movie he's ever made, and Dennis Quaid is hardly the right person to capture the great Sam Houston. You might guess that in the PC age (that's political correctness, not personal computers), the role of Juan Seguin, Spanish defender of the Alamo, would be made focal and given to a top Latino actor (Antonio Banderas?) but he's still on the sidelines and played by an unknown. The real downfall, though, is that in trying for historical accuracy (and succeeding), the filmmakers failed to bring this alive as drama. Just one quick example of how poorly thought out the film is: Susannah Dickinson and her infant child are focused on throughout the film, but they forgot to let viewers know that they both survived the fight - they simply disappear! And while the Alamo battle is well staged, the follow up fight at San Jacinto is absurdly abbreviated and so plays as an anti-climax. Perhaps if Ron Howard had directed, as originally planned, with Russell Crowe opposite Billy Bob, this might've been one of the great ones.