Back
This is not really a remake of the original. And it’s not reminiscent of Oliver Stone, meaning history is not rewritten in the process. In all honesty this is a daring attempt at bringing history to life and having the confidence that audiences will stay and watch it all. The first thirty minutes is rather boring in context – never wanting to become an all-out action film. I admire Hancock for staying with history in that sense.
And yet, I think that that boredom was there for a better purpose. It shows the tensions of the men lying in wait for a battle in which they are greatly outnumbered. And as a result, one of the triumphs of “The Alamo” is that it very effectively captures the loneliness of the men who fought in the Alamo; the sheer terror in the eyes of those men who didn’t have a prayer of winning the battle.
The directing is surprisingly well-done. After “The Rookie” (another excellent film), Hancock’s eye for epic size took me by storm. He’s able to establish small character status, and still keep our mind set on the oncoming massacre. The cinematography and score both seem professional, but in a way that isn’t cliché of the old westerns. Both are far off from generic, but close to very original.
I also enjoyed the characters. Dave Crockett is played by Thorton in a provoking performance that not only pays tribute to that legendary man, but proves to be one of the most versatile and entertaining characters of the entire film. Jason Patric is good too as Jim Bowie, but nothing so great that deserves more recognition.
The only downfall of “The Alamo” is it’s pacing. We’re left sort through four main characters in different timeframes, in different places, with different motives. Somewhere in there, we come to a slow down that lasts all too long. *** ½