MOVIE REVIEW 'The Alamo' shapes up as a big dud

The battle scenes lack excitement, and the dialogue is dreary.
By MILAN PAURICH
VINDICATOR CORRESPONDENT
Originally scheduled for a Christmas '03 release, Disney's "The Alamo" finally staggers into theaters Easter weekend like somebody's idea of an April Fool's Day joke.
Stripped of 45 minutes from its original three-hour running time, director John Lee Hancock's still-wildly overlong dirge transforms the events that took place in San Antonio, Texas, 168 years ago into the world's most expensive classroom instructional video.
Staggeringly dull, pokily paced and indifferently acted, this colossal dud should have been rerouted to TV, where it belongs. Considering the ratings troubles over at ABC (Disney's sister company) these days, it might have passed muster as a nonsweeps miniseries.
Puny on screen
Despite a reported $100-million-plus budget, this "Alamo" looks downright puny on the big screen thanks to its lack of artistic vision and filmmaking smarts.
Hancock, who made a serviceable directing debut with "The Rookie" two years ago, was clearly not up to the task of shepherding a big-bucks project of this sweep and magnitude. A last-minute replacement for Ron Howard, who bowed out after Disney refused to let him make an R-rated movie, Hancock doesn't have the navigational skills to make this dusty slice of American history relevant to contemporary audiences or exciting as old-fashioned spectacle.
Even the battle scenes -- which are about all that's left of "The Alamo" in its current form -- are curiously lackluster. Of course, turning up four months after "The Return of the King" and "The Last Samurai," both of which featured some of the most spectacular combat sequences in movie history, doesn't help matters any.
No point of view
The screenplay credited to Hancock, Stephen Gaghan and Leslie Bohem never bothers establishing a point of view, rendering the whole thing essentially pointless. Why retell this story at all unless you're going to add some much-needed historical perspective?
All the familiar figures (Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie, Colonel William Travis, Sam Houston and General Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana) from previous Alamo re-enactments make an appearance and are allotted one defining character trait apiece.
The folksy Crockett (Billy Bob Thornton, who gives the film's only truly memorable performance) has a wry sense of humor; alcoholic Bowie (Jason Patric) is a physical wreck; windbag Houston (Dennis Quaid) has some, uh, absolutely terrifying facial hair; blue-blood Travis (Patrick Wilson) is a stick in the mud; and foppish tyrant Santa Ana (Emilio Echevarrio) values his fine crystal china more than his army.
The dialogue is all dreary expository and/or declamatory stuff that sounds as though it's being read off cue cards; none of the soldiers -- American or Mexican -- are individualized; and the siege of the Alamo consists mostly of dress extras running around in circles. Not exactly edge-of-your-seat stuff.
Crashing bore
Who would have guessed that this much-ballyhooed "Alamo" would turn out to be as much of a crashing bore as Ted Turner's notorious Civil War flicks, "Gettysburg" and "Gods and Generals"? Heck, even John Wayne's campy "Alamo" from 1960 was able to tell the same story in a more coherent and entertaining fashion.
Remember the Alamo. Forget this movie.
XWrite Milan Paurich at milanpaurich.com