Most of you are probably familiar with the famed historical phrase; "Remember the Alamo!" When referring to the new Disney film, I would reply with a resounding "NO!"

Actually, The Alamo (which at one point, had director Ron Howard and actor Russell Crowe attached) was originally slated for release last November, but for whatever reason (the studio claims it just wasn't ready), the film was held back. It's also been reported that the initial cut of the picture was in the neighborhood of three hours, but the final product is two hours and fifteen minutes.

This war picture depicts the final days leading up to the infamous last stand at the Alamo, as well as presenting the historical event itself. As the movie opens, we are introduced to the men who would ultimately be in charge of the military operation on that dark day in Texas. William Travis (Patrick Wilson) is a high ranking officer who's recently left his wife, and is given the rather daunting task of filling in for a superior officer at the Alamo. Right out of the gate, he creates friction amongst the men with his abrasive nature. James Bowie (Jason Patric) is a brash but loyal rival officer, a man who appears to have the respect of all the soldiers. When these two high ranking officers meet, they immediately clash - making for incredible tension on an already intense day. As fate would have it, Bowie becomes deathly ill prompting Travis to re-evaluate his way of thinking so that he might connect with his troops and overcome seemingly insurmountable odds in the form of the approaching Mexican army.

Most of The Alamo is a set up for the big battle. Director John Lee Hancock (The Rookie) and his screenwriters Leslie Bohem and Stephen Gaghan spend much of the film introducing us to historical figures like William Travis, James Bowie and Davey Crockett so that when the final battle occurs, we the audience will have invested some sort of emotional attachment. Unfortunately, that never really happens.

Patrick Wilson is cold and distant as William Travis. I would have been fine with that had there been some sort of transformation in this character. I get the distinct impression that there was at some point, but it was lost in the editing room. As it stands, we never see that gradual bond that develops between Travis and his men. There is one point in the picture when William seems to garner some respect through his actions following a canon attack on The Alamo, but that's it. I was irritated by the lack of development in this character. I remember being extremely moved by Matthew Broderick's growth in the movie Glory, because in that picture, we really experienced his slow but powerful connection with his troop. That sort of camaraderie is sorely lacking in The Alamo.

Jason Patric has turned in some outstanding performances through his career (see After Dark, My Sweet, Your Friends and Neighbors and Narc) but here, he falls a little flat. His James Bowie is lacking in personality.
Dennis Quaid (hamming it up with a deep voice) is not on screen enough to be all that effective. Again, it appears that much of his screen time as Sam Houston wound up on the cutting room floor.

Billy Bob Thornton is a breath of fresh air as a very human Davy Crockett. He's lively and delivers his dialogue with a kind of glee that is extremely refreshing, particularly in this picture. Midway through the film, he gives a monologue that could have been incredibly silly, but thanks to his expert delivery and raw emotional power, the scene really works. Above all, I liked that Thornton played this character simply as a man and not a mythic hero.

I have to tell you that, save for Billy Bob Thornton's Davy Crockett, I really didn't find myself caring for any of these characters. I didn't like their attitudes and I didn't find them particularly heroic. And somehow, by the end of this picture, the battle at The Alamo seemed nearly irrelevant. It was just a springboard for the actual defeat of the Mexican army which took a mere eighteen minutes under the command of Sam Houston. I'm certainly not implying that this was the case in real life. Clearly, this moment in history was much bigger and much more important than the movie suggests.

Director John Lee Hancock deserves props for his restraint. The battle carnage in this picture is much less graphic than in other films that deal with combat, and he seems to be going for a realistic approach when re-creating the battle sequences. But at some point, I just started to feel that the restrained nature wasn't intentional. I really began to get the impression that Mr. Hancock bit off more than he could chew, and wasn't up to the challenge. The battle sequences here should have been much more grand and I certainly could have done without that Happy Gilmore style cannonball P.O.V. shot. The Alamo would have greatly benefited from a larger scope. Seriously folks, it's a bigger story than what I saw up there on the screen.

Unfortunately, this movie just never really comes alive. This is an important event to many people to be sure, but this film doesn't do history justice. Perhaps we'll get an extended cut on DVD that fills in the numerous blanks, and makes this story a richer, fuller, more emotionally moving experience. As it stands, you're better off forgetting this particular Alamo