- Review: John Wick 3 (C)
Scott Sycamore - Weekend Box Office
May 17 - 19 - Crowd Reports
Avengers: Endgame - Us
Box office comparisons - Review: Justice League (C)
Craig Younkin
Sneak Preview: "The Alamo"
By Lee Tistaert Published April 5, 2004
When I walked into the screening of The Alamo, I did not have high hopes, but I was also not really thinking about its potential quality possibilities. I wasn?t impressed by the film?s trailer and I?m not often a fan of period pieces, but I figured that whether or not it was good on any level, I?d simply let it reveal itself to me instead of getting boiled up about it beforehand.
It didn?t take long before this 135-minute picture started to lose me, and once it did, I was in for a long period of boredom. The film starts on a reasonable note, but soon we are simply presented with thin-knitted characters talking about unimportant matters. Roughly 75% of this movie is talk, and 25% of it is action, mostly just at the finale, and even that segment is not that stimulating.
I have not seen Master & Commander yet, but I fear that it?s more or less the same as this film ? a bombardment of people in costumes, offering big production values, a lot of dull conversations, and with the director not doing much to keep the tone fascinating, with a long running time.
Though Billy Bob Thornton is well cast as Davy Crockett, I didn?t think his character was as amusing or as interesting as meant to be, and I didn?t care what eventually happened to him (nor any of the other main characters). On the other hand, I felt that Jason Patric was miscast, as all I could think to myself every time I saw him was: ?Hi, I?m Jason Patric?.? Dennis Quaid also overacts his part, which had me on the verge of laughing a few times; but since he?s not a strong factor in the story, he didn?t hurt the film on a grand scale.
I?m not saying that The Alamo is a bad film, as my opinion of it is right around Gangs of New York (C+) and The Last Samurai (C+). The film scores points with its successful production designs and a few good performances, but other than that I found little to commend.
Afterwards director John Lee Hancock and producer Mark Johnson were there to discuss the journey that this film embarked on. Hancock started off by saying that a delayed film like this usually hints that something not good happened during production, forcing the filmmakers to convince the studio to supply more funding for re-shoots. He said that none of that happened with The Alamo, as not a single frame ever changed during post-production.
Rather, they were getting ready for a late 2003 theatrical release, but in order to qualify for the awards season, they were required to submit a reel of the film to organizations, and they were at the final stages of editing at that point. Since the final cut of the film wasn?t ready quite yet, they couldn?t submit the reel, and as the studio was looking for a release date, they couldn?t find an appropriate weekend where the film could fit in with the competition. As a result, they took their time with the editing and decided that a spring release would work in the film?s favor.
Initially, Ron Howard was set to direct The Alamo, and his intent was an R-rated, very violent and graphic film, with a similar visual feel as Traffic, including quick cuts in the editing. Then Hancock became interested in directing Alamo, and he said that he and Howard had a very friendly relationship when discussing their own views of this project. Hancock didn?t see this picture as an extreme action film and Howard wanted to go the opposite direction.
In the end, Howard was happy to simply produce it, which would give him the chance to direct The Missing instead. On a personal note, I would have loved to see what Howard would have done with this film, as after Hancock mentioned that, I was about ready to hit him (in a friendly manner) ? The Alamo is in dire need of a pulse.
In terms of casting, Hancock says he does have one possible weakness in his craft, and that is not having an instant desire go after superstars. He mentioned that for a film like this, the natural reaction is to get a big star who would probably be placed on the poster. Instead, he simply wanted to get good actors whose talents would fit the parts, as he didn?t want a superstar who you simply saw as a superstar. As a result, the film doesn?t necessarily have marquee names.
Mark Johnson mentioned that as producer on this project, it was sometimes a nightmare to think about everything, as on the average day of production there were nearly a thousand extras to feed throughout the day and to keep safe as well. He said that luckily nothing bad ever happened, which is rare for a film of this size and nature, and filming operations went fairly smoothly.
Regarding the MPAA, Hancock said that it wasn?t Disney?s decision to go for more of a friendly PG-13 rating, as he didn?t feel that the project required graphic material to make an impression. He was also more interested in the unique history surrounding the story, and wanted to fulfill this vision. The story was hitting notes from his childhood, since as a kid, he and a lot of friends used to play this story in their backyards, fighting with each other over who would play the role of Davy Crockett while playing cowboys and Indians.
That wrapped it up for the evening, and this coming week there is no screening, but the following week (April 12) they are showing Saved, which will be the next session I?ll be reporting on.
It didn?t take long before this 135-minute picture started to lose me, and once it did, I was in for a long period of boredom. The film starts on a reasonable note, but soon we are simply presented with thin-knitted characters talking about unimportant matters. Roughly 75% of this movie is talk, and 25% of it is action, mostly just at the finale, and even that segment is not that stimulating.
I have not seen Master & Commander yet, but I fear that it?s more or less the same as this film ? a bombardment of people in costumes, offering big production values, a lot of dull conversations, and with the director not doing much to keep the tone fascinating, with a long running time.
Though Billy Bob Thornton is well cast as Davy Crockett, I didn?t think his character was as amusing or as interesting as meant to be, and I didn?t care what eventually happened to him (nor any of the other main characters). On the other hand, I felt that Jason Patric was miscast, as all I could think to myself every time I saw him was: ?Hi, I?m Jason Patric?.? Dennis Quaid also overacts his part, which had me on the verge of laughing a few times; but since he?s not a strong factor in the story, he didn?t hurt the film on a grand scale.
I?m not saying that The Alamo is a bad film, as my opinion of it is right around Gangs of New York (C+) and The Last Samurai (C+). The film scores points with its successful production designs and a few good performances, but other than that I found little to commend.
Afterwards director John Lee Hancock and producer Mark Johnson were there to discuss the journey that this film embarked on. Hancock started off by saying that a delayed film like this usually hints that something not good happened during production, forcing the filmmakers to convince the studio to supply more funding for re-shoots. He said that none of that happened with The Alamo, as not a single frame ever changed during post-production.
Rather, they were getting ready for a late 2003 theatrical release, but in order to qualify for the awards season, they were required to submit a reel of the film to organizations, and they were at the final stages of editing at that point. Since the final cut of the film wasn?t ready quite yet, they couldn?t submit the reel, and as the studio was looking for a release date, they couldn?t find an appropriate weekend where the film could fit in with the competition. As a result, they took their time with the editing and decided that a spring release would work in the film?s favor.
Initially, Ron Howard was set to direct The Alamo, and his intent was an R-rated, very violent and graphic film, with a similar visual feel as Traffic, including quick cuts in the editing. Then Hancock became interested in directing Alamo, and he said that he and Howard had a very friendly relationship when discussing their own views of this project. Hancock didn?t see this picture as an extreme action film and Howard wanted to go the opposite direction.
In the end, Howard was happy to simply produce it, which would give him the chance to direct The Missing instead. On a personal note, I would have loved to see what Howard would have done with this film, as after Hancock mentioned that, I was about ready to hit him (in a friendly manner) ? The Alamo is in dire need of a pulse.
In terms of casting, Hancock says he does have one possible weakness in his craft, and that is not having an instant desire go after superstars. He mentioned that for a film like this, the natural reaction is to get a big star who would probably be placed on the poster. Instead, he simply wanted to get good actors whose talents would fit the parts, as he didn?t want a superstar who you simply saw as a superstar. As a result, the film doesn?t necessarily have marquee names.
Mark Johnson mentioned that as producer on this project, it was sometimes a nightmare to think about everything, as on the average day of production there were nearly a thousand extras to feed throughout the day and to keep safe as well. He said that luckily nothing bad ever happened, which is rare for a film of this size and nature, and filming operations went fairly smoothly.
Regarding the MPAA, Hancock said that it wasn?t Disney?s decision to go for more of a friendly PG-13 rating, as he didn?t feel that the project required graphic material to make an impression. He was also more interested in the unique history surrounding the story, and wanted to fulfill this vision. The story was hitting notes from his childhood, since as a kid, he and a lot of friends used to play this story in their backyards, fighting with each other over who would play the role of Davy Crockett while playing cowboys and Indians.
That wrapped it up for the evening, and this coming week there is no screening, but the following week (April 12) they are showing Saved, which will be the next session I?ll be reporting on.
