http://news.mysanantonio.com/story.cfm?xla=saen&xlb=700&xlc=1083008&xld=700
Web abuzz over delay on 'Alamo'
By Joe O'Connell
Special to the Express-News
Web Posted : 11/12/2003 12:00 AM
"On December 25, 2003, you will never forget."
That heading for a teacher's guide to Disney's upcoming "The Alamo" has new meaning for some fans after the film's delayed release: They'll never forget that popcorn-munching Californians messed with Texas.
The official Disney press release cites a need by director John Lee Hancock for "additional time to complete this great movie" as the reason for the delay from Christmas Day to an unspecified day in April.
One Hollywood insider requesting anonymity had a more pessimistic outlook: Disney has viewed the film as "damaged goods" from the day Ron Howard dropped out as director, reportedly because he wanted to make an R-rated film, instead of the PG-13 version ultimately created.
Another view has Disney backing off from a very competitive Christmas film schedule that includes the final chapter of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, "The Last Samurai," "Master and Commander" and "Cold Mountain."
But the buzz among fans who crowd online film discussion boards points to the only two "Alamo" test screenings, one in Pasadena and the other in Orange County. Both in California, some Texas fans are quick to note.
"They were divided," said Harry Knowles, founder of the Austin-based Web site Ain't It Cool News, which has built a reputation through "spy" reports from test screenings. "Some people hated every character in the thing but liked the battle. Other people hated everything but liked Billy Bob's portrayal of Crockett."
Comparisons have been made to "Pearl Harbor," another Disney epic that began with high hopes and a big budget, saw that budget cut back and then faced criticism for a plot that was boring and misdirected. The "Alamo" budget dropped from a reported $125 million to an official tally from Disney of $90 million at the end of filming.
Like "Pearl Harbor," Disney has invested heavily in "The Alamo," including commissioning a novelization of the script and producing a separate film about the making of the movie.
Knowles received more than a dozen e-mails from viewers who attended each "Alamo" press screening. Their complaints revolved around the film's focus, almost three-hour length and pace.
"I generally don't mind long movies, but this one stuck out as long," one Pasadena test-screener who calls himself Liquid Havok wrote to Knowles. "I won't ruin any of the movie but suffice to say this film throws you into the Alamo pretty quick. Not a lot of exposition but what is there is a bit confusing even for one like myself who is moderately versed in Alamo lore. And then the waiting begins."
That waiting period was all about building up the characters' back stories, the viewer wrote.
"Because of the amount of main characters, all are a bit thin and can quickly be reduced to stereotypes or cliches," he wrote. "Jim Bowie was a lot like Doc Holliday from 'Tombstone,' except less drunk. Travis was the typical young rookie officer forced to be a hero. In an attempt to 'play down' Crockett, I fear they have almost ruined him."
An Orange County test-screener who calls himself Sir Whoopee wrote to Knowles that the first hour of the movie could be cut in half to remove "fluff."
"Two of my friends literally fell asleep during this section of the film," the viewer wrote. "It was really sad. It's not until the first cannon fires that the film gets interesting."
Knowles, who said he read many of the early drafts of the script as it went through a series of different writers, believes the problem comes with the film's effort to show both sides of the battle.
The movie "didn't have a focus," he said. "When you're telling the story of the Alamo, you kind of have to choose a side. When you don't, dramatically no one cares who wins or loses."
Knowles said the only certainty for "The Alamo" at this point is change.
"They're probably exploring radical changes, maybe reshoots," he said. "A totally different and better film can come out of that, or something worse."
Visitors to Thealamofilm.com, a Web site run by 23-year-old Brownsville resident and former University of Texas film student Nick Medrano, have been less critical of the film, concentrating their complaints on its length.
"The people who wrote me said they loved it," said Medrano, who spent six months on the set as an extra. "They said it was emotionally involving. They did care for the characters."
Medrano thinks the delay may be a blessing.
"I'm happy it got delayed," he said. "Maybe this way John Lee (Hancock) doesn't have to worry about all of the pressure of 'Lord of the Rings.' I think his heart is where a lot of ours are as Alamo fans."
A test-screener going by the name Zephyr wrote Medrano that Thornton gives the film's finest performance as a "country fellow, tired of the publicity and the limelight and looking for a new opportunity."
But Zephyr questioned the continuation of the story beyond the Alamo battle and on to the Battle of San Jacinto, where Sam Houston defeats Santa Anna.
"This was obviously added to make the film less of a 'downer,' but does cause the deadly question to enter the audience's mind, 'How much more is there to this film?'"
Thealamofilm.com's discussion boards are buzzing with talk of the delay, including such California-bashing as "Too many freaks and crazies out there!"
The delay clearly will involve some recutting, and possibly reshoots. That would be good news for those who benefited from the six-month shoot both at the Alamo set constructed on more than 50 acres near Dripping Springs and on an 840-acre ranch in Bastrop where the Battle of San Jacinto lensed.
At the family-owned Bert & Ernie's General Store just down the road from the Alamo set, Sandra Soto misses the extra income the film brought and holds out hope reshoots will again pump up business.
"It was kind of like when you get a bonus at work," Soto said of the constant stream of "Alamo" workers including Thornton who made their way in for sodas, beer and tacos. "We didn't turn into millionaires, but we got a little bonus."
Store patrons aren't pleased with the delay.
"They're like, 'What a bummer.' A lot of people were looking forward to going to the premiere," she said. "One guy said there's never ever been a good Dennis Quaid movie. People say they should have stuck with Russell Crowe" as Sam Houston.
Would-be gawkers often stop in asking how to get to the set, which remains in place behind a locked gate on private land.
"I tell them they moved it to Bastrop," Soto joked.
The San Antonio village and Alamo sets didn't relocate to Bastrop, but the filming came to Jim Small's family ranch when a Piney Woods locale was needed for the Battle of San Jacinto.
"I'm real disappointed," Small said. "I thought the movie would be a blockbuster. Well, they've got four months to work with. Maybe they can clean it up."
Since filmmakers pulled up stakes, Small has reinvented his land into a nature ranch. A small cabin available for rent is stocked with props left over from the film.
"They made it worth our while," Small said. "Besides the payments, they made good improvements. They put in electrical service and five phone lines, and they covered the road with clay."
Small also spent plenty of time on the set, watching the action and snapping more than 400 photos.
"Some of the scenes with Dennis Quaid didn't look that great to me, but the battle scene was incredible," he said.
Filmmakers erected two towering cranes and attached a cable between them capable of zooming a camera over the soldiers' heads at 60 mph, Small said.
That also led to what some test-screeners called the most impressive shot in the film: a bird's-eye view of a cannonball streaking across the sky.
11/12/2003
) but the idea of him begging for his life won't go over. So it's good to read Billy Bob deny that.
