|
I have admitted before and will admit again. I might love good artistic cinema, but there's nothing like a bit of good
escapist fun (case in point: 'Pirates'). I like Jerry Bruckheimer. A lot. He's cool. 'Hidalgo' is no Bruckheimer film
(and not just because he had nothing to do with it) but it's good clean escapist fun. I admit, the film is silly. It's positively
dripping in thick gooey cheese, but come on now, do you think they could have done this movie differently? Well, yeah, they
could have, but it would have totally been a different film, and probably gotten more flack than it did if it had been different.
There are many mistakes here and much cheese, not to mention the acting is a little overdone, but I like this film because
it's fun. And it's interesting how the story is presented. First big issue with this film is the ending. There
wasn't much of a surprise that Frank won the race, because in the trailer for this film it shows him winning!!!!! I'm not
kidding. It's not the film's fault, because the tension and suspense is there; here he is against two amazing race horses,
Hidalgo is sick and on his last leg, plus Frank is running out of steam. The few minutes leading up to the end are depressing;
the horse almost dies!! So if I had just seen this film without having seen the trailer, I would have been on the edge of
my seat wondering who would win. But the trailer blew the ending. Nice going, guys. The very final minutes of the film
drag this film down as well. There's about five minutes of mustangs running free on the plains before the credits roll.
It's pretty at first, and nice to look at, but after about a minute the horses are still running and your thoughts are probably
similar to, 'This is boring'. Editing, my friends, is good. The film itself is over two hours, but unless you really don't
like it, it doesn't feel that long (at least it didn't to me). There's enough here to keep you interested, and the race and
shots of long tedious walking in the desert is intercut with scenes of a break at camp and Jazeera's rescue, so you don't
get too sick of seeing the same scene over and over. This is an adventure, and it really has that adventure, epic feel to
it. The plot doesn't get too slow or bog down with these plot branches, although the rescue subplot, while fun, was a big
branch away from the main plot itself. I know the story is reportedly based upon the life of real cowboy Frank
T. Hopkins, and I also know that this story, and his whole life, are highly disputed. According to history, this film, or
the story that this film tells, is really part of his life's story. But the film presents it as more of a legend rather than
it being true. Anyone who has looked up Frank Hopkins knows the controversy around him and knows that he's mostly a legend,
and that he probably lied about his Indian heritage, his fame as a long distance horse racer, and his competing in and actually
winning the race presented in the film. But just as there are historians who say he's a liar, there are those who say that
there's more fact here than fiction. Yes, I'm sure that elaboration has become an issue with the story, but what would you
expect? I've heard many sides of the story, one that says everything is a lie, another that says Hopkins did race in the
Arabian race and won (I've also heard that this was an actual race held annually in Arabia and that it was extremely dangerous;
but I've also heard that no such race ever took place), and both that he was a racer and wasn't, and that he was part Indian
and that he wasn't. History certainly has it's problems. Some things are well documented, other things are not. This leads
to myths and legends and people at odds over what's true and what's not. And even if something is documented, who wrote it
down, and what if only one or two documents say something to be true, but others say it to be false? That's the problem here;
Mr. Hopkins' life probably wasn't that well documented or known, so who's to say that what he claimed was true or not? I
notice that this sort of accuracy problems happens most in early history, but it certainly happens in more recent history
as well (just look at the story of the Alamo). I've looked up Frank Hopkins, but I'm not an historian, and I don't know the
person that well to make any judgements. Maybe he was lying, maybe he wasn't. I can't and won't judge, and neither does
this film/ The director himself said that while he believed the story, it was indeed only a legend, and he couldn't judge
on whether or not it really happened. The film doesn't take the story too seriously; it merely presents the story so that
we can watch a fun movie. You decide what you believe. There are a lot of cheesy moments in the film (like Frank
winning the race and when he says good-bye to the shiekh and Jazeera). But in a couple of those moments, cheese is ok. Especially
in the beginning with the Wounded Knee massacre, it's ok to have some cheese. There's definitely an element of the Western
in this film. I won't say that it is a Western, but it's a branch of the genre. Frank is a Westerner, but the West is dying.
The Indians are being removed from the country and many people who once called the West home are reduced to hanging around
with Buffalo Bill (which was actually common; the character of Chief Eagle Horn is based on Sitting Bull, who joined Cody's
WIld West show after his people were defeated by the whites). Frank has lost his friends, his family (the Indians), and Cody
and his show are all he has left. That is, until the shiekh's representatives come to visit with a proposal. Frank has nothing
to lose so he accepts. He goes halfway around the world to find himself, and if that's what you must do to discover who you
are, then so be it (I will tell you, I had a similar experience of travelling far overseas and then discovering myself and
who I was; travel will do wonders for you). When he returns he finds the West greatly changed, and realizes that he must
change too. But there's still a feel of freedom and hope which the West represents at the end of the film. Things have changed,
but they will still be the same, in some ways (most notably here, in the wild horses, who perhaps symbolize the West in their
own way). While the story of Frank Hopkins might not be real and might be a legend here, the story of the West that we are
given is very real. It's also interesting that there are no real villains in the film, except in the plot branch about Lady
Davenport. The Indians in the beginning are portrayed as victims of the changing times, and while during the massacre the
whites are definitely the bad guys, Frank and Cody and the others aren't. Cody is interesting because he's not good but he's
not bad. His show is biased and portrays a false picture of the West, but he himself is kind to his Indian showmen and is
a good man (despite his misguided views on the West and the situation there). This again is historically correct. So while
much of the film is ambiguous as to whether or not it's real, part of it is very real. The thing is, you can't prove one
way or another. So to those of you who will watch this and say, 'That's so bogus! That never happened!'......Prove it!!!!
You can't. And neither can I. So back off. Cut it out.
'Hey, ho, the king has arrived....calm down, my people.'
Acting wise there are problems. Much of the acting is overdone (Jazeera, Lady Davenport, Aziz) but some of it is very
good. Viggo Mortensen is quite good as Frank Hopkins. He brings a Clint Eastwood-esque quietness and calmness to the character,
but he's kind and gentle and shy, unsure of himself and not overly cocky. Mr. Mortensen is honest in his role here and plays
it well. Omar Sharif as the shiekh is a lot of fun. He's obssessed with the West and the stories he reads, even if they're
false. He loves cowboys and is thrilled by Frank. Mr. Sharif has such charisma on screen and a commanding presence as the
shiekh, but he also adds a boyish glee to the character with regards to Frank and his cowboy ways. I liked the scene where
he quietly freaks out about Frank's Colt; you can see the held back excitment in his face as he realizes that Frank has a
Colt pistol. Mr. Sharif is a joy to watch here. The man who plays the overstuffed prince is good as well; he tries so hard
to be a hard boiled tough guy but it's so obvious that he's a pushover. He's a good man really. His is a good character.
There are some problems with the film, such as continuity issues and, I have been told, historical accuracies. But for
what it's worth, it's an exciting film and it's fun. Frank's young slave boy is really a cute little kid. And that horse.....Hidalgo
is absolutely gorgeous. I want him. I admire how the focused a lot on the horse. He's a character here, not just some prop
or an animal needed solely for the story. The horse has a personality and you can see it throughout the film. He's a very
smart horse; you can see it in his eyes. There's such chemistry between Viggo and the horse; the director did very well to
establish the relationship between the characters and make it real. Hidalgo isn't just there for scenery; he's a person,
too. This is commendable; I'm sure there was a risk that the horse would fade to become secondary to Frank, but no. They
are equals. I can't think of another animal movie with such a bond between human and animal, and any film which makes the
animal a real character, not just a prop (I know about 'Babe' and 'Charlotte's Web', those don't count because the main characters
are all animals and it's about an animal, not a person). I give props to director Joe Johnston for his work with the horse.
Speaking of scenery, it's lovely to look at. Well, as lovely as sand can be. There are some excellent shots of the desert
and the colors used and camera angles and filming done certainly give a feeling desolation and emptyness in the desert. You
really feel the hot sun at times and feel like the characters have been ages in the wilderness. Coloring also helps enhance
this hot, dry, empty feeling of the desert. Good job.
If you're expecting some jaw dropping or thought provoking artsy film then go away and find something else. If you want
a solid true adventure film then pick this one. It's not great, it's nothing to sing praises about, but it's a good film,
fun to watch and fun to look at. While there's much to ponder and perhaps gripe about (depending on who you are) there's
also much to like and talk positively about. This isn't a favorite of mine but you might like it anyways. If you like Westerns
like I do I recommend this because of the variation on Western films and themes here. You probably won't want to watch it
again and again, but it's worth looking at.
Best moment: The start of the race; how thrilling is it to watch a couple hundred horses running as fast as they can?
There's nothing like racing horses to get the spirit going.
Worst moment: The very end; I love horses and watching them run free is fine for a moment or two, but five minutes? Come
on now. I also didn't get the scene in the bar where Frank punches that other racer; what was that about, and what was with
the coin toss?
Best quote: Buffalo Bill: 'You've heard of them....Frank Hopkins and his horse Hidalgo!' Frank: 'Jacka**!' (as Hidalgo
comes running out of the tent without him; they proceed to perform their act with Frank drunk as a skunk yelling profanities
at his horse the entire time)....I laugh every time I watch this scene.
Why you should see it: It's fun, really, and there are some good strong actors here who do very well. It's also an interesting
take on the Western.
Why you shouldn't: It's not great. There are issues with the actual story, whether or not it's real, some of the acting
isn't that good, there are numerous technical issues, and it's full of cheese. Some people might find it boring as well and
might get sick of the 'you can do anything, find yourself/who you truly are' message (even though it's very, very subtle).
|
