Hidalgo Review

I frankly don't see a lot of westerns that I am truly enthralled by. They tend to be formulaic and come a dime a dozen. On the occasion that I do find a western that I enjoy, I usually like it a lot. In the case of Hidalgo (2004), I thought it was a really fun story that goes outside of the usual western setting of the western wilds of the United States and into the Middle East. It's far from perfect, but it hits the right notes.

Held yearly for centuries, the Ocean of Fire--a 3,000 mile survival race across the Arabian desert--was a challenge restricted to the finest Arabian horses ever bred, the purest and noblest lines, owned by the greatest royal families. In 1890, wealthy Sheik Riyadh (Omar Sharif) invited an American, Frank T. Hopkins (Viggo Mortensen), and his horse to enter the race for the first time. During the course of his career, Hopkins was a cowboy and dispatch rider for the U.S. cavalry--and had once been billed as the greatest rider the West had ever known. The Sheik puts his claim to the test, pitting the American cowboy and his mustang, Hidalgo, against the world's greatest Arabian horses and Bedouin riders--some of whom are determined to prevent a foreigner from finishing the race. For Frank, the Ocean of Fire becomes not only a matter of pride and honor, but a race for his very survival as he and his horse attempt the impossible.

So, Frank Hopkins himself was a real person who was known as a legendary distance rider, claimed to have won four hundred races, and was recognized by his contemporaries as supporting the preservation of the mustang breed of horse. His life and story were the inspiration for Hidalgo, and Disney marketed the film as "based on a true story," although subsequent investigations have failed to find any evidence of such a race. Hopkins was known for telling exaggerated stories about himself, even claiming that he was born in 1865, which also was never backed up with any proof. History buffs who care about accuracy are probably going to get all bent out of shape many times in this movie. It should be abundantly clear this is a made up story for the sake of telling a fun story.

And what a fun story it is! There's lots of gunplay, horse racing, saving damsels in distress, outrunning a sandstorm, swordplay, political intrigue, clashes of cultures, and outwitting scoundrels. On the one hand, the story is formulaic and does a lot of things that other westerns do. But on the other hand, I think it does a lot of these formulaic elements very well and shows us some good examples of these sorts of elements. I don't want to praise the movie as unique simply for being a western that is mostly set in Middle East, but that is what it is and I can't think of another movie that has done that.

This adds some interesting aspects to the movie; rather than clashing or fighting with Native Americans, we're clashing and fighting with Sheiks and Arabs. That's not a huge change of pace, just a different people and culture. Unlike older westerns which demonize Native Americans, the Middle Easterners here are depicted as honorable people with a rich tradition who happen to have some unscrupulous individuals who violate and make exception to those honorable values and traditions for their own personal gain. So, pretty much like every culture out there. As I have little experience with that part of the world I can't comment on the accuracy of their depiction in this movie, and I hope the historical accuracy is not an indicator if cultural accuracy.

This isn't just a western, it's also a horse movie. Horse enthusiasts will likely be enthralled by the relationship between Hopkins and his horse, Hidalgo. The main horse and Viggo Mortensen actually have a chemistry between them. Mortensen liked and got along with that horse so well that he later bought the horse. There are some great lines in the movie that are perfectly "western" and perfectly "horse movie." The damsel in distress asks Hopkins "Why do I feel that you truly see me when others do not?" to which Hopkins replies, "Well, my horse likes ya." Classic.

Whether or not the events depicted in Hidalgo really happened to Hopkins, it's still a fun story. Please ignore any tiresome scolds who complain that the movie is not really based on fact. I mean, duh. The story is full of some likable characters, plenty of action, a search for identity and honor, and some pretty impressive horses. If there's a downside to any of this, I'm not seeing it. Sure, it's formulaic. Yeah, it doesn't stray far from western movie tropes. But it's a fun movie, and I liked it. I recommend seeing this film if you enjoy westerns or simply love horses. Hidalgo is worth having a copy of if you fall in that demographic. It does get rather violent, so it's not something to watch with younger children present.  I already have a copy of this on my shelves; it's fun to take out and watch every now and again.

What's your favorite "horse movie?" Comment below and let me know!

Funny Girl Movie Review

It used to be the case where watching a big budget, major motion picture was a highly cultural event. Theater attendees would probably dress up like they would for a night at the opera, the movie would have overture before the opening credits, an intermission, and fully orchestrated exit music. Ben-Hur (1959) is an example of this, as is Funny Girl (1968). Ben-Hur was an epic tale which deserved such presentation. Funny Girl, though it was good, didn’t seem to have a big enough story to justify its production costs.

Funny Girl is loosely based on the life and career of Broadway and film star and comedienne Fanny Brice (Barbra Streisand). Set just prior to and following the First World War, the awkward “New Yawker” Fanny Brice fast-talks her way into show business, certain that she’s destined to be “The Greatest Star.” She is later hired as a dramatic singer by impresario Flo Ziegfeld (Walter Pidgeon). Unable to follow orders to play drama, she turns her role in a “Beautiful Bride” tableau into a laugh riot by dressing herself up as an extremely pregnant newlywed. This stunt turns her into an overnight star and the toast of Broadway. Her comedic public image hides her imperfect private life as the wife of big-time gambler Nick Arnstein (Omar Sharif). Nick at first finds it amusing to be referred to as “Mr. Brice,” but he begins to resent his wife’s fame and fortune and starts taking foolish risks with other people’s money.

In general, I enjoy musicals. Musicals have to be crafted very meticulously and carefully. Musicals can go one of two ways; they either have meaningful songs and musical numbers that complement the tone of the story and develop the characters well, or they rely too much on fun musical numbers that have nothing to do with the story or characters, thus weakening the film. Funny Girl seems to fall in the latter category. The songs are alright, but they don’t really modify the story or move it forward. Funny Girl has a bland romantic story with almost illogical vaudeville interludes here and there. Only a couple of them reflect what is happening in the story or to the characters, the rest are just filler that does nothing but reemphasize the fact that Brice does theater.

Funny Girl was Barbra Streisand’s first film role, and she did so well that she won an Academy Award for Best Actress. That is pretty much where the good acting ends in this film. All the supporting characters are very dull, predictable, and poorly acted. They’re almost mechanical in their delivery. I enjoy a good romantic story, but this was just dreadful melodrama. Streisand, by contrast, blows them all out of the water and steals the show. She really makes everyone who isn’t Barbra Streisand look like a petty supporting character. Streisand doesn’t just sing these songs, she acts them. She is expressive, has excellent comedic timing, and is genuinely fun to watch.

It seems strange to say that a movie looked too good for what it was, but that is the case for Funny Girl. The sets were huge, elaborate, and detailed. Even if the set was used only once or twice, it was still too big for the action that was occurring onscreen. For example, the scene when Fanny and Nick finally have a chance to talk for the first time there is a huge, expansive set they stroll around while talking. They are the only ones on set, no background action to capture, and the actors don’t move all that much. It looks okay, I suppose, but it really draws attention to the fact that they are on a set and the production has lots of money to spare. There are also elaborate, sweeping camera shots and wide angles used to captivate events that just aren’t that grandiose. There’s a scene that shows us one of Fanny’s first stage performances, but the camera is so far back away from the stage itself we see less of what she is doing and more of the elaborate set in the peripherals. The movie almost seems to be trying to show us how much money went into the production rather than tell us a story.

Funny Girl isn’t necessarily bad, just over-produced, over-photographed, and really long. During the second act, there are fewer musical numbers and the pace of the movie slows down considerably. This really draws attention to the small scope the movie has and emphasizes the leaden melodrama and poor acting of everyone who isn’t Barbra Streisand. Streisand really is stunning in this film, and makes the whole thing worth watching; I can’t praise her enough for her acting job in Funny Girl, it’s so expressive and full of quirky subtleties that are uniquely hers. This was, of course, before she became one of the most obnoxiously egocentric entertainers in the world. Overall, I didn’t enjoy Funny Girl very much and if not for Streisand, I would have flat out hated it. If you enjoy watching movies that are pretty, have fun musical numbers, and aren’t bothered by poor acting, you’ll likely love this movie and I’d recommend seeing it. If you find extravagant camera work visually distracting, unjustified musical numbers annoying, and weak romantic stories boring, I’d steer clear of this one.

Do you have a favorite Barbra Streisand movie? What is it and why do you like it so much? Comment below and tell me why!