I may have only seen this once since the first time seeing it on the big screen, and I really don’t know why but for its sheer length and weight for what, at a first glance, seems like a relatively simple and almost corny tale to tell (I mean: it’s literally about “getting back in the saddle”, lol …)

I’ve written about how much I love the girl and horse subgenre, possibly more than any other kind of movie, and what I realised to my surprise watching this one this time is, it might be the best of the bunch, because of the huge void it places between the girl and the horse that only makes their bond more beautiful in the end. It might sound silly that I’d forget such a thing, but I’d forgotten just how much the horse features here. I remembered the horror of the accident at the start, but I forgot about the central part of the set-up which is that this movie is about two desperately wounded and broken creatures (“Who’s ever gonna want me like this??”) finding their feet again.

It’s one of those movies that is all about a person trying not to cry, and finally finding the moment where they find they can. It’s interesting that the episode of This American Life I listened to last night had a sorta-similar story to that of Grace here feeling responsible for her friend Judith’s death. It doesn’t get much more painful than that feeling, I think; that old cliché, “It’s not your fault, it’s not your fault, it’s not your fault.” Some clichés are clichés ‘cos they work.

“We need to show Pilgrim how to help you get on. ‘cos y’see, there’s a point where neither of you is gonna need me anymore. And we’re there. I’m not asking.”

Then there’s the other characters. I love how communication (or the lack thereof; or even the transcendence over the verbal kind) is conveyed in the movie. At times even the humans appear somewhat horselike and animal in their behaviours to one another, it reminds me of the shrieking towards the end of The Birds when certain characters almost seem to be becoming avian. I haven’t read the novel but I imagine that the great chunks of silence here are explained by way of beautifully descriptive inner monologues etc. Rather than try and fill those out in dialogue or cut them entirely, the screenwriter and then Redford choose to simply allow those silences to speak for themselves, the camera lingering on a glare, a stare, a turn of the head slowed down by doubleframing. It’s a huge reason why the movie winds up so long but I think it’s wonderful that Redford had the liberty to do that. As anyone who knows me will know, I’m all about silences; I couldn’t possibly hold this movie’s use of them against it.

If nothing else, it also happens in my opinion to be by far the best work Scarlett Johansson has ever done. It’s really like the book, the movie, the character were made for her.

The adventures of a girl and her horse? Initiate biased mode

” ... when we’re riding, all I feel is free …”

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about this production (outside of the bizarre boycotting story concerning apparent animal cruelty on the set? I’ll just leave that one alone …) is that 3 years after her scarily convincing performance as a teenager in Matchstick Men, Alison Lohman was still playing 10 years younger than her actual age, and again rather convincingly, lol.

That quote above pretty much sums it up for me, though. When they’re riding – whether she’s on the horse or it’s just Spirit style aerial shots of wild mustangs galloping across the plains to the main theme music – this movie cannot fail to raise the hairs on the back of my neck. It absolutely has the gorgeous moments I want from such a movie. Outside of those moments … not so much. The score definitely owes something to Hans Zimmer’s work on Spirit (to be fair I think it would be hard for any composer to write anything different to horses running after seeing that movie) but outside of the main theme it’s pretty simple melodramatic stuff, as is the story.

Lohman is great – though I’d certainly prefer to see a younger, more age appropriate newcomer given a chance, if they really needed the extra hours on the set then Lohman is probably the best choice there is, and she’s the best thing in the movie. For her and the horses it’s nearly worth watching. And you can’t really argue with a movie whose end credits consist of a sickeningly sweet barrage of pictures of (presumably) real little girls and their horses accompanied to the cheesy but irresistible Tim McGraw song “My Little Girl”, lol. But for all other purposes, I absolutely recommend Spirit. Even if you’ve already seen that movie … see it a fifteenth time, lol, you know you want to It’s that or International Velvet. Or Dreamer. Okay there are lots of them, make a day of it hehe.

Edit: I just realised I forgot to even mention that the movie is directed by none other than Michael Mayer, who made one of my (and I think nobody else’s lol) all-time faves A Home at the End of the World. It was one of the first things I noticed in the credits that really got me more excited than just over the girl-horse thing. I guess that I forgot to even mention it speaks volumes of what a disappointment it ultimately was. While I’m adding to the review, I’ve also gotta say – gorgeous poster ... I really I hope I can find a copy of it sometime.

It struck me while watching Samantha again in preparation for the other two parts in this series … these movies are so the kind of movies – or the books they’re based on, at least – you imagine Lisa Simpson to be awed by, lol. This one ups the whole feminist side of these stories quite a bit, in the etiquette classes Felicity takes, summed up in a great line from the tutor, that she’s preparing them “to take your places in society”.

I originally watched the first American Girl movie ‘cos of AnnaSophia Robb, but it was good enough overall for me to keep an eye out for the other ones. There’s something about these movies, though they’re by no means classics of any kind, that feels right. To just take the same type of character, to bottle up a chunk of history in a way that will subtly raise interest,in young girls in particular, without preaching too much and at all times really just telling a cute and happy story. This one features a lot of one of my favourite combinations in movies – girls and horses. It might not ever reach Velvet or Dreamer levels of wonderment, but it held my attention and I’m sure some girls will go nuts over it.

I could so easily convince myself that I loved this movie for the same reasons I looked forward to seeing it (lol, though obviously not that much, I’ve been “meaning to see it” for at least 5 years …) – Drew Barrymore, of course, and Jerry Goldsmith’s score. I defy anyone not to find themselves with a huge smile on their face as the end credits roll, the girls in silhouette “getting away with it” to Goldsmith’s full-on version of the glorious main theme (one of those precious few that never diminishes no matter how often it’s repeated). But overall, the fact is it’s pretty bad with only a few admittedly well-placed set-pieces to hold the attention, by no means succeeding as the semi-feminist tract I think someone involved might’ve wanted it to be. It could one day find its way into my cheesy faves collection, but for now I really can’t give it more than 3 stars.

I didn’t intend to watch this again today, I just wanted to get it onto a DVD since it was on TCM this morning so I started it running and recording but I couldn’t pull myself away. I was a little brief on my first review but there’s plenty more to talk about.

On the surface, I wanna re-iterate the fact that this movie is quite stunningly bad on so many levels – I mean, really in a so bad it’s good kinda way. So that’s one more way I’d recommend it. And yet, I love it more on a second viewing than I did on the first – it’s a major personal favourite of mine, and it’s not just the young girl / horse combo that always slays me.

There are so many weird moments in this movie that, as far as I know, are unique in cinema. So, the second reason to recommend it. There’s a totally out-of-place, “Sweeney”-style-scored scene where a Mini chases Tatum O’Neil’s horse Arizona Pie through a field. There’s a scene where the horses are being taken overseas by plane and one of the horses freaks out in the air and has to be put down by a gunshot. Then there’s the hour, and what feels like three hours, of showjumping that ends the movie and, as I mentioned in the first review, seriously cripples its second half.

My first and foremost reasons for loving this movie as I do are, as I mentioned in the first review, Francis Lai’s score and Tatum O’Neil’s performance. And by the way, it works even better on a Sunday afternoon as opposed to a Tuesday But having observed its quite horrendous incompetence a second time, I’ve gotta admit, I can’t get my head around this love I have for it, this desire to watch it like at least once a month as long as I live, lol.

The real source of the movie’s badness, I think, has got to lie with the writer-director, Bryan Forbes. I’m guessing he personally loved showjumping and imagined he’d be able to get everyone else as passionate about it. But I maintain that this must be the least cinematic thing on earth. If anyone knows of something else, let me know. I understated the showjumping factor in the first review – this movie is actually pretty terrific for its first hour … but the last hour is literally not only nothing but showjumping, but it quite literally isn’t even a film, lol, it jumps into a BBC-style TV broadcast that happens to be on film, lol, voiceover and all. It’s embarrassing. Then there’s the use of voiceover. Now, I used to read those stuffy screenwriting and film making books and the general rule is that voiceovers are not good. But I also watch movies and I know that sometimes they can be a treat, sometimes they can even save a movie. This movie begins with a voiceover, Nanette Newman narrating, and it’s pretty good, it works with the score, it’s wistful and everything, but then it starts to recur and just when you get used to it, Anthony Hopkins takes over. Then, when we reach the “big finale”, and this I hadn’t noticed till this viewing, for some reason the British commentator becomes an American commentator when the American rider enters the fray, and switches back to British immediately after they leave, lol. It is the most bizarre moment in this movie (that I’ve found so far, at least).

I also failed to mention Anthony Hopkins at all in my first review. It’s worth mentioning that this movie has an amazing cast. Tatum O’Neil, already mentioned, as the young heroine, Nanette Newman playing Velvet Brown of National Velvet, and Christopher Plummer playing her partner, a writer. It’s kind of a shame that Elizabeth Taylor couldn’t have reprised her role in place of Newman, that would’ve been just stellar. But above all of them is Anthony Hopkins, as the terrifically stuck-up, patronising stick-in-the-mud trainer. I think he could be the third reason I love the movie in the end despite everything, he is just brilliant.

So, I guess I do know why I love this movie in the end, but just after this viewing in particular, I have to point out the ways I know it’s bad too, and I kinda love all those things too. All in all, this movie fascinates me more than anything, and it’s one I’ll happily examine further in the future. If nothing else, it’s a showjumping movie, and there certainly aren’t many of those. Not that I love showjumping, but I do love when there’s a movie about something no one has really made a movie about. So there’s a fourth reason. But the music and the Tatum and the Hopkins should be enough for most movie lovers Anyway, I love it.

June 20th 2006:

This one really lets itself down in the end and I think it comes down to the simple fact that showjumping just isn’t as exciting and cinematic as a fast-paced track race, and little effort is made to remedy this. Francis Lai’s wonderful score, perhaps overused in the first half, all but disappears in this dull fizzling out, which doesn’t help either. Still, I’ll come back to this movie for sure because when the beautiful dusky cinematography, Lai’s music, Tatum O’Neal and her Arizona Pie come together, it’s as good a horse movie as any: tear-jerking, uplifting, and all those corny things that are exactly what you need sometimes on a less-than-summery summer Tuesday afternoon.

Watching this after International Velvet, which brought back memories of National Velvet, I couldn’t help but notice the things this movie is missing. That’s not to say it doesn’t have enough plus points of its own though. Beyond Dakota Fanning, which I realise is just a personal thing for me – I happen to love her – I think there’s plenty to enjoy. You really need to look in the nooks and crannies of the movie. Kurt Russell is pretty amazingly cast as the disillusioned pop and there’s some fabulous facial expressions to behold from him, my favourite is when Soñodor is announced as the 14th horse at the selection place, you suddenly realise just how hopeless he was before this whole opportunity came along. Then there’s Luis Guzman and Freddy Rodriguez, who for me just get better every time I watch; again, a huge array of comical expressions to make you giggle, like when they are informed that they now work for little Dakota.

Then there’s the handling of the finale. I struggled to put this into words last review and finally gave up but I think I worked it out this viewing. What John Gatins has done is apply Alfred Hitchcock’s wise advice on suspense and surprise to a completely different genre and for a far more positive emotional outcome.

[Eek. Okay, I’m gonna come clean ‘cos I don’t have the time I’d like to have to work on these reviews – I found the Hitch quote I wanted but it was gonna take me ages to work it in here, so what follows is ripped from the TCM website and puts it better than I could … I hope someone else understands what I’m saying here lol:]

”[The bus bomb scene in Sabotage ... ] blurs the line between the director’s typical use of suspense versus shock. In an often repeated illustration, Hitchcock laid out the difference between the two methods. Shocking an audience was easy; you could show a group of people at a table playing cards and suddenly have an explosion, killing everyone. Much more effective is to show the same group playing cards but also show a time bomb placed under the table, knowing that it might explode any second. This approach is decidedly more suspenseful by engaging the audiences’ fear for the potential victims. Yet, in Sabotage, Hitchcock stepped over that line into shock when [Spoiler Alert] he had the bomb explode, killing the young boy along with other bus passengers and an adorable dog (a complete taboo in England where canines are the favored pet). Audiences and critics alike felt Hitchcock went too far this time and even the director agreed in retrospect when he was interviewed years later by French director Francois Truffaut: ‘I made a serious mistake in having the little boy carry the bomb…[He] was involved in a situation that got him too much sympathy from the audience, so that when the bomb exploded and he was killed, the public was resentful.’” Sabotage @ TCM

There is a huge amount of time in this movie dedicated to the “dreamer” theme – we’re led almost without exception to assume Sonia’s gonna lose, and we’re set up to accept that; afterall, it brought Cale close to her father, it brought him closer to his father, it got Manolin riding again, and most of all, it was a dream that spit in the face of lousy Palmer (David Morse, playing the villain to a T). Even if she lost, it was “the best thing that ever happened to this family,” Cale’s mom says. In the final race, Gatins slows the film down, and lets the camera dwell on the faces of all these people, forcing us again to remember why it’s okay if she loses …. and then, he lets her win anyway. It’s icing on the cake, the relieved laugh after a good horror movie scare, the bomb not going off. You can’t ask for anything more uplifting.

November 6th 2005:

There’s little to say about this except it’s exactly what I was expecting from the trailers and basic set-up. It’s as much a shameless crowd-pleaser as Cinderella Man was earlier in the year with the added bonus of Dakota Fanning brightening every frame she’s in – despite the fact she seems to be eating for 90% of her screen time, lol. I don’t know if she deserves an Oscar nomination for the part as some are suggesting … much as I’d love to see that happen, I think her chances, though equally slim, are greater for her supporting role in War of the Worlds and she was better in I Am Sam and Man on Fire anyway. Elisabeth Shue is well cast as her mom, and the father/son pairing of Kris Kristofferson and Kurt Russell is perfect too. John Debney’s score is usual soaring stuff you get in this kind of movie, but, like everything else, it works perfectly for me.

Such is my love of Dakota Fanning, I genuinely didn’t expect to find a match for Dreamer here, though I’d read plenty of reviews that mentioned the similarities between the two movies, similarities that turn out to be even more abundant than the obvious “little girl takes horse to unlikely victory” storyline … right down to lines about dreams, ‘the importance of folly’ here, in Dreamer there’s a line, along the lines of, “yes it’s a foolish dream, but let it take her as far as it can”. There’s a lot of parallels.

The big differences are that it’s less the horse than the girl who’s the underdog here, and that Elizabeth Taylor actually rides the horse in the finale. I wanted Dreamer to go this way: then, I guess it’d would be less “inspired by a true story” than, “ripped off from National Velvet”, lol. I guess you could argue the reasons Dakota doesn’t ride her horse in her movie … there’s the fact that the “true story” moniker requires more realism in the execution, and the fact that Dakota, though close to the same age as Taylor here, looks so much younger and would therefore look even less likely on the back of a racehorse; I’d argue that realism kinda goes against the whole title of that movie, let alone the theme

But, yeh, enough about Dakota and Dreamer In a day that looked like it was going to be full of unsurprisingly disappointing oldies, this was by far the highlight viewing for me. I’ve kinda fallen for Elizabeth Taylor before in movies like the obvious Place in the Sun and the more obscure Sandpiper, but never as much as I did here. She’s absolutely adorable, and looks at least a couple of years above her actual age. It’s almost impossible to believe this was her first big role. Then there’s the actress who plays her mother, Anne Revere, who won an Oscar for her supporting role, simply wonderful. The photography, so early on in the days of technicolor, is pretty amazing … I don’t think I’ve ever seen such an early camera move so fast as in the horse sequences, it was kind of a shock to see so much energy in such an old movie. There are a few phony-looking ‘blue-screen’ shots (rear projection? travelling matte? I forget the terminology lol, forgive my beer-ridden brain) and obvious matte painting backgrounds, etc but nothing out of the ordinary for the time – overall, this is a near-perfect production in every way. Gasp almost forgot to mention the music by Herbert Stothart … it’s wonderful. I know, need to learn more adjectives.

I can’t deny, though, having said this is better than Dreamer and all, this movie really put me in one of my horsey moods … I’ll have to follow this with Dreamer, Spirit, Seabiscuit etc, sometime soon