“You’re wrong if you think the joy of life comes principally from human relationships.”

Well, 2007 just keeps getting better and better. As this began my first thought was basically whoops watching it so soon after Forbush ... but while there’s certainly a similarity in this story of man finding himself and humanity in nature, this has plenty more to warrant the extra hour of running time. It ends with less hope than Forbush, but somewhere in the midst of it is an abundance of the stuff.

I’d kind of convinced myself that it would be another of those 2007 movies to have a tremendous central conceit but one that’s simply not backed up enough by the unexpected stuff that surrounds it. It could easily have been exactly what it is but over 2 and a half hours got tired. But, and I don’t know what it is – I’d say Eddie Vedder’s songs, but they’re actually fairly sparse and I’d heard them before; I’d say Emile Hirsch’s performance but it’s really a mix of fresh-faced Leo DiCaprio-ness and emaciated Christian Bale that we’ve seen plenty of before (not to say it’s still not utterly compelling). I think more than likely it’s the whole combination – there simply isn’t a false note here. William Hurt and Marcia Gay Harden are absolutely heartbreaking as the parents; Jena Malone about as perfectly cast as the almost psychically close sister as Maggie Gyllenhaal and Zooey Deschanel were in Donnie Darko and Almost Famous, her voiceover contributing to the constant reassessment of ideas this movie is. This really had me hooked from start to finish. It never stops clarifying and questioning its message. I haven’t read the book so I can only comment on Sean Penn’s screenplay and say his intelligence shines through with none of his occasionally grating self-righteousness. The dialogue is just about constant poetry, particularly in Alex/Chris and his sister’s voiceovers. I definitely picked the right movie to watch on my birthday.

I could’ve probably guessed how much I’d like this – in fact, I guess I did, in its relative absence from my Oscar predix Actually, were it not for my admittedly unfortunate habit for drawing parallels between movies and spotting even before it started that this is basically Erin Brockovich meets The Insider, both of which I’d rather see a second time (even Julia Roberts just beats out Clooney in my interests; though probably only in that movie) I might’ve really enjoyed this more than expected. I can take or leave George Clooney in just about anything, I don’t really see the big worship of his acting except that he’s a looker (in my opinion he’s much more interesting behind the camera) but (though they’re a little underused, I fear too little for any awards recognition) Tilda Swinton, Sidney Pollack and Tom Wilkinson more than held my focus in their supporting roles. The use of overlapping sound from scene to scene really keeps things moving forward making 2 hours seem like a lot less, and information is fed in such a way that the best is saved for last but it’s far from dull early on. I think the big Oscar buzz, especially over Clooney, is coming from the final shot, which I’ll admit, like the thing in Atonement, like a lot of the fleeting moments of wonder in the mostly overrated crop of this years’ Oscar hopefuls, certainly left me thinking I’d seen something better too. I don’t think I’ll be coming back to double check, though.

Hmm, now, what was I saying about movies that look better than they actually are? At least I knew what to expect here, the reviews I’ve read have been pretty unanimous – in fact, in some cases, I’m sure they might even be identical to I’m Not There reviews … it looks gorgeous, and Cate Blanchett is magnificent, lol.

And mine might be so too. ‘Cos while the beautiful set and costume designs etc carried me easily through the first hour, I knew I might struggle as it entered its second half. But it’s right there, following the assassination attempt, that I found myself irresistibly drawn to the story. It’s also there of course that it begins to become the Pirates of the Caribbean-a-like Duran Duran music video that Mark Kermode so relished shouting about on Five Live earlier in the year. It was all that ranting, in fact, that made me quite excited about seeing it. It kinda reminded me of that insane last half hour of Hot Fuzz, really – like, if you’re gonna run to 2 hours, all the while promising a storm, you can do worse than delivering it in the last 30 minutes.

A movie like this really needs to deliver a surprise like that (unless it’s just good – just to acknowledge the exceptions :P) to hold me for 2 hours. It’s not enough to make a larger-budgeted, flatly-told, historically accurate TV drama. Yes, it’s a shame those TV things can’t have the costume and sets as here, but that doesn’t mean that once that budget’s available, one should simply do the “same but bigger”. The cinema demands much much more.

I’m glad to say, this gives exactly that in the end. Leave the accuracy to books and television. This gives us the glory and bombast that sparks the interest in the details, and in these ADD times I can’t think of anything more important in a period film. The final shot of her dress blowing about her over a map of Europe is just astonishing. Almost makes me want to pick up a history book.

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