Hidalgo

---

Tools:
Recommend review to a friend »

---

There is much to admire and enjoy about Touchstone Pictures' 2004 release, "Hidalgo," not the least of which is its gorgeous scenery and cinematography and its lead performance by Viggo Mortensen. But there are also reasons why the film failed to recoup its production costs at the box office, reasons like its derivative plot, commonplace characters, and clichéd action. It's not a bad film; but it never catches fire, either.

It was courageous of the Disney studio to go with a Western at all, given the genre's current disfavor with the public, even a transplanted Western set in Arabia. But why are the filmmakers so insistent upon telling us that the story is based on fact? At the beginning of the movie, at the end, and again in the DVD's accompanying featurette, the filmmakers claim that the events of the movie really happened in the life of cowboy Frank T. Hopkins. Could it be that the experiences recounted in the film are so preposterous, the filmmakers felt the need to counter an audience's possible incredulity at every turn? I don't know.

What is clear is that the movie purports to tell of a legendary 3,000-mile horse race across the Arabian desert to Damascus, a race known as the "Ocean of Fire," said to be held annually for a thousand years. In the movie, Hopkins, a real historical character, is working for Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show, where in 1890 he's billed as the greatest endurance rider who ever lived. An Arabian Sheikh challenges Hopkins to enter the race with his horse, Hidalgo, and prove his worth against the best horses and riders in the world. The movie is primarily about Hopkins' adventures during the race.

But did any of it actually happen, as Disney claims? Not according to the University of Wyoming American Heritage Center, whose research reveals that there is no evidence of any such annual horse race to have taken place in Arabia, that Hopkins probably made up most of the stories about himself, that he may have lived his entire life in the Eastern United States, and that he probably wasn't even a very good rider. Hopkins did, after all, work at least for a while with the Buffalo Bill show, one of the biggest frauds of all time in its depiction of Western history. So why should we believe the man? More important, why weren't the Disney folks content simply to tell a good story? Could it have been because they knew they didn't have a very good story?

I found "Hidalgo" to be long and often tedious, despite the best intentions of its photography and star. Mainly, I found the movie too reminiscent of everything else I've ever seen in a Western movie, with only its Arabian setting to offset its redundancies. Of course, the Western-movie genre is expected to follow formula; we all know that. But the best of the breed add something new to the mix that makes them special. "High Noon" and "Shane" added touches of thoughtful, adult psychology. "Open Range" and "The Outlaw Josey Wales" added likeable, warmhearted heroes. "Tombstone" added fast-paced eccentricity. "Unforgiven" added humor and cynicism. "Hidalgo" adds bits and pieces from every Hollywood movie you've ever seen, Western or not, without providing anything innovative or inspiring.

To wit: the hero, Hopkins, is a broken-down drunk working for Buffalo Bill's show. Part white and part Native American, he becomes despondent after witnessing firsthand the massacre at Wounded Knee. He questions who he is, why people are so cruel, and what his place is in society. Going to a far-off land and entering an exotic contest is his way of finding some kind of redemption. I mean, does any of this sound to you like "The Last Samurai" (2003) or "Dances With Wolves" (1990) or "Little Big Man" (1970)? Moreover, the idea of a horse race capitalizes on the popularity of the previous year's "Seabiscuit" (2003). The notion of a cross-country horse race was done better in "Bite the Bullet" (1975). Having an American cowboy go to a foreign country to compete against the best of the best is straight out of "Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines" (1965). The casting of a lovable old ruler, his beautiful daughter, and a treacherous advisor was seen to greater advantage in "The Thief of Bagdad" (1940) and "Aladdin" (1992). Even the setting of "Hidalgo" is reminiscent of something else, notably "Lawrence of Arabia"; and "Hidalgo" goes so far as to cast Omar Sharif as one of its co-stars!

Now, you'd think that a 3,000-mile race across some of the most treacherous (and beautiful) countryside imaginable would be enough to sustain the interest of an audience for at least ninety minutes; but the filmmakers think otherwise, adding an impenetrable layer of melodrama that extends the duration of the movie to well over two hours. The hero, Hopkins (Mortensen), must be strong, virtuous, and honorable at all times. The sponsoring Sheikh, Ridadh (Sharif), must be kindly yet tough. His daughter, Jazira (Zuleikha Robinson), must be spunky and independent and manage to get herself kidnapped. Guess who stops to effect a daring rescue? No, not Peter O'Toole. The villains, Aziz (Adam Alexi-Malle) and Katib (Silas Carson), must be dastardly and totally without conscience. In the middle of the desert, there must be a perfectly attired, immaculately coiffured, snooty British female aristocrat, Lady Davenport (Louise Lombard). And, unbelievably, there is even a comic sidekick for Hopkins, a goatherd named Yusef (Harsh Nayyar), who's a dead ringer for Gabby Hayes!

---

---