MovieChat Forums > Hidalgo (2004) Discussion > I tell you, this movie is great!

I tell you, this movie is great!


Gets better every time I see it. I was a bit underwhelmed when this was released, like many. But damn. This is a really solid film.

reply

I should try it

reply

It's sorely underrated. It's an old fashioned escapist adventure movie that they hardly make anymore.

reply

I still can't figure out what's off about it. Cause something IS off. There's a reason it's very overlooked and becoming forgotten. The script is great. The production is staggering. (These unpredictable location shoots and all the animals involved, forgetabout it. Logistical nightmare!) Lead star coming off of great hype from immensely popular LOTR. The post production was great. This is a very slick, gorgeous movie. The marketing was great. They pushed the hell out of it. Was it just too late for this sort of movie? But that's just the numbers. Something actually feels off when watching it. Something another similar movie, The Mummy from a few years prior, possesses in spades. Fun factor? Not sure how to put my finger on it. I wouldn't say it's cast chemistry, everybody is terrific in this. It's just missing whatever that magic touch is. Can't be the director. He's got absolute bangers under his belt. Something about the shoot, I think, just didn't jell the way it could have. A lost opportunity for a timeless classic.

reply

I remember going to see the film in the theater. As you say, Viggo was hot at the time because LOTR was not far behind, and the trailers just made it seem like the kind of movie I'd usually go for. I do recall being underwhelmed though and walking out having hoped for a little more.

As both you and HarlemEagle above say, this the kind of old fashioned adventure film that we just don't see much of anymore (which is a damn shame). When these sorts of films are done right--like The Mummy, which you mentioned--they are perhaps my very favorite sort of movie. I just love a good adventure in a bygone era that was full of romance and fun. But there did seem to be something missing from Hidalgo.

It seems that the OP revised his opinion of the film after revisiting it. Maybe I should check it out again.

reply

Man. I got a pool of movies I keep wanting to be great. That I keep revisiting, more than movies I actually love. (Does anybody else spend more time watching sub-par movies than good ones? That's gotta be a thing.) That's Hidalgo for sure. And the Dirk Pitt adventure Sahara. But also Crocodile Dundee II. So many more. All of them movies almost perfect.... just missing something. Missing that magic. And obviously this thread is about adventure movies more than rom coms or dramas and what not. I mean we're talking about the Holy Grail here. What is "the magic element" of a great movie? It's a film like this that has me most most perplexed. They got everything right. And it's still missing. Something I thought about is maybe... it's not pretty? I'm not talking about slick production value. But everything being pretty. This is a very sandy movie. A lot of drab brown and darkened tones. Maybe that lays into your subconscious and dictates how you feel about something? There's certainly a lot of pseudo science about this. That's why they make all those abomination orange and teal movie posters we seem to like. The film has some great humor, but maybe it's the wrong kind of humor? Humor is another elusive Grail of film entertainment. You never know what's gonna hit or miss, and the next generation might change their mind entirely even if you get it right. Maybe cause the love interest was a horse? lmao I'm being funny but also serious. Perhaps this is simply not universal subject material. Even though there is bad guys, and henchmen, and maidens in distress, and daring and adventure. At the end of the day, we are dealing with a man in grief who just wants... a horse to live its best life. That's a lot. Really, it is. Me, who loves horses and has raised them, still has hard time committing fully to this story. I'm 95 percent there. But I need tang on my treasure tip. So did I want more romance? More successful romance? Maybe. IDK

reply

Okay, I just put Hidalgo on hold at the library. I will give it another look and chime back in on this. (Yes, I still check out DVDs from the library.)

First, in regard to spending more time watching lesser movies than greater ones, I can feel you on that. I remember when I was making my way through the Resident Evil series, people were like, "Why are you wasting your time on this when you still haven't seen [insert great film here]." Perhaps it has something to do with a kind of weight that is on your shoulders when you sit down to watch a film with a reputation for being great. There's like a kind of pressure there. For movies that don't have great expectations to live up to you can just sit back and relax and enjoy the film. Maybe there's also an intrigue to watching movies that are problematic and picking the film apart adds another layer of interest.

I don't know, but for whatever reason right now I feel like I would rather sit down and re-watch Tom Cruise's 2017 rendition of The Mummy--obviously a far lesser telling of the story than the '99 film--than sit down and rewatch Jaws.

Regarding "the magic element," I have actually spent some time thinking about this and I'm not sure what the answer is there. A film like Raiders of the Lost Ark has it but as you say Sahara does not. (Honestly, I think that part of Sahara's problem is the time it's set in. And maybe also its cast.) Another adventure film that I enjoyed fairly well recently but that I can't say really has the magic element is Uncharted. Can I put my finger on exactly what's missing though? No.

P.S. It's been forever since I watched either of them, but growing up I always liked Croc Dundee II more than the first film.

reply

"The Time it's Set In".... wow. That's a thing. That might actually matter.

I hated Uncharted. And it was no bad movie. It felt like a modern movie aping old movies (which we seem to love) and failing. That's actually.... noble. And something to be admired. I will admit I haven't revisited the film. I don't like new Spidey, and I never liked Marky Mark. (His high pitched "I care voice" can't be taken seriously.) And I don't play video games. Haha. That movie was never gonna land with me.

I've recently gotten into BIG TIME youtube videos about the pyramids of Egypt. Cause they're finally globally releasing all that footage that's been around in academic circles for 30 damn years. Holy crap the stuff we know they they kept marketing as mysterious. It makes you angry.

But my point is in regard to your comment, mystique and mystery playing a factor. The unknown myths and legends get canceled out by our own technology. In Crocodile Dundee, we are only presented with the MAN, and the LEGEND. In the second film, we are shown the LEGEND is REAL. And that's let's special. I don't know why, but the answer to missing movie magic lies right there. (I do know why, give me a million dollars you assholes.) HINT You already figured this all out with both Jack Sparrow and Iron Man.

reply

It's quite ironic that we're having this conversation about adventure films because not more than three hours ago I finished reading the novelization of Raiders of the Lost Ark. I have known for a while that the Indy films had been novelized and I finally decided to pick up the books for the original trilogy and I just finished Raiders tonight.

I definitely think that the time a story is set in matters. By and large, I feel like adventure stories belong to a bygone era. That's one reason--but not the only reason--why the original Indy trilogy and The Mummy '99 worked so well and why movies like Sahara, The Mummy '17, Uncharted, and Tomb Raider struggle. (Though I will point out that of those films I only outright dislike Sahara and the Tomb Raider reboot. The Mummy '17 I enjoyed enough that I bought it on 4K and Uncharted, while not a great film, I've watched twice. Also, somewhere in my heart I have an appreciation for Angelina Jolie's Tomb Raider as well.)

It takes more than just being set in the right time to make a film successful, though. The Mummy II and III both got the time period right but failed in many other respects. You also need an interesting and coherent story, likable and interesting characters, good set pieces, and the right tone.

reply

Here's the thing, to pile on my own thread. I recently had my family over, like, all of them. Full house. And they we got talking about Indiana Jones 5. And we got talking about great adventure movies. And I got talking about Hidalgo. And they were all excited about it, they all remembered it, just never saw it. Like 14 of em. So I busted out Hidalgo. And I saw it with a room full of fresh eyes. Wish I ain't never done before. And I know how you all know how that is, and how it changes your perception of a film. And all the old flaws quickly resurfaced. Everybody was excited as hell and really enjoyed it when it started. And all of them were let down by the end. Something is absolutely missing in this movie. (The same thing missing in the Last Samurai for whatever that's worth.) Got a lot of slow head nods and "that was pretty cool"s. I was somewhat humbled and humiliated. Which is why I now re-examine my praise. I have over the years conditioned myself fairly successfully to love this movie. But a room full of fresh eyes slapped me down. I still loved it by the way. It's definitely not an Event movie. Maybe it's a movie you just have to discover and enjoy for what it is.

reply

As promised, I rewatched Hidalgo. So now I can talk about it in a little more educated manner.

First, I will say that I enjoyed it more this time than I did when I saw it in the theater. As I mentioned above, when I saw it in the theater I thought it was a good movie but, like you say, it felt like there was something missing. I think I was hoping for one thing and then got something a little different and it just didn't live up to my expectations. This time I went in with my expectations lowered and I found it a pretty enjoyable watch.

But the question is why does the movie not TOTALLY work?

I think that, first, we need to state that while it is sort of an adventure film, it's not really an adventure film like the Indiana Jones or Mummy films are adventure films. I would actually say that this movie is an underdog sports drama wrapped up in an adventure movie's garb.

Now, let's consider it as an adventure movie. When we look back at films like Indiana Jones or The Mummy or, I will throw into the pile, National Treasure, we have a variety of locations, colorful characters, daring action set pieces, relics of the past, a desirable love interest and, at least in regard to the first two, elements of the supernatural. Hidalgo, on the other hand, takes place almost entirely in the middle of the barren desert with little in the way of globetrotting, there are no ancient mysterious relics, the love interest in the film could only barely be considered such, and while there are a few set pieces, they are small-scale and tame in comparison to what we see in those other franchises. To give it credit though, it does have some likable and interesting characters, but even there the villain is weak.

(Continued below)

reply

Okay, and now let's consider it as an underdog sports drama. We don't have a training montage where the hero is preparing and building himself into an unstoppable machine, as would be typical (and there's a good reason why it's typical, those are crowd-pleasing scenes). Also, the contest itself is not easy to follow. In a boxing match it is easy to follow the action and to have an idea of how things are going and who is winning. Or in a foot race you can easily see who is ahead. But the action in Hidalgo is hard to follow because it doesn't really feel like a "race" until the very end. Before that it just feels like some guys wandering around in the desert without a clear notion of who is winning and who is behind.

The last thing that I will mention is this: The movie comes right out of the gate and hits you with some White Man Bad social commentary and, if you're trying to make a crowd-pleaser, trying to make your audience feel a little guilty for the past is perhaps not the best way to whip up the right vibes.

So those are my criticisms and why I think that the film may feel like something is missing or why it doesn't totally work. But I don't want to come off as overly negative, because like I said, I DID enjoy it while rewatching it and one day I may watch it again. It's a family-friendly adventure-sports-drama that has a likable protagonist and some other enjoyable characters, some cool horse scenes, and for the most part a pleasing tone, and I wish we got more movies like this today.

reply

These are excellent points. I think you've largely sorted it. While it appears to be an adventure film, it isn't. And it's missing the hallmarks of an exciting sports drama. It's a dozen different movies and none of them at the same time. It's not really a Western. It's not really a romance movie. It's just a big mixed bag.

reply

I guess it being such a mash-up at least makes it unique. I actually asked my dad last night if he remember us going to see the movie together and he said not only did he remember it but that he's watched it at least twice since then.

reply

I've watched it about 20 times now in the last few months. It's in the DVD player and when I can't take any more Jerry Springer reruns I just hit play. It's an absolutely epic movie. I don't even know anymore what I didn't like about it. I swallowed all the koolaid. I have a new criteria I judge films by. Which is wasted dialog. Nonsense talk. Filler. This movie has no wasted dialog. Anything anybody is saying means something. As i'm rolling toward just about 50, that's all I care about. I don't want no BS. Don't open your mouth unless it matters. There's not a single scene in this flick with characters just blathering to each other.

reply