De si jolis chevaux

Cormac McCarthy's novel, All The Pretty Horses, the first part of his breath-taking Border Trilogy, is one of the most perfect source materials ever written. Add to this the impressive line-up of talent (Ted Tally adapting, Thornton directing, Matt Damon, back when he was a hot property the first time around, starring) assembled for the film version and it's fair to say my expectations were raised sky high. When the film came out it was buried by the distributor. I managed to catch it in the one week it played at a single cinema in Edinburgh and I would be lying if I didn't admit that the whole experience was a crushing disappointment. It wasn't that the film makers had ballsed the whole thing up, no it was much more frustrating than that. You could tell that somewhere in that film there was a masterpiece straining to get out. Individual sequences impressed but the whole thing moved at such a frenzied pace that the main characters' journey, a true rite of passage in the novel, had become damagingly truncated. The result was underwhelming but at the same time as been annoyed at the film I could tell it wasn't the film makers' fault. It was all too apparent that this was a great film that had had it's guts, it's heart, it's very essence, chopped out of it by a greedy distributor trying to market the film as some kind of Titanic / Young Guns cross over. Guess what, this movie was never going to appeal to the teeny boppers. If only the studio could have realized that and been true to the property they acquired in the first place. My suspicions were confirmed recently when I read an article wherein Matt Damon, a fine actor despite the criticism, claimed that Billy Bob Thornton's integral cut of the movie is the best he's ever been involved in. I don't know about you but that makes me want to see it. Apparently the studio are willing to release this extended cut on DVD (all revenue streams reach the ocean eventually) but Thornton won't settle for anything less than a full cinematic re-release. I can't say I blame him, I get the impression his film deserves at least that much. So for now I can't recommend this film, check out the novel instead and then the rest of Cormac McCarthy's back catalogue. But let's hope that in the not too distant future this film finally gets the treatment I suspect it deserves.

Director Billy Bob Thornton fills the screen with awesome scenery and a hard hitting drama about two young cowboys from San Angelo, Texas meeting up with another young horseman and coming face to face with life altering situations in and out of a Mexican prison. Friendship stays strong to the bitter end. And love proves to be stronger than life itself. Matt Damon, Henry Thomas and Lucas Black are the hard luck cowpokes. Damon falls in love with Penelope Cruz and provides some steamy love scenes. There is more drama than action in this western, but you should find it very entertaining. Damon and Black are the most impressive characters in this well-made movie.

Released in 2000, "All the Pretty Horses" stars Matt Damon and Henry Thomas as two West Texas cowboys, John Grady Cole and Lacey Rawlins, who are weary of all the fenced-in land in 1949 and so head to Mexico for freer pastures. There they meet up with a foolish juvenile (Lucas Black) before coming to a huge ranch where Penelope Cruze plays the owner's daughter, Alejandra. Unfortunately, unexpected problems surface. Miriam Colon plays the girl's staunch aunt and ranch matriarch while Sam Shepard and Bruce Dern have (very) small roles.

Billy Bob Thornton directed the movie based on Cormac McCarthy's novel and the original runtime was said to be around 3 hours and 12 minutes, but was cut at the insistence of distributer Harvey Weinstein to a mere 117 minutes (!). Similar circumstances forced Marlon Brando to cut his sole directed movie, 1961's "One-Eyed Jacks," from 5 hours to half that time and it turned out to be a Western masterpiece, but "All the Pretty Horses" was cut TOO much. Even an additional 20 minutes would've helped immeasurably.

As it is, there are gaping holes in the story. For instance, there is little build-up to Cole's love affair with Alejandra. "The Horse Whisperer" (1998), by contrast, is an excellent example of proper romantic build-up. Other questions abound: What did Alejandra experience in her life that made her brazenly risk her honor? What (specifically) was the source of her deep contempt for her aunt, who seemed to be just looking out for her? Why does Alejandra's father stay on close terms with Cole even AFTER it's discovered he (supposedly) lied to him? What led up to Rawlins' suicidal confrontation with a prison heavy and the same with Cole's deadly tassel? Also, it's subtly revealed that Cole, Rawlins and Blevins (the kid) have very different views of the world, but they're never fleshed out.

The original Director's Cut has been called a masterpiece by those who've seen it, and a release of it has been looked into, but the original composer, Daniel Lanois, steadfastly refused to license his score (which, unusually, he owns) to any release of the film. If they can't work it out, then why not just use the excellent score by Marty Stuart, which is the one used in the cut-down theatrical/DVD version?

As far as locations go, it's great to have a Western actually shot in West Texas rather than supposedly taking place in Texas, but being shot in Arizona, etc. It was equally shot in New Mexico.

Although "All the Pretty Horses" has a severely troubled post-production history, it's still worth catching DESPITE the holes in the story. It has magnificent cinematography and locations, formidable actors (Damon is perfect as the humble, respectable protagonist), a magnificent score/soundtrack, an epic tone and an unpredictable story. In short, it's a unique Western that not everyone's going to like because uniqueness polarizes opinion. It's not great simply because it was butchered in post-production, but it's still a quality film and, in many ways, a pleasure to behold.

Some criticize it as soporific and that's true in the sense that it's not a rollicking Western, like 2001's "American Outlaws," which plays like "Indiana Jones goes West." "All the Pretty Horses," by contrast, is a realistic Western drama with the tone of the aforementioned "Horse Whisperer," but with periodic actions sequences. It's a refreshing change from the typical in-your-face, loud, CGI-laden, foul-mouthed, unreal movies we have constantly rammed at us; and, again, the music's great.

GRADE: B-

The book is great and Billy Bob was a good fit for it, but producer Harvey Weinstein screwed it all up. He wanted a two hour cut, even though from the offset it was clear the story needed a three hour epic sweep.

So you really shouldn't watch this obviously truncated version (35% was cut). Scenes are rushed and a film that was supposed to capture the feel and romance of the landscape falls flat. Apparently Billy Bob has the correct edit on VHS in his home. Matt Damon says this cut is the best film he's ever been involved in. Eventually this film will be released, so you all should just wait for it. Billy Bob talks humorously about all this on cinemablend.

The Weinsteins of this world are by no means villains, it takes a lot of hard work and guts to get where they have. But the same brute force that makes them successful can prove fatal where artistry is involved. Producers can be right - sometimes directors do need reigning in. Just not in this case. Harvey wasn't dealing with a wayward, self-indulgent director, and the story really did demand more time in its telling.

ALL THE PRETTY HORSES is quite effective, though there are some serious gaping holes in the story. The story and characters insist that John Cole and Alejandra have fallen in love; we only get to see a swift montage of sex-making, which is not the same thing at all. Damon made me believe that John was in love through the sheer force of his acting, but the audience needed to be courted along in this romance. Also, Lacey Rawlins at one point crucially (suicidally?) antagonizes a fellow in prison, and we have no idea what bad blood has been brewing between these two.

There are stories about how Thornton's film was first cut at four hours, then the director agreed to deliver a three hour version. The financing studio balked at the length and sold it off to Miramax, who contractually required a cut no longer than two and a quarter hours. What is left runs 117 minutes. What happened? Twenty minutes would have certainly helped smooth out the few rough spots, and a two-and-a-half hour or three hour movie might have been some sort of masterpiece. As it is, some of the epic sweep is contained and the film remains remarkably moving, but may wind up ultimately not finding its commercial or artistic audience because of the compromises. A shame.