De si jolis chevaux

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.

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-

Westerners Matt Damon and Henry Thomas go on a wanderjahr to Mexico in the 1940s looking for the meaning to life. They get into all sorts of trouble, including Damon falling in love with Penelope Cruz, the daughter of the country's most important ranch owner. They go to prison, and the story meanders around a lot, with a lot of handsome vistas and a summing up by Bruce Dern. Lucas Black, as a wild youngster who is just as good as he says, is the most interesting character for me; I know a guy like that.

Despite a summing up by Bruce Dern, it's too unfocused to be absolutely top notch. Reports are that Miramax cut an hour from director Billy Bob Thornton's version, which might explain it.

May contain mild spoilers

All the pretty horses is a movie based on a Cormack Mc Carthy novel by the same name. I read the novel after I had seen the movie because I wondered why the movie left me so empty inside after watching it. I couldn't say that it was bad but I couldn't' find the passion and depth I usually find in Mc Carthy's work. The funny thing is that even after having read the book I couldn't find an instant explanation why the movie didn't work. The director didn't leave anything out and yet, the magic of the book was "lost in translation".

I will try to name some possible reasons:

1.The first thing that strikes me is the age difference. Matt Damon- though young looking-plays a teenager of 16,17 years. He can't hide the fact that he's over ten years older. Since one of the main themes of the movie is the coming of age, it doesn't work because the main protagonists are already grown up.

2.A second problem is Mc Carthy's poetic language that is totally neglected in the visualization. A director should know how to transfer the poetry of words into pictures. It's not impossible – many have successfully done it. If he can't do it, he should pick another type of genre to direct where poetry isn't needed.

3.There are some recurrent motives in the book like the guilt (and responsibility) the main protagonist feels for the death of a young boy. A second important motive is his respect for parental figures because he never had a real one. Unfortunately in the movie everything is told with the same pace ignoring to underline important motives or set priorities. The director seems to have one universal stylistic device and that is showing horses in all possible variations. It is just not enough.

I really wanted to love this film and from the opening scenes to the last third I really did like this film. I love surreal films as much as the next guy, but this film seems like it was made by Oliver Stone on Valium. The film is really slow, now that can be a good thing, but in this case the pace just keeps getting slower and slower. I heard that Thornton's original cut ran almost four hours, it seems that the film has a whole other film missing from it. I didn't read the novel and I'm guessing that I should have read the novel because I couldn't figure this film out for the life of me. When it was all over I felt empty. The performances are all great, I especially liked Lucas Black in the role of Blevins. Matt Damon and Henry Thomas are both very good in their roles and this is first movie Penelope Cruz has appeared in where I could see that she has real talent and isn't just another pretty face. I loved the cinematography, the outdoor landscapes were beautiful. The film has all the flavor and no real substance. I am torn with this film, I wanted to love it so bad. Even great film makers slip every now and then.