De si jolis chevaux

After seeing Matt Damon carrying "The Rainmaker" I sat up and became a real fan of the actor. In that movie he impressed me greatly. I decided to see what was he doing next. I read where he was slated to star in All the Pretty Hourses so I got a copy of the book to see what it was all about. I liked what I read and was looking forward to see Matt Damon in the effort. When I read where Billy Bob Thornton was to direct I became ecstatic, I remembered his acting and directing in Sling Blade. Later, I read where there was trouble with the length of All The Pretty Horses at the producer threatened to cut the movie. Mr Thornton's version ran almost 4 hours, the released version to theaters was 117 minutes. Of course I went to see the movie and could see that it should have been longer. Any movie buff could see that. What perplexes me is how studios and produces can contract certain directors and then butcher their completed work. Sergio Leone's Once Upon A Time in America suffered a humiliation when the studio decided to cut his film drastically; it lost it's meaning, and money. Later, the DVD restored version, 225 minutes, came out and was instantly received by customers. Thank God David O. Selznick stuck to his guns with Gone With The Wind. And look at how much money that! made. Like some others I hope that some one one day will be able to assemble the 4 hour version of All The Pretty Horses so that those of us who love movies can at least see what we've missed. I think we deserve to judge the movie for ourselves. Who knows, we might be missing a masterpiece.

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.

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.

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.

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.