Hacker Cinema
Hidalgo
2004 · Film · 136 min
Directed by Joe Johnston
Set in 1890, this is the story of a Pony Express courier who travels to Arabia to compete with his horse, Hidalgo, in a dangerous race for a massive contest prize, in an adventure that sends the pair around the world...
1 positive1 neutralfrom 2 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
3 comments on Hacker News
My favorite "based on a true story" film is Hidalgo (2004). It's about a guy who takes a mustang horse to some multi-day desert race in the Middle East. He wins, gets a bunch of money, buys a shitload of mustangs and frees them all.
And it really happened... ish. Like, the guy the movie is based on, he did tell that story. But the actual race, never happened. There's no record of the guy ever setting foot in that part of the world. But yeah, he did tell the story in that movie.
Hidalgo was truly a story Hopkins told and the movie was based on that.
Seriously though, I think that movie was what really broke the "based on a true story" thing for me. There's no real criteria for claiming something is based on a true story, you only need a tenuous grasp to reality.
Basically, you can make the claim that Avengers Endgame is just as much based on a true story as Hidalgo if you wanted to.
> I notice in Ebert's reviews an appreciation of films as mere entertainment in cases where is what they intend to be, and an appreciation of films as art if that is what they aspire to. In fact, one of my annoyances at his (often excellent) reviews is that he seemed to apply consciously lowered standards when he thought that a film wasn't aiming too high, which led to him recommending films that were close to mediocre, because they hit the mark they were aiming for. There is a certain integrity in this, of course.
I think he did a great job voicing his own standard, which I think makes a lot of sense, in his review of Shaolin Soccer (https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/shaolin-soccer-2004):
> "Shaolin Soccer" is like a poster boy for my theory of the star rating system. Every month or so, I get an anguished letter from a reader wanting to know how I could possibly have been so ignorant as to award three stars to, say, "HIDALGO" while dismissing, say, "Dogville" with two stars. This disparity between my approval of kitsch and my rejection of angst reveals me, of course, as a superficial moron who will do anything to suck up to my readers.
> What these correspondents do not grasp is that to suck up to my demanding readers, I would do better to praise "Dogville." It takes more nerve to praise pop entertainment; it's easy and safe to deliver pious praise of turgid deep thinking. It's true, I loved "Anaconda" and did not think "The United States of Leland" worked, but does that mean I drool at the keyboard and prefer man-eating snakes to suburban despair?
> Not at all. What it means is that the star rating system is relative, not absolute. When you ask a friend if "Hellboy" is any good, you're not asking if it's any good compared to "Mystic River," you're asking if it's any good compared to "The Punisher." And my answer would be, on a scale of one to four, if "Superman" (1978) is four, then "Hellboy" is three and "The Punisher" is two. In the same way, if "American Beauty" gets four stars, then "Leland" clocks in at about two.
> And that is why "Shaolin Soccer," a goofy Hong Kong action comedy, gets three stars. It is piffle, yes, but superior piffle. If you are even considering going to see a movie where the players zoom 50 feet into the air and rotate freely in violation of everything Newton held sacred, then you do not want to know if I thought it was as good as "Lost in Translation."