A rodeo star past his prime steals his company's horse and rides into the desert, accompanied by a feisty reporter.A rodeo star past his prime steals his company's horse and rides into the desert, accompanied by a feisty reporter.A rodeo star past his prime steals his company's horse and rides into the desert, accompanied by a feisty reporter.
A Little Internal Consistency Would Help
I liked this movie for the chemistry of the stars & the message (that not everything should be subjected to the Almighty Dollar). As others have pointed out, the story is a bit too simple, but that's OK too. What caused me to lower my rating from 6-7 to a rating of 5, is the lack of internal consistency. Redford's character is tremendously concerned over the welfare of this beautiful thoroughbred horse, & I'm concerned, too. The main premise of the film is that the horse's welfare is more important than the money to be made off this animal. The horse has ligament damage in a front leg ("it's full of water," per Redford), so Redford saves the horse from exploitation (being part of a stage show & being photographed) by stealing it. Later, to try to escape the police, Redford rides this injured horse for about 10 miles (it seems), at high speed (perhaps 20-25 mph?) over hill, dale, gullies, a bridge, through water, rock strewn ravines, etc. Never mind the lack of reality here (that an injured horse would never be able to accomplish this). But how about Redford's feeling for the animal? He's supposed to be so concerned for the horse's welfare, but it is he who subjects the horse to the most grueling damage possible! The lack of internal consistency in this film is that the man who supposedly cares the most about the horse, is the one who inflicts the most injury to it. And this makes no sense within the context of the film.
- Jan 27, 2008
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content