Some long movies, those that are more than 150 minutes in length, are very adept at making the most of their runtime, and the very best can make one forget how long they are. 'Riders' is not one of those movies - it's not terribly bothered about plot development, is it? The narrative advances so gradually that it's not until the 1-hour mark that it meaningfully feels like something happens. The plot does pick up more thereafter, yet all the while there's lots of (unimportant) riding, lots of sex and gratuitous nudity, and not much real story. The characters don't make much of an impression: Rupert is obnoxious and profoundly unlikable, Jake is brooding but could (key word) be okay, Helen is unprincipled (but still occasionally sympathetic in light of what she is put through), and except for one or two fleeting instances, no one else makes much of a mark at all.
I like the horses.
In fairness, I recognize that this is a TV movie. More than that, it's a British TV production, and while I'd never claim to be well-versed in imperial drama, the stylings are unmistakable. To whatever extent show jumping is the story, it's also emphatically the setting. A substantial portion of the actual plot, such as it is, is less about horses and more about the jealousies and grievances of the people riding them. That laxity of storytelling allows these almost 3.5 hours to meander lackadaisically, and progress minimally, and still backhandedly retain its focus. Is that a point in the movie's favor? A point against it? I suppose that's up to individual viewers to decide; I'm not entirely sure.
I'm unfamiliar with Jilly Cooper's book, so I can only comment on the adaptation on its own merits. I don't think Charlotte Bingham and Terence Brady's screenplay is outright bad, not least of all because, recognizing the approach it took, it's not unsuccessful in that aim. But it also struggles to be particularly engaging; the material is rich for drama, but it's teased out so slowly that we scarcely feel it. There are some good ideas here. There are some instances that could be spotlighted more heavily to instill comedy (not least of all revolving around Billy's dog); the most ponderous story beats could (should) be emotional cataclysms; one particular scene that we're treated to just shy of the 90-minute mark is a minor spark of brilliance in the sequencing. Yet by and large, the impact of the tale being told just isn't there. 'Riders' comes off less as an experience, and more as a passing diversion - and an overdone, lagging, all too often tawdry one at that.
I suppose these are all fairly harsh words. To be clear, I don't utterly hate this picture. A lot of work clearly went into it, and I admire the effort. I just wish it were more inspiring than "languid daytime drama, with horses." That air is reinforced by a couple significant story beats within the last half hour or so that feel like unbelievable contrivances. So many facets of the narrative should be far more striking and affecting in one way or another than they are. Instead, 'Riders' manages its bloated saga so oafishly that any such effect is all but lost, even at the end. The digital timer inches along with major sloth, and I was regularly astonished to see how much time remained, again and again.
By all means, there are a lot worse titles one could commit to watching. This isn't without value. Yet for as little payoff as it delivers, it's difficult to argue that 'Riders' is worth the investment, and what was already a middling affair is all the worse for it.
I don't know. Do what you want. After more than three hours of this slog, I don't care any more.
1 out of 1 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
