Year of the Horse (1997)

Best movie ever!

Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

Felt obliged to write a review as none of the reviews posted so far seem to have been from people who saw this at the cinema. I was lucky enough to catch this in 97 at a film festival and the memory of it still lingers. The talking heads interviews are unmemorable, but the live concert footage is incredible. It's some of the rawest, most powerful and yet subtly controlled rock music to have ever been captured. I's also nice to see some essentially middle-aged guys rock out big time. It's hypnotic and savage, and every time Neil hits his custom big red box and kicks into a solo you can feel the passion oozing from the man. If you want something polished you'd be better of with some Pet Shop Boy's videos, but if you're after authentic blood, sweat and tears take a chance on this. And for god's sake either turn it up very loud or better still put some cans on and get the full effect.

I wouldn't say that Year of the Horse, director Jim Jarmusch's only documentary, is one of the all-time great rock-docs (i.e. Woodstock, Last Waltz, Pink Floyd Live at Pompeii), but it does have many good things going for it, not the least of which the performances. Although some of the interview footage goes into some lulls and conventions (i.e. 'deep' explanations of how the band works, the fights, the self-conscious attitude of being in a film trying to capture 25 years in 2 hours), it's not as boring as I would've expected from the interviews. Some people have said this is like a Spinal Tap film that takes itself too seriously, and I can see where that criticism could stand. However, Jarmusch has a lot of pride in his experimental style, shooting only with 16mm & 8mm, mostly grainy or home-video style. The results are something of a very personal view into Young and his Crazy Horse people, some of whom seem to be more 'there' than others. A couple of segments though, like when Jarmusch reads from the bible to Young, or vintage footage of Scottish views on the band/shenanigans with the band in a hotel room, are quite entertaining on their own.But for those looking for just the music instead of the interviews or talk, the film may or may not meet your expectations, depending on how much of a Neil Young fan &/or Neil Young & Crazy Horse fan you are. If you're of the latter, it's probably a must-see, with songs like "F***in' up", "Slips Away", "Tonight's the Night", and a couple of songs I've just plain never heard of before seeing the film. There's also the finale, with a half retro Young and present-day (1996 present day) performance of "Like a Hurricane", which will probably be the highlight for those who only are familiar with the hits of Neil Young, or for anyone. The best thing that I can say about the performances, as a little more than a casual observer/listener to Young/Crazy Horse's music, is that there is always this uncommon energy between all the players in the band. Even if what they're singing is loud or distorted or "grunge", they are having fun on stage, and the camaraderie is an enjoyable part of the performances. Jarmusch's style with these scenes ranges from wild and cool, to a step or two away from being a little pretentious or, worse, MTV style editing. Most of the time though, his vision works for the material, and in the end what we get is more of a glimpse at what Young & Crazy Horse are all about- a pure form of rock & roll, harder than the solo Young stuff if not as hard as the rockers of today, and its definitely not of the 'corporate' product pool. B+

some guy from manitoba weighed in here and i can only echo his comments. i have been a fan of this band since 1970 and now i feel like i would have been better off not seeing this film. i don't care to read interviews with musicians, and i knew neil only through his music. he comes off as being a rather dim guy (not knowing even roughly the distinction between the old and new testaments of the bible), getting in pointless arguments with the band. i am almost of the mind to say that the whole film is a put-on, that jim and neil thought it would be really funny to do a spinal tap-like thing, but if that is the case, the thing backfires. watching pedro talk, not once, not twice, but three times about how the filmmaker can't possibly do his job effectively may be the big wink, but ironically jim creates nothing but a tedious film that offers no enlightenment whatsoever into the people who are making this music, and the grainy 8mm (no doubt supposed to reflect the raw nature of crazy horse's music) only keeps us from seeing just how boring it is to watch these guys in action. i am living in berlin right now, and the germans just love neil, and some think this film shows a guy at the height of his powers (one review of the show at the waldbuhne actually claims his voice has mellowed and gotten less whiny). to me, the one-chord solos only reveal a guy who hasn't given his instrument much attention over the decades (but he can sure write songs!), and the feedback-drenched "we may never end this coda" philosophy has grown really, really stale to the point of self-parody. spinal tap indeed. jim, on the other hand, seems to think less is more. less insight, less clarity, and not a bit of interesting camerawork in over ninety minutes. for comparison, see what scorcese did with the last waltz or demme did with stop making sense. truly one of the worst portraits of a group i have ever seen.

I'd rather be pistol-whipped than watch this movie again.