Hoot Gibson rides some horses and gets framed in Riding for Fame (1928)

Is this worth watching today? Honestly, only if you have a soft spot for grainy desert scenes and guys named Hoot.

If you hate silent movies where the plot is thinner than a piece of paper, you’ll probably want to skip this one. 🌵

It’s basically about Hoot Gibson being really good at riding horses. Then some money goes missing and everyone looks at him like he’s the bad guy.

I watched this on a rainy Tuesday and it felt like the right kind of background noise. The horses are honestly the stars anyway.

One horse in the beginning does this bucking thing that looks genuinely dangerous. I wonder if the actors got paid extra for the bruises they definitely got.

Hoot has this very specific way of tilting his hat. It’s like he knows the camera is there but he’s trying to pretend he’s too cool to care.

Ethlyne Clair is in this too. She doesn’t have a lot to do besides looking worried, which is a shame because she has a great screen presence.

The villain is... well, he’s a guy in a dark suit. You know he’s the villain because he doesn’t pet the horses and has that sneaky look about him.

It reminds me a little bit of the vibe in Forbidden Paths but with way less drama. Or maybe Buffalo e Bill if you’re into that specific era of dusty westerns.

There is a scene where Hoot is trying to clear his name. He spends a lot of time just riding around looking at the ground like the clues are going to jump out at him.

The dirt in this movie looks very dry. You can almost feel the grit in your teeth while watching the chase scenes through the canyon.

Slim Summerville shows up and he’s always a treat. His face is just... long, and he uses it for every bit of comedy he can squeeze out. 🐴

I think the writers, including Hoot himself, just wanted an excuse to film some stunts. There are like five writers listed for this, which is hilarious for a story this simple.

It’s like having five chefs to make a single piece of toast. But hey, the toast tastes okay and it's crunchy enough.

If you’ve seen The Firing Line, you know how these old movies can sometimes feel a bit stiff. Riding for Fame is actually a bit looser than that.

It doesn't try to be "important" or teach you a lesson. It just wants to show you some cool riding and a guy getting out of a jam.

There's this one shot where a guy falls off his horse and it looks like he actually hit a rock. I had to rewind it just to make sure the poor guy got back up.

The editing is a bit jumpy in the second act. Sometimes a character is on one side of the fence, and then poof, they’re on the other in the next frame.

Maybe they ran out of film that day. Or maybe the editor just didn't care because the horse looked good in the previous shot.

I wouldn't say this is as weird as The Isle of Lost Ships. That one is a whole different level of strange that I'm still thinking about.

But it’s definitely more fun than The Rights of Man: A Story of War's Red Blotch. Man, what a heavy title that is for such a boring experience.

Riding for Fame is a much better name. Even if the "fame" part is mostly just Hoot being famous for not stealing money from his boss.

The ending happens really fast, almost like they were in a rush. One minute he’s in deep trouble, the next minute everyone is shaking hands and smiling.

I guess they had a bus to catch. Or the sun was going down and they lost the light for the day.

The hats in 1928 were absolutely huge. I don't know how they stayed on their heads while they were galloping around.

If you like Hoot Gibson, you’ve probably already seen this one. If you haven’t, it’s a decent way to spend an hour if you like old stuff.

Just don’t expect any deep thoughts or cinematic magic. It's just a guy, a horse, and some missing cash that eventually turns up. 🤠

A few random things I noticed:

• The dog in the background of the ranch scene looks like it wanted to be in the movie more than the actors.
• Hoot's boots are way too clean for someone living in a desert.
• The intertitles are actually pretty funny if you read them with a sarcastic voice.
• I'm pretty sure I saw the same mountain in three different 'locations'.

Anyway, it's fine. Not a masterpiece, but it doesn't pretend to be one either.