When a movie proclaims it is "based on a true story", this sets a Pavlovian response in many people to get them to believe that what they are about to see is what really happened. I see it as the marketing ploy it is. Sure I believe there was a Frank Hopkins and that he was renowned for long-distance horse racing. But that doesn't mean he ran in a 1000-mile race over in Arabia for lucre.<br /><br />Oh, I liked this movie. It got me to thinking about how my tolerance level for accuracy varies from movie to movie. For "Hidalgo", what annoyed me was Viggo Mortensen's blue eyes in the head of Frank Hopkins, supposedly the son of an Indian chief's daughter. Whenever I was taught about dominant/recessive genes, the example always used was that brown eyes are dominant over blue eyes. Frank Hopkins couldn't have had blue eyes.<br /><br />On the other hand, I didn't care if the scenes in Arabia were mainly figment's of the writer's imagination. For all I know, Arabia may have been much more brutish in the 1890's than was depicted in the film as it was still under the thumb of a decaying Ottoman Empire. The film depicts a race in Arabia so we have to see many Arab characters. One scene showed Omar Sharif as Sheik Riyadh reading a dime novel about the Wild West. That's what the moviemakers have made here as well.<br /><br />The once scene this American would demand complete accuracy for is the massacre at Wounded Knee. What they showed there better have actually happened.<br /><br />Despite Mr. Mortensen's blue eyes, he is believable as a laconic cowboy. Zuleikha Robinson as the sheik's daughter is beautiful and Omar is fun. And let's not forget the horse. It gets plenty of screen time and close ups to earn its title billing.<br /><br />Good adventure.