Just back from seeing War Horse Film.

[Huss417]

Posted: 12/25/11 at 10:10pm

It was interesting that in a theatre that had 300 seats I counted 30 people. This was tonight at the 7:00PM showing in CT. I thought there would have been more people.

POSSIBLE SPOILER BELOW!

I thought the film was good till the last scene. I won't say more then that but it took me right out of the movie. I have no clue why it was filmed the way it was and would love to know what others thought.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 12/25/11 at 10:31pm

I had no problem with the ending at all, other than its predictability, and that didn't really bother me either. It's a sweet, simple, beautiful film. It definitely won't be for everyone. They are very different pieces, but if you didn't like the play, you probably won't like the movie. If you're willing to check your disbelief and just go along for the ride, it's visually rewarding and emotionally satisfying.

Worth seeing on the big screen for the cinematography alone.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 12/25/11 at 10:34pm

I do want to see this. I'm just surprised at all of the negative reviews it's receiving for a Spielberg film!

[Huss417]

Posted: 12/25/11 at 10:35pm

Loved the play and have seen it twice.

It was interesting that the last scene all people were saying when the lights came up that it reminded them of Gone With The Wind.

Updated On: 12/25/11 at 10:35 PM

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 12/25/11 at 10:45pm

I don't really like Spielberg, but I enjoyed this. There were some Spielbergisms that bugged (his usual close-up shot of eyes just brimming with tears, lit just so), but at least this time he used an editor.

There were no Gone with the Wind references at my showing, though I get what you mean. Didn't bother me.

NYTimes review was a rave, Jordan. I haven't seen many others. I think NYmg was pretty positive too.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 12/25/11 at 10:48pm

I might go see it tomorrow. I was going to go today but decided to see YOUNG ADULT instead, which was phenomenal.

[bwayfan7000]

Posted: 12/25/11 at 10:50pm

I thought the movie was, like the play, visually stunning, and I think both versions tell the story with great effectiveness for their respective mediums.

And I'm curious if the criticism of the final scene lies with the plot development or the cinematography, which definitely struck my eye as different but interesting.

[mpd4165]

Posted: 12/25/11 at 11:11pm

I saw it this evening as well as was thoroughly disappointed. I WANTED to like. I enjoyed the play so much and thought that this was a perfect match to Spielberg's sensibilities. However, one of the things that makes the play so successful (besides the obviously gorgeous puppetry) is the simplicity of the story. Boy and his horse. I felt this crucial element lacking in the film. The moments when Joey begins to trust Albert are rendered beautifully in the play, but there's no build like this in the movie, so I never felt as invested in Albert reuniting with Joey as in the play.

POSSIBLE SPOILER
The auction moment involving Emilie's grandfather at the end of the film felt so contrived and an obvious obstacle to manipulate more of an emotional response from the audience. While the play is guilty of it as well, I felt the movie took it farther.

For those who have a better understanding of the book (as I believe the movie is closer an adaptation of that than the play), how does it hold up? Is the scene mentioned above included?

[broadwaydevil]

Posted: 12/25/11 at 11:54pm

I have not seen the play so I cannot comment on differences between it and the film, for better or worse.

I saw War Horse this afternoon and it was very crowded. I would guess it was just about sold out, not more than a dozen or so unsold seats.

The story felt sort of contrived but it is a British children's story, correct? If so, some of the glaring, annoying coincidences make perfect sense if they're intended to be read/heard by a child. That said, I was able to put most of my quibbles with the plot itself aside and enjoy the film. The cinematography was beautiful and I thought the soundtrack was incredible. I didn't think any of the acting was particularly noteworthy, but the plot and sequence of the film doesn't really allow for any actor to shine.

When I left the theater, I certainly felt a bit of "magic." It was an enjoyable movie. Perhaps not brilliant nor deserving of The Best Picture title (though a nom is probably imminent and well-deserved), the movie really draws you in to the excitement, evoking a sense of wonder and amazement many of us haven't felt since we were children, if ever. I'd highly recommend a visit.

[edyw32]

Posted: 12/26/11 at 4:58am

i think that if you love a film like Young Adult, you may have problems with War Horse, unless you are into the craft of film and not the content?

[humbugfoto]

Posted: 12/26/11 at 11:11am

I, too, had a problem with the final scene. For most of the movie the direction felt like Spielberg crossed with David Lean, consistently. But then, suddenly, in that final scene, it was like John Ford had been reborn. It had such an overwhelming sense of John Ford that I kept looking for John Wayne to step out of the doorway of the farmhouse. Totally yanked me out of the movie, and frankly, quite disappointing. I thought Spielberg was better than that.

The story is very slight, and very predictable. Virtually every plot point hinged on some form of implausible coincidence. Perhaps I am overstating it a bit, but it began to feel like "what's he going to pull out of his bag of tricks next?" I don't necessarily mind being manipulated, but not with such a heavy hand. I have a great deal of respect for Spielberg's talents, but I don't think this was really the best vehicle for them.

I did like John William's music.

[Edna Turnblad]

Posted: 12/26/11 at 11:26am

I saw it yesterday, and I absolutely loved it.

[Huss417]

Posted: 12/26/11 at 12:53pm

"Totally yanked me out of the movie, and frankly, quite disappointing. I thought Spielberg was better than that."

I said last night if I ever had a chance to ask Spielberg a question it would be why did he film the final scene the way he did?

[charlesjguiteau]

Posted: 12/26/11 at 1:24pm

Huge fan of the play here (saw it twice in London) who has not much good to report on the movie from my standpoint.

Sadly found Spielberg's weakness for kitsch and schmaltz ruining scene after scene. Albert is suddenly Abercrombie-Fitch beautiful. Skies are ALWAYS ravishing sunsets. Humble farm interiors whether in Devon or France are vast interior spaces fit for a deluxe Bed&Breakfast, and jampacked with the MOST lovingly photogenic jars, drying herbs and needlepoint. All the characters' odd quirks and shows of villainy that made watching the play so exhilarating were generally whitewashed for the film. Worst of all was the difference in the two scores: hearing simple English folktunes played live onstage suited the story perfectly. Onscreen we were drowned in an ocean of strings and horns from the first frame to the last courtesy of John Williams, with barely a letup for the whole two hours.

In its defense, I did find some of the war sequences in the film brilliantly shot, and was astonished time and again at the stunts the horses were able to perform without ever endangering any animal. But the bald-faced tearjerking on display throughout just left me saddened and angry by the end of the picture. Oh, if only the brave filmmakers who made "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan" had been the ones to make "War Horse". Oh wait, they were.

[Musical Director 109]

Posted: 12/26/11 at 1:58pm

Have not seen the play and looking forward to the film. In the previews it does remind me a bit of "Gone With the Wind" perhaps the cinematography?? I love Williams score also from the bits that I heard. Sorry to be off topic but what other Christmas movies are worth seeing?

[charlesjguiteau]

Posted: 12/26/11 at 2:05pm

I'm biased, but MUPPETS MUPPETS MUPPETS :)

[sorano916]

Posted: 12/27/11 at 12:54am

POSSIBLE SPOILER
The auction moment involving Emilie's grandfather at the end of the film felt so contrived and an obvious obstacle to manipulate more of an emotional response from the audience. While the play is guilty of it as well, I felt the movie took it farther.

For those who have a better understanding of the book (as I believe the movie is closer an adaptation of that than the play), how does it hold up? Is the scene mentioned above included?

I did the whole thing backwards and saw the movie then the play and then read the book.

It's true that the movie follows the book better than the play. In the book, Emilie has a grandfather and the auction scene does happen. It's even sappier in the book, actually.

The major thing that the movie took from the play is how Albert finds Joey again. Albert in the book is in the more or less a vet solider. He doesn't get gassed so the scene of him blind calling Joey before the surgeon shoots Joey is only in the play & movie.

[Patash]

Posted: 12/27/11 at 9:50am

Saw the play twice in London and LOVED it. Clearly War Horse is not a gripping and complex story, but a rather overly sentimental journey (not that there is anything wrong with that). I think the real difference is that the stage production is all about the "story telling" rather than the story itself and most lovers of theatre are moved by the way the story telling takes place (including the amazing puppets). Without that theatrical story telling, I think the movie becomes more obviously overly contrived and sentimental. My partner remarked that he was much more emotionally moved by the stage production than by the film -- possibly because one can impose one's own feelings in the theatricality of it rather than following the literal and realistic interpretations.

But I can't imagine how anyone who has seen Gone With the Wind wasn't immediately taken into that almost exact same effect. Was that Albert's mother in the turnip patch in black silhouette against the orange sky as the returning soldier returns or was in Scarlett in the same pose in the radish patch while the soldier returns. Similar? No, an almost exact copy in my book.

All that said, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. Thanks to those above who explained the ending which I was convinced must have come from the book -- but I think we could have done without in the film. I was also a little surprised that so little emphasis was placed on Albert's determination to join the army to find Joey, and his obsession to find him once he was in battle. When he gets the letter about the man riding Joey being killed in battle, if it had not been for my seeing the play, I suppose I would have thought that Albert had then assumed that Joey was killed as well.

[JMPlayer6]

Posted: 12/27/11 at 10:50am

I saw this movie yesterday (12/26/11), at the 1pm matinee. A few quick observations:

*** POSSIBLE SPOILERS ***

(1) The theater was absolutely slammed-packed full
(2) A good amount of the audience applauded the film at the end. Applauding for movies is a blast from the past, which rarely happens nowadays.
(3) Going in, I had thought that the film was based on the book and not the play. But the end credits read that it was based on both.
(4) I don't recall the auction at the end of the film being as it was in the play. As I watched the film, I just assumed that it was that way in the book. In any case, it was a bit contrived, I agree. You'd think the French guy would have had at least wanted some compensation back for the horse, if not everything he had paid himself.

[Edna Turnblad]

Posted: 12/27/11 at 10:55am

The audience applauded at the end of my showing, too. The only times I've experienced any kind of applause is at the beginning of midnight showings of Harry Potter movies. So, it was a little unexpected.

[Huss417]

Posted: 12/27/11 at 12:05pm

"But I can't imagine how anyone who has seen Gone With the Wind wasn't immediately taken into that almost exact same effect. Was that Albert's mother in the turnip patch in black silhouette against the orange sky as the returning soldier returns or was in Scarlett in the same pose in the radish patch while the soldier returns. Similar? No, an almost exact copy in my book."

I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned in any of the reviews I have read. Like I said earlier it took me right out of the moment of enjoying the film and thinking about Gone With the Wind.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 12/27/11 at 12:21pm

Definitely want to see this if just because Kaminski's cinematography looks gorgeous. I am willing to sit through Oscar bait on a plate when it looks good.

"(2) A good amount of the audience applauded the film at the end. Applauding for movies is a blast from the past, which rarely happens nowadays."

Clearly you have not been to the Harry Potter screenings or superhero films with a group of fanboys. Heck when I worked at a movie theater applause at the end of Twilight films was not out of the ordinary (and the loudest applause for a movie I saw was for the Star Wars: Attack of the Clones).

[Jon]

Posted: 12/27/11 at 12:28pm

As far as it being based on the play as well as the novel, I assume that there were specific bits of business in the movie that were int he play, but NOT in the original novel.

Spielberg was aware of the novel and interested in doing a possible film for over ten years. Seeing the stage version was just the final nudge.

[Patash]

Posted: 12/27/11 at 3:56pm

Oh, one thing that REALLY bothered me. Early in the film it starts to rain when the whole crowd of people are watching him try to plow. The effect was horrible. It looked as though the scene had been shot forgetting about the rain, then the next scene with the mother and father in particular in the rain was shot and it was perfect. Someone decided it really should be raining sooner so they went back and superimposed slanted rain over the picture of the group that had clearly been filmed without rain. It makes no sense. No one is getting wet, no one is even blinking while the rain is supposedly blowing in their faces, and the end result is absolutely ridiculous. How could such a horribly done technical effect have remained in the final cut???

[E.Davis]

Posted: 12/27/11 at 7:20pm

It bothered me that the German Solider that had the majority of Act 2 was written out.

Also the fact that the David Thewlis's character was not his uncle and his cousin did not appear either.