War Horse

Topic started by Rorie on Dec. 25, 2011. Last post by pwnmachine 4 months, 1 week ago.
Post by Rorie (3,214 posts) See mini bio
Staff

War Horse feels like a movie that couldn’t have been made by anyone other than Steven Spielberg. It also, confusingly, feels like it wasn’t made by him at all, as if he had handed the job off to one of his protégés and let Ron Howard or Robert Zemeckis take the reins (so to speak). In a technical sense, this is one of the most beautiful films of the year: no expense has been spared, no costume shop left unmolested, no extra told to stay in the dressing room, in Spielberg’s attempt to recreate the Europe that existed in the years of World War I. It is a film that can only be called grand, but it’s a grandeur of a sort that works against the ability of an audience to make any kind of connection with it.

Based on a 1982 children’s book by way of a 2007 stage adaptation, War Horse tells the story of Joey, the latest in the “strong-willed but noble and physically unmatched” archetype of screen horses which you’ll recognize from Secretariat and Seabiscuit. He’s a stubborn horse, wild and thought to be untameable, which makes it all the less likely that the Narracott family will get much out of him; they need a draft animal to plow the fields, but Ted Narracott (Peter Mullan), head of the household, drunkenly spends three times as much as he can afford on a thoroughbred instead. His son, Albert (Jeremy Irvine), is infatuated with the animal, teaching him tricks like a dog, and seems to be the only human the horse will respond to. Irvine seems to have been asked by Spielberg to look at everything with such wide-eyed, tearful innocence that one eventually wonders if something is not actually wrong with his face.

Adventures ensue, of the fable-like sort that you might expect from a film based on what was originally a children’s book. Albert attaches a regimental flag of his father’s to Joey before he’s sold off to an officer who intends to use him as a cavalry mount in the early stages of World War I. From there, Joey and the flag transfer ownership through multiple hands as the war drags on, from a pair of brothers in the German army, to a young French girl, to a horse-loving artillery officer, and so on. Destiny and pluck seems to propel him through dangerous situations, although he is often at the mercy of his human minders, a good number of whom have less than desirable fates in store for them.

Most of these small vignettes last around 20 minutes of screen time, but by and large they fail to connect with any kind of emotional impact. It is a film that is uniformly well-acted (not least by the fourteen horses that portray Joey), but we spend so little time with each set of characters that their stories barely begin to resonate before we’re whisked off to another season and another set of owners, usually as the result of some tragedy (the more violent of which are often obscured or cut away from, this being a PG-13 film). These are moments that, in a longer work, might’ve been capable of real pathos or emotion, but here are simply experienced and moved past before they really have a chance to register.

There are exceptions, of course. Early on, we see cavalry charging towards machineguns obscured in a forest, and then the camera cuts to riderless horses galloping past those guns, their officers not being able to complete the trip. It's a beautiful moment, straight from the Spielberg playbook. Best, though, is an encounter between an Allied soldier and a German soldier in an unexpected place at an unexpected time. “You speak good English,” says the Brit to the German. The German thinks for a second, and replies, “I speak English well.”

It’s a charming moment, and one of the few instances of humor in the film that really seem to stick. Most of that humor, such as an ornery duck that - get this! - quacks a lot at people on the Narracott farm, seems a bit broad, and the first half-hour of the film overwhelms with whimsy, perhaps to counterbalance the darker moments ahead. The humor might fit within the confines of a film based on a children’s book, but there’s enough war in this movie to make this something that you definitely shouldn’t bring a child to. Horses are put down, kindly farmowners see their fields ransacked, and men go over the top in scenes of trench warfare that are, if slightly less intense than Saving Private Ryan, of comparable scale. Worst of all is a scene in which a terrified horse finds itself charging through a field laced with barbed wire; it’s wince-inducing for grown-ups, and likely to induce nightmares in younger viewers.

We’re left with a film that is probably inappropriate for the youngest possible audience members, but a bit too slick and mythological for adults to find anything real in. There’s practically zero historical context given here: a viewer unfamiliar with why World War I was fought will leave as mystified as when they walked in. We’re asked to connect with the characters, but are given little time to form any of those connections. The most time is given to the relationship between Albert and Joey at the beginning of the film, which is affecting in the generic way that any young-boy-and-first-pet story is liable to be in the hands of a competent filmmaker, but still falls somewhat short of any real emotional punch. Horse-lovers may find it easier to latch onto Joey as a central character, but he’s often placed in the background of the drama that sweeps up the humans who care for him.

Spielberg and his longtime collaborators, cinematographer Janusz Kaminski and composer John Williams, seem to have taken War Horse as their opportunity to overwhelm an audience with what can only be called “movie magic.” It isn’t insincere, precisely, and definitely doesn’t feel as mercenary as it might have if Robert Zemeckis really had directed it, but it also lacks that spark that animated previous films of the trio, such as Saving Private Ryan or Schindler’s List. It is a simpler and safer story than those films, intended for younger audiences, but has replaced their reality with a kind of ersatz emotionalism. In the nuts-and-bolts world of photography and costuming and stage decoration, it is undeniably a triumph. In the realm of feeling, though, War Horse is more sentimental than real.

Post by Moviemaniac (317 posts) See mini bio

I've heard it's great, reviews are very positive. I have yet to see it however.

Post by mylifeforAiur (1,655 posts) See mini bio

To be completely honest, the advertisement for the film has left me a little irked: I mean, the trailer I keep seeing is entirely distasteful with its insistent need to remind you of how 'emotionally powerful' the film will be. There's almost no subtly as to how the film expects its audience to feel. I'm probably thinking too much into a simple trailer, but I think some tact would've been welcomed; I'll watch the film myself and see how I feel about it Mr. Obtrusive Advertisement--there's no need to re-iterate the fact that this film is emotional and I will be sad. Over-hype ruined The King's Speech for me, and I hope that this won't be the case with War Horse.

Post by Artie (227 posts) See mini bio

War Horse and Extremely Close and Incredibly Loud are the two movies that made me want to shoot myself in the head. Their ridiculous sentimental trailers that are supposed to inspire awe and love from your heart. It's so god damn corny, suicide seemed like the only way out.

This movie looked awful. Not to say it looked like a poorly produced movie, but just one I would be sighing with disbelief at how corny it was.

Three stars isn't a bad score but its enough for me to know that I was probably right in my assumptions of what this movie would be. So i'll be skipping it. Thanks Screened!

Post by AngeTheDude (173 posts) See mini bio

When are we going to get the Saving Private Ryan of World War I movies?

Post by freakin9 (38 posts) See mini bio

I'm not a horse, therefore I won't watch this movie because I can't relate to it. *

*sarcasm(I hate pointing this out btw, but f it)

Post by Chuck (27 posts) See mini bio

I disagree with Rorie that the movie doesn't pack emotional resonance. I may have a soft spot for horses, but I cared about Joey throughout the whole film and I think the same goes for the owners of him. They didn't have a lot of screen time, but I think their characters were well told and in a brief and concise way. I understood why they were doing what they were doing and they never felt rushed off the screen to me which I also think is one of the things this movie does best.

I do, however, agree with Rorie that the production is pretty amazing. This is a war movie and does an excellent job showing it.

It's not perfect though. Some of the acting, particularly Jeremy Irvine, wasn't always great with some cheesy moments. The writing at times was not so good as well with some of the characters coming off as pretty big cliches.

Still, I thoroughly enjoyed it. It's not Spielberg's best movie or even very close to it, but it is still a pretty good one.

Post by Anthony (46 posts) See mini bio

Does he fuck the horse

Post by SuperSambo (30 posts) See mini bio

All the trailers I have seen make this seem like the most boring film ever made... They all involve a horse running in a straight line and pretty much nothing else.

But hey, I liked the G.I. Joe movie. Maybe this just was not a film made for me.

Post by Sammo21 (137 posts) See mini bio

Loki and Sherlock Holmes riding horses together? Film of the year.

Post by buttersdaman000 (12 posts) See mini bio

Obvious corny oscar bait

I wont be seeing this shit

Post by GhostNPC (317 posts) See mini bio
Great review. Kind of had a feeling it would turn out over emotional, though I'm surprised that it seems like it was directed more towards younger audiences.
Post by iAmJohn (90 posts) See mini bio

@Artie said:

War Horse and Extremely Close and Incredibly Loud are the two movies that made me want to shoot myself in the head. Their ridiculous sentimental trailers that are supposed to inspire awe and love from your heart. It's so god damn corny, suicide seemed like the only way out.

This movie looked awful. Not to say it looked like a poorly produced movie, but just one I would be sighing with disbelief at how corny it was.

Three stars isn't a bad score but its enough for me to know that I was probably right in my assumptions of what this movie would be. So i'll be skipping it. Thanks Screened!

Exactly how I feel about both of those movies. Every single trailer of War Horse felt like the most cloying thing I've ever seen in my life, bashing you over the head with syrupy sentimentality of overblown horse love and British people telling you to "be brave" against all odds with yet another offensively oppressive John Williams score (I swear to fuck, has he ever heard of subtlety?). I'm sure it's a fine movie, but I don't think I could be any less interested in yet another shitstorm of emotional bludgeoning from Spielberg, and it's something he's only becoming more and more guilty of.

Post by nicorcano (96 posts) See mini bio

I enjoyed the film quite a bit. Joey definitely stole the show though.

Post by keegan (225 posts) See mini bio

er·satz[er-zahts, -sahts, er-zahts, -sahts]

adjective 1.serving as a substitute; synthetic; artificial: an ersatz coffeemade from grain.

Post by stoodspoon (133 posts) See mini bio

@keegan: What?

Post by keegan (225 posts) See mini bio

Definition to a word I did not know before I read his review.

Post by Kraznor (460 posts) See mini bio

I really disliked this film, just seemed oddly inappropriate to expect an audience to care about a man and his horse when World War I is ending thousands of human lives all around them. Also, why does he care about the horse so much? Four years he doesn't get over it? I've lost pets before, ones I've had longer than this fellow, and I moved on. Grew up. Became a person. This kid still carries a drawing of his horse years after they parted ways? That's not an inspirational story of hope, that's obsession and stunted emotional growth. I also just did not see what was so impressive about the horse's exploits that whenever it was doing ANYTHING, dozens if not hundreds of people would gather to gawk at it. Again, World War I is happening, people are being killed and mutilated, yet everyone takes some time to stare dumb-founded at a horse doing horse things. That's the tip of the iceberg, this film was something of a travesty. But then "Tintin" was really fun so Spielberg still has a place, I suppose.

Post by Antiimony (1 posts) See mini bio

Just got home from seeing it and, I hated Albert. A lot. Also, the barbed wire scene drove me crazy, fuck that, that horse is dead.

Post by psychpunk (271 posts) See mini bio

Minor spoilers, but not really: So overall I think 3/5 seems spot on. For the majority of the film I could care less about anybody but the horse. And then only because horses are kind of cool animals. It wasn't until the scene where the two (completely random) soldiers cut Joey free from barbwire that the film had any emotional resonance. And it was only that one scene. Mainly because it was so low key in comparison to everything else. The dialog wasn't so sentimental or cheesy and it was just a cool moment. Also the battle scenes reminded me why Spielberg is a God-man. So there is that. I liked it, but still too over sentimental and Oscar-baity overall. The scenes before Joey goes to war are downright painful in those departments.

18 votes, 3.4 avg.
General Information Edit
Name War Horse
US Release Dec. 25, 2011
UK Release Jan. 13, 2012
AUS Release Dec. 26, 2011
Runtime 154
Language(s)
Add a new language
Genre(s)
Add a new genre
War
Theme(s)
Add a new theme
Rating PG-13
Alias(es)
Related Pages Edit
We don't have any info about War Horse's related cliches. Help us fill it in!
  • In today's dollars
    Domestic $78,694,000
    Foreign +54,700,000
  • = total worldwide gross $133,394,000
  • - a reported budget of $66,000,000
  • = a 102.1% net profit of $67,394,000
Top Editors

Submissions can take several hours to be approved.

Save ChangesCancel