‘War Horse’: A trot, not a gallop
It’s unusual to have Steven Spielberg competing with himself at the box office this holiday weekend, but there he is – with “The Adventures of Tintin” and now with “War Horse.”
Based on the popular children’s book that inspired the Tony-winning Broadway production, “War Horse” is exactly what it advertises itself to be: a schmaltzy tale of a boy and his horse, set against the backdrop of British poverty and World War I.
The horse, named Joey, is barely a yearling when it catches the eye of both the down-on-his-luck farmer Ted Narracott (Peter McMullan) and his teen-age son, Albert (Jeremy Irvine). Albert has seen the horse practically since the day it was born, has watched it grow and tried to make its acquaintance as he passed its field each day.
Then in a stroke of drink-fueled ego, the tenant farmer Ted bids every cent he has to deny Joey to his landlord, the obnoxious Mr. Lyons (David Thewlis). The horse is worthless as a plow horse, which is what Ted needs. But he can’t resist tweaking Mr. Lyons, even though the decision will come back to bite him later on.
Specifically, he’s paid all the money he has saved for the rent, just for this horse. If he can’t come up with a crop in time for the rent being due, it will cost him the farm. Rather than let his father sell Joey to pay for the rent, Albert teaches the horse to pull a plow – to the cheers of the townsfolk, who have gathered to see the effort.
But the forces of luck are aligned against Ted, who finally is forced to sell the horse – and gets top dollar from the Army, which is looking for mounts to take them to war in Europe against the Kaiser. Suddenly Joey is the horse of a cavalry officer (Tom Hiddleston) – who is about to discover that he is on the wrong side of the evolution of warfare technology with a horse and a sword, going up against machine guns.
Most of the rest of the film is Joey’s story, as he transfers from owner to owner, out of danger and into comfort, then back again, at the whim of fate. Albert, meanwhile, is fighting his own war, finally trapped as part of a force in the trenches in France, shortly before the end of the war. Will Albert and Joey be reunited? Will both of them live long enough to find each other again?
I’m not going to provide the spoiler, but keep in mind that this movie IS based on a children’s book. And the animal hero rarely dies in those. At least not since the days of “Ol’ Yeller.”
So why isn’t Spielberg able to evoke stronger emotions at what should be a tear-provoking finale? I’m a sucker for animal movies and tales of human/animal friendship. But while “War Horse” is able to bring the lump to the throat, it failed to bring the tears to my eyes.
Not that this is bad Spielberg. It’s just middling Spielberg, good as opposed to great. It has his signature moves; what it doesn’t have is the sense of passion that says, “This is more than a product. I really believe in this.”
I’m sure Steven Spielberg would argue that, in fact, he cared very deeply about these characters and this film as he made it. I wouldn’t contradict him.
I was impressed by the cinematic craftsmanship, the ability to evoke a sense of a by-gone era, not just with the story but with the storytelling. There are few directors as canny as Spielberg working today.
I’m just saying that I didn’t feel it at the end of “War Horse.” I wanted to; based on what I’d seen in commercials, I expected to. But I didn’t. That’s just the way it goes sometimes.
Print This Post
December 26th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
“set against the backdrop of Irish poverty”. Um, NOT. It’s set and filmed in Devon, England. The Narracotts are an English family. Everyhone talks with English accents, not Irish accents. Did you pay any attention at all during the film?
December 26th, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Were we watching the same film? The reviewer has obviously edited his initial review, because the reference to Irish poverty, rather than England’s rural poverty settin in Devon ,has been deleted.
And the father’s drinking problem was actually a facilitating subplot with respect to the arc of the story.
It is not a film for children or young teens; and it is most certainly not “a holiday film.” It is Spielberg, however, in heartfelt, storytelling mode; and while at times a bit of an emotional roller coaster, it is worth the ride. Parents may want to wait for a DVD-released version, where they can edit if they want their older children to experience the film.
If you prefer solid storytelling and Spielberg’s cinematic craftsmanship to simply over-the-top special effects,I would recommend War Horse. And I would prepare to shed a few tears.
December 26th, 2011 at 11:34 pm
You are a hopeless reviewer. Do you know the difference between a review and a synopsis? Merely summarising the story is not a review or critique. Any fool can do that. You are just spoiling the movie for those who haven’t seen it. A good reviewer describes the film- mood, efefct,tyle, etc without ruining the plot fir viewers. You have no skill or imagination. Get another job. Any fool can recount a storyline.
December 27th, 2011 at 1:28 pm
Please, do your research and rewrite your review.
A bad review is a product of poor knowledge of the product.
December 27th, 2011 at 1:32 pm
I’m agreeing with the review; this filmed missed the mark.
I, too was expecting more and whether or not the location starts in Ireland or England, to me is irrelevant. The film is apparently about the journey of the “warhorse”, Joey.
I can not pinpoint why this movie did not draw the emotionality from myself, maybe the actors or the script, but I’m not sure Spielberg was the best director for this job. While it did have “a feel and look” for early 1900′s wartime (Europe), I think there was too much “cinematic craftmanship”. Did anyone notice how the “field to be plowed scenes” were “lit up” with hollywood lights? It looked fake to me. I’m guessing they used some kind of LED lighting? And the whole “end of the war scene” was just Schmaltzy hollywood. Big let down for me.
I do hope that hollywood continues to produce more movies of this type as I’m really tired of movies that go over the top with blowing up buildings and everything else that goes with a blockbuster release. But perhaps Clint Eastwood would have been a better choice for this movie…. LP
December 29th, 2011 at 1:41 pm
Great assessment of this film – I am wondering if the previously published comments were written in haste or ignorance because you nailed this movie right on the head – mediocre Spielberg, family film in EVERY senses of the word. To nitpick about details such as “Irish vs. English” and the comment “A Bad review is poor knowledge of a poor product” seems to have been written by someone who has WAY too much time on their hands.
Bravo Mr. Fine.
December 29th, 2011 at 3:13 pm
I wonder if the reviewer even read the book on which the movie is based or did any research on the subject. While the movie was classically emotional Spielberg, I’d say that my primary complaint against the film is the insertion of some unnecessary cutesy stuff that cluttered the story and detracted from the emotional content of it (I’m talking about the bit with the goose, now really, that wasn’t at all needed and was by all counts clutter that could have been done away with). The war scenes packed an emotional wallop but were also, as I understand, cleaned up a bit to make the movie more palatable to families with children. Those scenes could easily have evoked far more horror than they did but they were still full of plenty of suspense and action. The movie deviated quite a bit from the book and added narratives and characters that weren’t even in it, such as the two teenaged German army deserters and the typically trite character of an evil landlord, but that notwithstanding, it was still quite a good movie deserving of at least some respect as a Spielberg product. My hat’s off to him, he’s delivered another terrific movie that is full of good old fashioned emotion and tugging at the heartstrings.
I know some folks hate this and feel that it’s sheer manipulation on the part of the filmmaker, but think back to other classic movies you’ve seen. Didn’t they have the same effect on you? Who can watch “Gone With The Wind” and not feel a variety of emotions tugging at you while you are watching it? Now, I am not comparing this movie to that one, hardly, because they aren’t even in the same class of films, but still, my point here is that a good old fashioned movie SHOULD be an emotional experience, even if it means that it’s a five hanky tearjerker. That’s what movies are supposed to be all about, and I say, more power to them for that. That’s why we pay the money to go see them, after all. Thank you, Steven Spielberg, for another fine film this holiday season, even if it is less than perfect. Go see it, because this is one film that needs to be seen on a large theatrical screen. It will lose something in the translation to DVD and on to a small television screen.
This reviewer gives it a “thumbs-up”.
March 17th, 2012 at 3:23 pm
I agree, This is not so bad after all
Please do your research and rewrite your review.
A bad review is a product of poor knowledge of the product. Take it back