Spielberg's War Horse

Cupcake_Crisis

Mickeroo wrote: »

the only problem I had with it was the lad who raised the horse(and his friend) came off as too much of a simpleton, borderline mentally ill even. .

I don't agree with that, when you consider the time it's set in, people were a lot more innocent back them, I wouldn't say he's a simpleton, I'd say he portrays a young boy of that time quite well!

One of my favourite performance's in the film was Tom Hiddleston (Captain Nicholls) I thought there was something genuinely decent about his character.

Mickeroo

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

I don't agree with that, when you consider the time it's set in, people were a lot more innocent back them, I wouldn't say he's a simpleton, I'd say he portrays a young boy of that time quite well!

One of my favourite performance's in the film was Tom Hiddleston (Captain Nicholls) I thought there was something genuinely decent about his character.

I get that but I just found it hard to take him seriously, I think its more the performance than the way the character was written that was at fault there though.

I agree Hiddleston was great, I loved the scene where he promised he would take care of Joey. Its a shame he wasn't in it for very long but its very much the horse's story I guess. Benedict Cumberbatch was great too, would gladly have watched a whole film with those two characters in it.

Sad Professor

It has a fantastic cast. I didn't realise Mullan was in it, so that was a pleasant surprise. I thought Niels Arestrup was great as well.

johnny_ultimate

Thought this was better than I expected, although more 'pleasant' than 'great'. I was expecting sentimentality central, but actually it was kind of reserved. Of course, there were still moments when the cheese was piled on (and John William's almost omnipresent score felt like it was forcing us to emote once too often), but there was some moments of surprisingly, subdued power throughout as well. Having many of the

big 'death' scenes occur off-screen

was a very well-considered decision particularly. The best part was the cinematography though. Gorgeous stuff - the Malick-inspired charge through the wavy grass was excellent, but the dusk-drenched finale is easily one of the most beautiful cinematic moments I've seen. Also, this was a very balanced (if overly sanitised, at times) look at war - much more effective than Eastwood's two film attempt at the same.

I liked the performances (good to see strong roles from European actors, like that kid from The Reader and Buch from The Killing II), and generally admired the overall structural decisions. But a few sticking points for sure: it really bothered me that

Cumberbatch disappeared, as I was expecting him to figure into the later story to a greater effect (like the way they integrated Niels Arestrup into the climax)

. While segments of the score impressed - especially the main theme - it just felt too blunt overall. I know, John Williams doesn't really do subtle, but almost the entire first act of the film had a constant soaring soundtrack. And while the constantly shifting character focus was overall an interesting choice, it did lead to some awkward pacing in the second half particularly. Hard to feel the emotional weight when you have so little time to invest in characters.

But overall it was far from the disaster the cynic in me wanted (and expected). There are plenty of moments of beauty and emotional warmth. If anything, it's nice to see an old-fashioned film that relies on sweeping vistas, thoughtful compositions and melodrama. They don't often make films like this anymore, and while that isn't necessarily a bad thing on one hand, it still proved to be an engaging and dare I suggest heartwarming cinema trip.