We went to see the film War Horse last night. A friend asked me whether, as a horse lover, I would be able to cope, and I said I thought I would. I love horses, but care more about people.
But oh dear! We - yes, both of us - thought it was absolutely awful. Sentimental, poor acting, athropomorphism gone mad...I could go on and on. I loved the stage play, largely because the "puppets" (such a demeaning word for such magnificent creations) were so amazing; in fact I thought that they were more convincing than the real horses in the film. Of course, the real horses were excellent, but they never for a minute looked as though they were in any kind of distress (I think anyone who has seen a panicking horse might agree). The idyllic countryside (with its neat rows of turnips, and this after the farmer had scattered the seed in great handfuls completely randomly) looked like the backdrop for Jack and the Beanstalk.
Of course, the sets for the trenches, the sound effects, the mud were all fine, but then no doubt a huge budget was allowed for them. But in the end, I was quite bored. I don't expect anyone to agree - so many people seem to have cried their way through what we thought was extravagant tosh - but it would be lovely to hear if anyone else felt the same way as we did!
My husband and daughters think they might want to see it and will be very interested in your thoughts. I won't go because, despite being an animal-lover with four cats, two ponies and four chickens, I can't bear animal films. Even as a child, I couldn't watch them, especially if they talked. No 'Tales Of The Riverbank' or 'Dr Dolitttle' for me. I can't even watch 'Jungle Book'. The animals don't even have to be unhappy or mistreated, I can't even watch happy ones!
ReplyDeleteVery interesting, Frances, and it makes me want to see it now!
ReplyDeleteThat is interesting. I thought that I wanted to see it but now maybe not.
ReplyDeleteWe decided not to see it because it sounded too sad, but glad we didn't now. What a lovely word - athropomorphism - wonderful!
ReplyDeleteI think I would like to see the film but fear I'd be one of those who cries their way through it. The book made me cry! x
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen it - from what I'd heard I imagined it would be rather sentimental which I'm not keen on. Sounds as though I was right to give it a miss.
ReplyDeleteMmmm well, I'm in two minds now. Don't want to see it after what you've just said BUT do want to see it to see if it really can be all that bad, lol. :-)
ReplyDeleteJoanna, go with your instincts!
ReplyDeleteRosemary, do let me know what you think.
Colette, give it a try!
Maggie - another misprint, I'm afraid. I left out the N!
Teresa, I haven't read the book, but suspet it's a lot better than the film.
Patsy, trust me, this is sentimental (if nothing else)!
Diane, do let me know (if you see it). I need a dissenting voice!
Well what a ninny I am for not noticing that missing 'n' It's still a lovely word.
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen it and I'm not sure whether I want to or not. I don't like war films anyway and I can't bear anything that shows animals suffering. I think you have just made up my mind for me.
ReplyDeleteThe hype aroused my interest. Your review just killed it, though it comes as no surprise to hear a wonderful story has been spoiled by too much sugar. I watched a documentary on the real thing last week. Now that was good. Thanks Frances.
ReplyDeleteMaggie, I thought it was the missing N you were referring to!
ReplyDeleteWar films...animals suffering...No, Gail. I don't think this film is for you!
Mr V, 'too much sugar'. That just about sums it up!