354 replies to this topic

[ShirlD]

Grantowi, on 27 December 2011 - 10:06 AM, said:

War Horse isn't about WW1 - its about a horse and its keeper - just happens to be set in WW1

Grant

That is a very good description - we all enjoyed it and were very quiet afterwards. I am sure it will tick many boxes, including the variety of opinions expressed in this thread, overall though I think it did give a glimpse of the muddle and the horror of war wrapped up in a story that will engage a lot of people.
Cheers
Shirley
ps love the goose!

[conner]

Tom W., on 27 December 2011 - 05:33 AM, said:

Yes, opinions are BAD! We mustn't JUDGE! We mustn't take into account our past experiences with directors; we mustn't believe our own eyes and ears; and we must smile and nod gently when we're told something is GREAT! Because to disagree is double-plus UNGOOD!

Tom,

Look at the monitor and repeat after me.....I LOVE WARHORSE.....,  I repeat.... I LOVE WARHORSE...

[jdajd]

hesmond, on 27 December 2011 - 10:30 AM, said:

that perhaps Speilberg is not the director to do justice to the war ? but then today who is ?

Peter Jackson, without a doubt.  He is already a WWI enthusiast and collector and he has spoken many times of wanting to make a WWI movie.  He did a promo for a new type of movie camera called Crossing the Line and the bits you can see on Youtube look amazing.  

Having said that I am still going to see War Horse tonight and I for the most part like Steven Spielberg movies (although I will acknowledge he has made some dogs.

Jon

[azyeoman]

Tom W., on 27 December 2011 - 05:33 AM, said:

Yes, opinions are BAD! We mustn't JUDGE! We mustn't take into account our past experiences with directors; we mustn't believe our own eyes and ears; and we must smile and nod gently when we're told something is GREAT! Because to disagree is double-plus UNGOOD!

Typical statement by one who has missed the point.  The point was not about opinions and good discussion, but about blatant prejudice.

[alex falbo]

I think we should all be satisfied that Tommy Atkins gets some high profile silver screen time period. I don't care if its even for 10-14 minutes in something like Sucker Punch. The point is, people will be aware and influenced. And some if not more will want to learn further. It gives those of us who care about and preserve the details and the history a chance to have their ear. And if Warhorse works, then we might get Peter Jackson or someone else to have the courage to have a go at a realistic epic portrayal we're all craving.

Its not wishful thinking. Many great historians were influenced as children by early films or TV shows that were plagued by schmaltz and glamor and whatever else.

To allow for some balance:
Here's the other hand ... I must admit that I hope its tone is rather neutral about the belligerents. The last thing we need is another exercise in the War poet version of events. Allied stupidity, chateau generals and all that trot.

I am going to see it knowing what mostly to expect.

[Tom W.]

azyeoman, on 28 December 2011 - 12:50 AM, said:

Typical statement by one who has missed the point.  The point was not about opinions and good discussion, but about blatant prejudice.

Nope. You said, and I quote, "It's amazing how OPINIONATED some people are[.]"

It also can't be about "prejudice" because everyone on this thread has seen many Spielberg movies. The tiny minority not interested in seeing War Horse have seen the trailers, heard the radio ads, read the reviews, and know the story, so they're not being prejudiced there, either. Nobody is "prejudging" anything.

I happen to love cat videos on YouTube. I know lots of people who have never watched a single cat video on YouTube and think they're stupid, yet that doesn't offend me, or make me ashamed of my silly interest, or make me want to call them "prejudiced." I realize that cat videos (and cats) aren't everyone's cup of tea, but that doesn't make me upset.

I have a very strong opinion about Spielberg. I think he's a purveyor of garbage who's had a deleterious effect on popular culture. I blame him for the horrifying, ersatz, simulation of emotion that has permeated most films put out by major studios in the past 20 years. And I'm not alone. Movie attendance has hit rock bottom.

Oh, and I'm the only person I know who never saw Avatar. I plan on never seeing it, under any circumstances, based on the ads I saw for it. I'm not going to waste a minute of my life on what I perceive--based on what I've seen and heard of it and read about it--as putrid, stupid, childish, propagandistic tripe.

I've never eaten Surströmming. Have you? It's canned, fermented fish, a Swedish delicacy. I've read about it. Watch this video and tell me if I'd be justified in calling you "prejudiced" if you decided you didn't want to try it, based on what you know about it and what you've seen and heard.

[conner]

Tom wrote:  Oh, and I'm the only person I know who never saw Avatar. I plan on never seeing it, under any circumstances, based on the ads I saw for it. I'm not going to waste a minute of my life on what I perceive--based on what I've seen and heard of it and read about it--as putrid, stupid, childish, propagandistic tripe."

Good Lord!  I refused to see Avatar also!  James Cameron's scripts are puerile.  Titanic stank worse than that Surtromming.  
And I like those cat videos on youtube featuring maine-coones.....  I'm frightened, Tom..

[Tom W.]

conner, on 28 December 2011 - 07:32 AM, said:

Tom wrote:  Oh, and I'm the only person I know who never saw Avatar. I plan on never seeing it, under any circumstances, based on the ads I saw for it. I'm not going to waste a minute of my life on what I perceive--based on what I've seen and heard of it and read about it--as putrid, stupid, childish, propagandistic tripe."

Good Lord!  I refused to see Avatar also!  James Cameron's scripts are puerile.  Titanic stank worse than that Surtromming.  
And I like those cat videos on youtube featuring maine-coones.....  I'm frightened, Tom..

Watching Titanic, at the scene where what's-her-name was standing en pointe for all the colorful, happy peasants in the bilge compartment of the ship, I actually shouted to the woman who dragged me to see it, "I hate this movie so much!"  Several people around me applauded. This was in Los Angeles in 1997. If you weren't there in body, you were in spirit.

To bring us back to World War I, may I present an Austrian Pionier.

Attached Files

•  Pionier.jpg   32.13K   0 downloads

[Pighills]

Oh dear, I've never seen Avatar either, and I never intend to - this is based on the trailers and adverts shown at the time for the film ............. oops, I fear I may be prejudiced too  

[Tom W.]

Pighills, on 28 December 2011 - 09:54 AM, said:

Oh dear, I've never seen Avatar either, and I never intend to - this is based on the trailers and adverts shown at the time for the film ............. oops, I fear I may be prejudiced too  

I never gave Tough Guys Don't Dance a chance, based on this scene. My prejudice won out. Maybe since I've avoided so many films because of what I've seen of them, I've graduated to full-on bigotry.

[Steven Broomfield]

In the same way that there are several authors whose works I would avoid like the plague (no names, no pack drill), there are some directors I view similarly.

For that reason, if no other, I have managed to avoid Avatar  

[ph0ebus]

Avatar is basically 'Dances With Wolves...In Space'.

-Daniel

[aliecoco]

I went to see 'War Horse' for its initial play, back in 2008 I think. It was amazing to see, and a matinee that I will never forget. The puppetry was the best I have ever seen, and certainly the story was emotional, and by the end, for me, the horses were no longer puppets..

I will definitely go to see the film version with an open mind, and we must not forget how important a horse was to many families, both rural and urban 100 years ago. There is a letter in the Imperial War Museum display cabinets from a little girl, begging her horse not to go to war...

Whatever 'one' thinks of the film next month on its release, it will make us aware of the importance of the 'horse' at that time, and perhaps an angle on war that often gets forgotten.

Alie.

[jdajd]

Saw it last night and for those who already do not like Steven Speilberg's work, this will not change that opinion.  I saw the play and knew the story and what to expect and was already set to enjoy the film.  Having said that I found my eyes rolling more than a few times; he just heaps on the sentimentality.  The first 1/3 or so of the movie is about how the boy raises the horse and again while I saw the play and knew what was coming I still found it unbelievable on the screen.  Then its August 1914 and I thought great this is what I came for.  The first portion left me a little underwhelmed, but there was certainly potential.  Then there is a large leap in time as one scene the Germans are wearing pickelhaube and the next they all have stahlhelms.  This is not a badges and buttons critique, but a movie one as there was no real indication of any significant time passing.  Then its Summer/Fall 1918, which is really what the wait (for me at least) was about.  Here I could see how visually impressive a modern WWI movie could be.  Unfortunately, this one was a little sanitized as it is obviously meant to appeal to all age groups; when explosions go off bodies go flying through the air and bullets kill instantaneously.

All in all I was underwhelmed and left wanting a more adult and substantial Great War movie.

Jon

[Bob B]

There is a letter in my local paper, Witney Gazette, from Testimony Films of Bristol.

They are producing a documentary for Channel 4 about the "Real War Horses". They are seeking info from farmers and families who had horses requisitioned.

Bob

[alex falbo]

Saw it last night and enjoyed it. I agree that it is 'sappy' but I think it does quite well at bringing the brutality of War to the eyes of children with composure. As mentioned, the time frame jumps. and the largest flaw is that too many characters have little time to develop. But the battle sequences were quite excellent. Minus the straight trenches which many films seem to have. The film definitely tried to sum up the dawning of modern war concept in shots of the horse facing , artillery, mg's and a tank. And a sabre charge was done quite effectively minus the mercifully omitted blood spatter and headless infantrymen, etc.

Didn't see Avatar either. not the first remake in disguise. Borat is just an interpretation of the Persian Letters. And as for war films that are a 'must see', everyone keeps telling if I like war films I have to see Inglorious Basterds. Well I don't. And as much as Tarantino loves his homage to Where Eagles Dare and the man on a mission movie, it is nothing more than a sadistically violent, poorly rendered, cartoonized propaganda version of the Dirty Dozen.

[Tom W.]

alex falbo, on 31 December 2011 - 11:36 PM, said:

And as for war films that are a 'must see', everyone keeps telling if I like war films I have to see Inglorious Basterds. Well I don't. And as much as Tarantino loves his homage to Where Eagles Dare and the man on a mission movie, it is nothing more than a sadistically violent, poorly rendered, cartoonized propaganda version of the Dirty Dozen.

I saw an extended trailer for Inglorious Basterds on a DVD I rented. Just watching aging boy-actor Brad Pitt doing his horrible, contemptuous southern accent was enough to put me off seeing it, but like Avatar, it's actually a really moronic, superficial, juvenile statement about geopolitics.

At some point someone needs to make a war movie that doesn't think it's a cleverly disguised political comment. I understand the premise that the United States is the most evil country in human history and is responsible for everything wrong today. I get it. I've only heard it 47 billion times.

Now, let's just assume we're all good little indoctrinated robots, and let's move forward with movies that are about people again. That's all I want to see. Movies about ordinary people forced into extraordinary circumstances. Save the politics for the millions of political ads that smash us over the head every day.

[Steven Broomfield]

FWIW, I went to see the exhibition at the NAM yesterday, and it's very good. There is, in fact, mercifully little about the movie but a lot about the mountaed man in the British service.

However, the NAM, in its own inimitable way, manged to refer to Allenby as "Edward". Dolts.

[Kate Wills]

On the More4 channel at 2.20pm today:

"The National Theatre Unit's first documentary commission goes behind the scenes of the stage production of Michael Morpurgo's War Horse, a tale set during the First World War telling the story of a beloved horse sold to the cavalry and shipped to the front line in France. The programme includes rehearsal and backstage footage, interviews with the cast and production team, and extracts recorded from the show."

[Rif Brig]

I saw the film over the Christmas holiday and enjoyed it.

Considering that hardly any WW1 movies are made these days, I'm just happy that this even made it to the big screen. I'm also glad that Spielberg kept the good old British Tommy and did not change him into a doughboy, as Hollywood seems to do these days. Don't get me wrong, I like Americans (I'm married to one).

It's nice to see British uniforms and equipment for a change, even if there are some inaccuracies.

Mark

[NigelS]

Here's an interview with Andrew Robertshaw on his part(s) in the film Click - Dare I say it   : from the horse's mouth, so to speak...

Here's Matt's take on it Click from yesterday's Telegraph

NigelS

[Scalyback]

Not a button counter per say.

As a film, not bad. Filming was wonderful. The only bit that had it for me(with out spoiling it for those yet to see)........the fonz jumped the shark, when joey jumps over a large metal object! Even far fetched for the better half.
A future gathering of thoughts to follow but pub calls.

[Tim P]

I watched it last night and quite predictably Spielberg piled on the sentimentality in heaps. For all that I happily sat through it and, despite being astonished to see stahlhelms so very early on I felt all in all that it was an enjoyable film.

To the detractors on here I only have this to offer, how many films about boy and girl not getting on only to discover a romantic spark get cranked out every year? how many apocalyptic CG 'back from the brink of the end of the world' epics get reworked?
Here is a story, set in, and of ww1.. For that I can forgive it the shmalz necessary to cover the need to have it succeed at the box office.

Until that elusive true warts and all, melodrama free portrayal that is a good honest telling of an astonishing tale comes along (watch this space, some big anniversaries coming up) This kind of thing will have to feed my hunger.

Pearl harbor... ouch
Windtalkers, very ouch
SPR, graphic, ground breaking  and graphic but unlikely plot underpinning it relying on one of the big 7 plots to keep us interested.
Warhorse... 'Boy meets dog' with a most acceptable backdrop.


As a slight aside, anyone tried the 1968 film 'the (or 'a') long days dying'?

[hesmond]

Yes A Long Days Dying ,rember it well goes to prove 4 ? actors can make a great war film ,Hemmings at his best still rember the fately wounded German para trying to cope with his awful wound ,kit was not to bad either .

[6th Shropshires]

aussiechris, on 27 December 2011 - 03:40 PM, said:

- we all enjoyed it and were very quiet afterwards.

Watched it today and everyone there watched quietly and everyone left very quietly evan the youngones, I think many were just trying not to cry, I know I still had big lump in my throat as I left.


Annette