Review: War Horse
Beginning just before WWI in Devonshire, we meet struggling farmer Peter
Mullan, his wife Emily Watson, and son Jeremy Irvine as they struggle to pay
landlord David Thewlis. Yes, the farm is in threat of foreclosure. Gee, haven’t
heard that one before. One day, the ne’er-do-well Mullan decides to buy a horse
at auction, much to the displeasure of Watson, though Irvine vows to find a use
for the animal on the farm. A bond soon forms between boy and horse, the latter
now named Joey. Unfortunately, once the war breaks out, their union is broken
in the name of Britain, as Joey is rounded up, and poor Irvine is too young to
fight in the war. Joey is then in the care of kindly army Captain Tom
Hiddleston, whilst Irvine is back at home hoping to one day ride him again. Or
something like that. Benedict Crumblebum...er...Cumberbatch plays another
officer, as do Eddie Marsan and Liam Cunningham, whilst Niels Arestrup is a
French grandfather whose granddaughter takes in the horse at one point.
Steven Spielberg has been responsible for some of the greatest
entertainments in cinematic history; “Jaws”, “ET”, and “Raiders
of the Lost Ark” alone are cinematic milestones as far as I’m concerned.
And yet in 2011, the man went 0-2 with two deathly dull and old-fashioned
films, the animated “The Adventures of Tintin”, and now this hoary old
thing. Has Mr. Blockbuster lost his touch? Well, both films were popular at the
box-office and most critics, but in my opinion, yes Spielberg has indeed lost
his touch. In fact, this one’s even worse than “Tintin”. About the only
good thing I can say about it is that at least the horses are real, unlike the
pathetic stage version. Those horse puppets just look absurd, though I’m not a
regular theatre-goer anyway.
The first part of the film is unendurably twee potato farmer crap, kind
of like “Lassie” with a horse. I kept waiting for the horribly
disfigured Leprechaun to turn up and club everyone’s kneecaps. And why is Bilbo
now played by Peter Mullen? Not even a mutton-chopped David Thewlis could save
this (he’s good, though), certainly not the dull Jeremy Irvine, and Emily
Watson is surprisingly terrible playing a one-dimensional weepie cliché that
seemed more like a parody of a stereotype to me (Mullen isn’t much better). She
also gets one extremely unglamorous close-up that really did remind me of a
sack of potatoes. Why would you do that to the poor woman, Steven? Meanwhile,
every time Irvine opens his mouth in this, all I could hear was Samwise Gamgee,
and believe me, Sean Astin’s Irish accent wasn’t exactly stellar. A real
Irishman might’ve made something a lot less twee than this (not that this was
set in Ireland. It’s actually set in England, but someone forgot to tell
Spielberg and the actors this, it seems), but Spielberg completely botches it.
I get the boy and his horse connection for Spielberg (though Irvine’s odd
performance will give you “Equus”-inspired nightmares), but I liked this
a whole lot better when the horse was an alien who made Drew Barrymore scream.
After that opening section, one realises this film is going to be an
episodic film where the horse is actually the main character, travelling from
owner to owner like an equine Forrest Gump crossed with Simpson and his Donkey
(a WWI Australian story that has become legend). And boy is that a stupid idea,
though I should confess at this point that I hate horses and don’t much care
for British farm life stories, either. This isn’t a timeless story, it’s an
antiquated one, and boring beyond belief. The opening 40 minutes felt like two
hours at least. Tom Hiddleston gives an excellent performance in a rare good
guy role, but this film took way too long to go nowhere interesting. It’s full
of clichés and nothing about it is remotely subtle, including one of the least
impressive music scores by John Williams (“Jaws”, “Star Wars”, “Superman”,
“Raiders of the Lost Ark”), who ought to be embarrassed by his work
here. Spielberg and cinematographer Janusz Kaminski (“Schindler’s List”,
“Saving Private Ryan”, “Minority Report”) continue the
heavy-handedness of the film by framing the Germans in ominous shadows and shot
compositions that are a teeny bit racist (And don’t get me started on that
wannabe “Gone With the Wind” finale. What the hell was that?). If it were a WWII film, I could
almost forgive such a thing, but WWI? Not so much. And then there’s the scene
where the horse volunteers to get a harness put on it. Yes, the horse is an
enlisted man, folks. Corny as fuck. So clichéd was it, that when Benedict
Cumberbatch and his ridiculously pompous voice came along as a stiff
upper-lipped Brit officer I kept wondering when he was going to order the horse
to go marching UP and DOWN the SQUARE! He’s a boring and silly actor and it’s a
really bad sign in a drama when you’re thinking about Monty Python, folks
because those sketches are what, 40-50 years old at least now? I know this is a
WWI-set film, but there’s a difference between being set in the past and being
antiquated.
I know a lot of people liked this film, but I found it useless. Horses to
me have zero personality and have no right being the main protagonist of a film
unless it’s a movie version of “Mr. Ed”. That might be fun. Loved that
damn show. Spielberg even botches the few spots of CGI in the film, as horses
gallop past gunfire. The CGI was obviously necessary, but it’s definitely not
top-shelf stuff, though thankfully only briefly used.
I said earlier that the film is episodic, but if not, then it’s extremely
unfocussed because you simply cannot expect us to be invested in a film where
the horse is the character we’re meant to relate to. You need humans to latch
on to, in order to get around the horse’s lack of charisma (Look at the classic
“The Yearling”, about a boy and his deer, but the deer wasn’t a camera
hog, the boy was the main character). I don’t care what the title says, a horse
should not be the main character. One horse looks the same as the next if it’s
the same colour, for starters (And there were 14 ‘Joeys’ used in the film, to
further prove my point). I literally got confused between horses at certain
points. The same cannot be said of humans, unless you’re ignorant, and it meant
that a supposedly sad moment between two horses was rendered ineffective for me
because I couldn’t identify either of them.
I’m sorry, but there’s nowhere near 2 ½ hours worth of material in this
nonsense, and it’s C-grade radio serial material at best. It’s an extended
Guinness commercial, more like it. Despite my hating the potato farmer crap,
the film would’ve at least been tighter if it had focused on the scenes in
Ireland, and moved to the scenes with Hiddleston, and then returned to the farm
scenes again. Instead we get an extended and seriously dull pit stop in France
for God knows what reason.
The dirty battle scenes, when we get to them are well-done and mostly
free of shaky-cam, but when it takes 90 minutes to get to the good stuff, and
that 90 minutes has been unendurable crap, it’s just not good enough. Maybe
they should’ve started the film during the war and have the kid and horse
introduced to each other there and forgotten all the potato farmer crap and
Emily Watson’s unflattering face. There are way too many close-ups in this,
especially those given to the horse. Yes, the horse. Horses are no more
expressive than Bruce the Shark, and he was mechanical for Christ’s sake,
Steven! I couldn’t get over how heavy-handed the camerawork was here in purely
dramatic scenes. The finale (the “Gone With the Wind” thing I referred
to earlier) is so schmaltzy I nearly vomited. And I normally love schmaltz.
Horse lovers will enjoy this, no doubt about it. I hated it. It was
well-mounted but interminably and insufferably twee, and completely
heavy-handed to boot. Adapted from Michael Morpurgo’s novel by Lee Hall and the
normally very fine Richard Curtis (the latter being the director of the very
fine “Love Actually” and the underrated “Boat That Rocked”), this
may very well be the worst Best Picture Oscar nominee of all-time, in a year
full of underwhelming Oscar nominees. But hey, everyone else loves this film
(and the play won a Tony Award to boot), so what do I know? I’m just the guy who didn’t like “Red Dog”, and
hated this one even more.
Rating: D-
Comments
Post a Comment