Just back from seeing War Horse Film.

I had no problem with the ending at all, other than its predictability, and that didn't really bother me either. It's a sweet, simple, beautiful film. It definitely won't be for everyone. They are very different pieces, but if you didn't like the play, you probably won't like the movie. If you're willing to check your disbelief and just go along for the ride, it's visually rewarding and emotionally satisfying.

Worth seeing on the big screen for the cinematography alone.

Loved the play and have seen it twice.

It was interesting that the last scene all people were saying when the lights came up that it reminded them of Gone With The Wind.

---

Updated On: 12/25/11 at 10:35 PM

I might go see it tomorrow. I was going to go today but decided to see YOUNG ADULT instead, which was phenomenal.

I saw it this evening as well as was thoroughly disappointed. I WANTED to like. I enjoyed the play so much and thought that this was a perfect match to Spielberg's sensibilities. However, one of the things that makes the play so successful (besides the obviously gorgeous puppetry) is the simplicity of the story. Boy and his horse. I felt this crucial element lacking in the film. The moments when Joey begins to trust Albert are rendered beautifully in the play, but there's no build like this in the movie, so I never felt as invested in Albert reuniting with Joey as in the play.

POSSIBLE SPOILER
The auction moment involving Emilie's grandfather at the end of the film felt so contrived and an obvious obstacle to manipulate more of an emotional response from the audience. While the play is guilty of it as well, I felt the movie took it farther.

For those who have a better understanding of the book (as I believe the movie is closer an adaptation of that than the play), how does it hold up? Is the scene mentioned above included?

i think that if you love a film like Young Adult, you may have problems with War Horse, unless you are into the craft of film and not the content?

I saw it yesterday, and I absolutely loved it.

Huge fan of the play here (saw it twice in London) who has not much good to report on the movie from my standpoint.

Sadly found Spielberg's weakness for kitsch and schmaltz ruining scene after scene. Albert is suddenly Abercrombie-Fitch beautiful. Skies are ALWAYS ravishing sunsets. Humble farm interiors whether in Devon or France are vast interior spaces fit for a deluxe Bed&Breakfast, and jampacked with the MOST lovingly photogenic jars, drying herbs and needlepoint. All the characters' odd quirks and shows of villainy that made watching the play so exhilarating were generally whitewashed for the film. Worst of all was the difference in the two scores: hearing simple English folktunes played live onstage suited the story perfectly. Onscreen we were drowned in an ocean of strings and horns from the first frame to the last courtesy of John Williams, with barely a letup for the whole two hours.

In its defense, I did find some of the war sequences in the film brilliantly shot, and was astonished time and again at the stunts the horses were able to perform without ever endangering any animal. But the bald-faced tearjerking on display throughout just left me saddened and angry by the end of the picture. Oh, if only the brave filmmakers who made "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan" had been the ones to make "War Horse". Oh wait, they were.

I'm biased, but MUPPETS MUPPETS MUPPETS :)

Saw the play twice in London and LOVED it. Clearly War Horse is not a gripping and complex story, but a rather overly sentimental journey (not that there is anything wrong with that). I think the real difference is that the stage production is all about the "story telling" rather than the story itself and most lovers of theatre are moved by the way the story telling takes place (including the amazing puppets). Without that theatrical story telling, I think the movie becomes more obviously overly contrived and sentimental. My partner remarked that he was much more emotionally moved by the stage production than by the film -- possibly because one can impose one's own feelings in the theatricality of it rather than following the literal and realistic interpretations.

But I can't imagine how anyone who has seen Gone With the Wind wasn't immediately taken into that almost exact same effect. Was that Albert's mother in the turnip patch in black silhouette against the orange sky as the returning soldier returns or was in Scarlett in the same pose in the radish patch while the soldier returns. Similar? No, an almost exact copy in my book.

All that said, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. Thanks to those above who explained the ending which I was convinced must have come from the book -- but I think we could have done without in the film. I was also a little surprised that so little emphasis was placed on Albert's determination to join the army to find Joey, and his obsession to find him once he was in battle. When he gets the letter about the man riding Joey being killed in battle, if it had not been for my seeing the play, I suppose I would have thought that Albert had then assumed that Joey was killed as well.

The audience applauded at the end of my showing, too. The only times I've experienced any kind of applause is at the beginning of midnight showings of Harry Potter movies. So, it was a little unexpected.

Definitely want to see this if just because Kaminski's cinematography looks gorgeous. I am willing to sit through Oscar bait on a plate when it looks good.

"(2) A good amount of the audience applauded the film at the end. Applauding for movies is a blast from the past, which rarely happens nowadays."

Clearly you have not been to the Harry Potter screenings or superhero films with a group of fanboys. Heck when I worked at a movie theater applause at the end of Twilight films was not out of the ordinary (and the loudest applause for a movie I saw was for the Star Wars: Attack of the Clones).

Oh, one thing that REALLY bothered me. Early in the film it starts to rain when the whole crowd of people are watching him try to plow. The effect was horrible. It looked as though the scene had been shot forgetting about the rain, then the next scene with the mother and father in particular in the rain was shot and it was perfect. Someone decided it really should be raining sooner so they went back and superimposed slanted rain over the picture of the group that had clearly been filmed without rain. It makes no sense. No one is getting wet, no one is even blinking while the rain is supposedly blowing in their faces, and the end result is absolutely ridiculous. How could such a horribly done technical effect have remained in the final cut???