Not great, but a darn good movie.
Would have liked more thorough character development; having read the book, I especially would have liked to have seen more of Red’s pre-Seabiscuit life as a jockey.
Beautiful cinematography, astoundingly well-done horse races.
I suppose the story might be too earnest, too corny for some, but I enjoyed the movie’s sincerity, and Seabiscuit, for me, brightened up an otherwise blah movie-viewing summer.
I thought it was an excellent adaptation, given the need to keep the length to a reasonable timeframe. They didn’t take a lot of license with the facts, only when it was necessary for brevity of explanation (Red Pollard never told anyone outside his family about…well, you know). Toby McGuire was actually believable as Red, much to my amazement, and Chris Cooper was excellent. It helps to have read the book first, of course, which makes the opening scenes much more understandable. I truly appreciated the filmmakers’ not trying to humanize the animals or make them ‘cute’.
I thought they tried to cram way too much pre-Seabiscuit stuff into the beginning. But overall I enjoyed it.
I haven’t read the book (just bought it yesterday). Was the last race in the movie really as cheesy as it was portrayed?
Also, I would have liked to see some some captions at the end telling what happened in the rest of the lives of the major characters and the horse.
I enjoyed the movie but it seemed a little sentimental. How accurate was it?
From the previews, it looks like Jeff Bridges is simply rehashing his performance of Preston Tucker. (If you haven’t seen Tucker: The Man and His Dream, he plays Tucker the same way he played the President in The Contender)
Yes, you might say that. Actually, I liked Bridge’s performance, it fit well in the context of the movie. Seabiscuit was well-cast, and everyone did a good job.
Diogenes
About the last race’s “cheesiness,” not sure how to address this question. I guess you’ll have to read the book and judge for yourself. Liberties with the book were definitely taken, but it is quite a detailed, sprawling story to compress into two hours. Yeah, I did think it was a bit sentimental,but it was sincere, un-manipulative sentiment. Actually, the movie is so true to the spirit of the book that its straight-ahead earnestness could be off-putting to some more used to layered, symbolic cinema, I just wish that, as in the book, the characters had been more fully drawn. However, this probably would have given us yet another three hour movie, a trend which, for me, is becoming a bit tedious.
The last race probably had the most liberties taken with it of any of the races. It was one of the few where they didn’t even get the names of the #1 competitor to Seabiscuit correct. (It was Kayak II and he and Seabiscuit were running as an entry so I think Seabiscuit should have been 1A and not 9).
I thought the first 45 minutes could have been shrunk down a bit and then more depth to the characters added, but I wasn’t the guy writing the script or directing (which was the same guy).
I did like how in one scene we see Seabiscuit in the paddock area of Santa Anita and he’s walking past a statue of a horse. That statue, in real life, is one of Seabiscuit.
The audience I saw the movie with clapped and cheered at the line, “So long, Charley”. That race was the most exciting part of the movie for me.
I thought it was very well done. I’ve read the book twice now and I also thought the movie stayed true to the tone of the story. Even though a few parts were “Hollywood-ized” it didn’t take away from the overall feel for me. There were so many layers to the book you knew there would be parts that were cut out or watered down for the sake of the storytelling.
I think I might go back and read the book again!!!