Linbeymusol Wonderful character development!

VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Verity Robins Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

moonspinner55 English author Anna Sewell's 1877 children's book is more-or-less faithfully brought to the screen in this handsome 1971 adaptation starring Mark Lester, a hot property at the time following the success of "Oliver!" Awestruck youngster is incredibly attached to a male colt he names Black Beauty, but when his widower-father's farm is sold, the horse is inexplicably included in the deal (a detail which remains perplexing). Beginning with the tender birthing of a foal, director James Hill takes us to a frenzied hunt in the countryside wherein one rider (a glowering horse-hater) blames his horse for falling over on him and has the animal shot. This episode is followed by another in a similar vein, with the same hot-headed villain smacking Black Beauty for crossing his path on a private road. When the boy's farm is eventually sold, guess who the buyer is? One can easily become exasperated by the rote, formulaic storytelling, populated by too few genuine characters, though perhaps horse-lovers and kids won't mind as much. The cinematography by Chris Menges feasts on footage of stallions leaping, jumping, diving--sometimes in slow motion. It certainly looks good, even if the tale is just junior-league soap opera. ** from ****

Wizard-8 In case you are wondering, I have not (yet) read the famed Anna Sewell novel that this movie is based on, though I know a little about it, that being that it was written with the horse's point of view as well as carrying a message that humans should be kind to horses. However, this movie does not manage to do any of those two things, and I think that's the problem with the movie. Despite being titled "Black Beauty", the movie's primary focus is on the human characters in the movie instead of the horse. In fact, the horse is often an afterthought, and we certainly never get a feeling of what the horse is feeling or thinking. While the movie has these major flaws, the movie isn't awful - it looks nice, the human drama is sometimes interesting, and there are no slow spots. But viewers who think they are going to get a story about a horse will likely be somewhat disappointed. By the way, while the movie got a "G" rating back in 1971, some mild language, violence, and some mature themes would earn the movie a "PG" rating today.

kcminer78 Why oh why did they decided to throw away the classic story and come up with their own version? It feels to me they just stole the title and thought whoever wrote the script can do better than Anna Sewell. My daughter just read the classic story and wanted to watch a movie version. What disappointment we had when it was apparent that we weren't watching 'Black Beauty' but a bastardized story with less than good acting. All through the movie we both wondered aloud whether we had ordered a wrong movie by mistake. Almost all of the characters in the book are absent and the most egregious omission is that the horse is not the narrator. The top billed Mark Lester was less than himself and only in the movie briefly. The other characters are mostly one dimensional and their stories are only glossed over. Of course this is not a miniseries and probably couldn't delve into all of their stories but some story transitions leave me wanting something more. ********* Spoiler ********** I thought I heard the soldier who briefly owns Black Beauty volunteered to go to India but in the battle scene it is clear that the people he is fighting are not Indians. Oh, and how did this movie got a 'G' rating with such violent battle scene? Someone should have warned me and my eight year old daughter. Viewers who want to watch a movie based on the book should be warned that this one ain't so.

UnicornMaiden This is a movie that can be looked at one of two ways. You can look at it as an adaptation of Anna Sewell's classic novel, or you can look at it as a story about a bunch of people who all happen to own the same horse. I'll do both.As an adaptation of the novel this movie disappoints terribly. The plot bears almost no relation to the original story. Classic characters like John Manly, Reuben Smith, and Jerry Barker are cut out completely. New characters are often shallow and one-dimensional. Ginger, one of the most important horses in the story, acting as a foil for Black Beauty and with her own heart-wrenching story is turned into a gelding, given about three seconds of screen time and has no involvement in the actual story. The plot, particularly the ways in which Beauty passes from owner to owner, often seems contrived. On more than one occasion Beauty is simply standing around in the middle of nowhere and someone comes along and finds him. Other times he performs some heroic deed which would merit his owners deciding to keep him forever and the next thing we know he's being sold again. While the novel deeply explores the society of the time and the effects of that society (for better or for worse) on both the humans and the animals this movie disregards that aspect entirely. It portrays some rather stereotypical views. Worse, some of the bad guys are just that: bad guys with no depth or personality. Take for instance the young squire who is cruel for no reason and loves to hurt horses just for the fun of it.As a movie with complete disregard to the book it isn't half bad. The story as it is presented here is not about the horse; it is about all the different people who own the horse. Beauty isn't a character so much as he is a plot device. If you don't mind the focus shifting from animal to human it is an enjoyable sequence of stories. I stand by what I said earlier about many of the characters being one-dimensional, but when the entire cast is reviewed as a whole it displays a wide range of personalities and backgrounds. There is a good balance between kind and cruel owners. Pacing was fairly good. The movie had a nice balance with enough action but not too much. Cinematography was very nice. Many of the shots of the countryside were beautifully done (if occasionally somewhat overdone). Most of the stories were fairly standard plots (a decent farmer at the mercy of a heartless bank, young lovers forbidden from meeting) but some, such as the circus family were rather creative and even the recycled plots were well done. Acting was good overall.My conclusion: A good animal and people story, but if you want something closer to the source watch the 1994 version.