IMDb RATING
5.4/10
1.2K
YOUR RATING
Evan's son Joe receives Black Beauty stallion. After Evan's death, new owner mistreats animals. Black Beauty sold to circus after card game. Joe attempts to reclaim stallion from circus.Evan's son Joe receives Black Beauty stallion. After Evan's death, new owner mistreats animals. Black Beauty sold to circus after card game. Joe attempts to reclaim stallion from circus.Evan's son Joe receives Black Beauty stallion. After Evan's death, new owner mistreats animals. Black Beauty sold to circus after card game. Joe attempts to reclaim stallion from circus.
Uschi Glas
- Marie
- (as Ursula Glas)
José Nieto
- Lorent
- (as Jose Nieto)
Featured reviews
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.
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.
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.
I don't think a horse has seen so much violence.
Black Beauty, the name of the horse and the movie, is a horse that lived a very full life. He (I believe it's a he) was passed from owner to owner where he was witness to man's worse behavior. He suffered abuse and witnessed about three battles of varying sizes. Fortunately, at times, he was treated to some tender care.
The movie is really a series of mini-movies compiled into one feature length film with the horse as the only constant. Each time Black Beauty moves on we're privy to a new plot, new climax, and new resolution. I think the mini-episodes were simply OK on average. Truly, the only thing going for this movie would be the beautiful horse. Besides, t's not like the horse had any say in the script. Shoot! He didn't even have any say on whether or not he wanted to be in a movie!
Black Beauty, the name of the horse and the movie, is a horse that lived a very full life. He (I believe it's a he) was passed from owner to owner where he was witness to man's worse behavior. He suffered abuse and witnessed about three battles of varying sizes. Fortunately, at times, he was treated to some tender care.
The movie is really a series of mini-movies compiled into one feature length film with the horse as the only constant. Each time Black Beauty moves on we're privy to a new plot, new climax, and new resolution. I think the mini-episodes were simply OK on average. Truly, the only thing going for this movie would be the beautiful horse. Besides, t's not like the horse had any say in the script. Shoot! He didn't even have any say on whether or not he wanted to be in a movie!
This internationally-produced version of the oft-filmed Anna Sewell classic about the adventures and misadventures of a horse that is seperated from its original owners is the best of several films based on the timeless tale. Mark Lester stars as the young boy who longs to be reunited with his beloved horse. The film rarely strays from its source, and I believe this is superior to the 1994 remake.
A serviceable adaptation of the Anna Sewell novel, although it loses something in the translation; the horse becomes more of a supporting than central character here. Unusually, this was produced by Harry Alan Towers for Tigon, and it's far less sleazy than most of his work (although familiar faces like Maria Rohm turn up). Mark Lester is still riding high from OLIVER!, the actors are invested in their roles, the scenery beautiful and the story involved and fast-moving.
Did you know
- TriviaTop billed Mark Lester only worked three weeks. He only appears in the first 25 minutes, apart from a brief reappearance at the very end.
- GoofsIn a scene where Black Beauty witnesses the gypsies having a brawl on the cold bog-like, mud-ridden moorland and silently slips away, he appears to have walked to arid sub-tropical terrain completely different to what he had just left.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Auf Wiedersehen, Pet: A Home from Home (1986)
- How long is Black Beauty?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- Black Beauty - Auf der Suche nach dem Glück
- Filming locations
- Ardmore Studios, Herbert Road, Bray, County Wicklow, Ireland(Studio, uncredited)
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content