The Story of Seabiscuit (1949)

Why so much hype?

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

I liked the casting, and the costumes of this movie and I love the story of Seabiscuit. Tomorrow I am picking up the book that the 2003 film was based on, which is one of my all time favourite films. A drag in this 1949 version is the embarrassing minority stereotyping and treatment. The pace is also tedious - at one point you are watching an entire race that Seabiscuit is not even running in. The authentic archival footage was great. I liked seeing Shirley Temple in her later years as an actress - still has those adorable dimples and she's holding her own even taking on a thick Irish accent. But the story gets tedious over this injected love story between what I assume are the fictional characters of Margaret O'Hara and Ted Knowles. It spends waaay too much time on that phoney back and forth. For the most part, the movie seemed to follow the facts in all but one odd way - these fictional characters and the forced conflict between Shirley's character and this jockey Ted Knowles, who it finally dawned on me was in place of the real major player in the story of Seabiscuit, John "Red" Pollard. I'm not sure why they took this liberty with the facts and eliminated Red Pollard from being mentioned in the film, but used his story. As a viewer I didn't care about Margaret and Ted too much, and certainly didn't buy into the romantic tension of would they or wouldn't they get together. And I didn't care about the tragedy in Margaret's life that made her 'skittish' on marrying a jockey. Every time they were doing a scene, I was wondering what Seabiscuit was doing.

Although it is a nice, warm, charming story/plot it is a let down considering. The fact that some of the main characters in this version are completely fictional (the O'Haras) bothered me throughout the entire movie.I did love that it had some actual B&W footage of some of Seabiscuit's races. And being a sucker for almost any animal movie (especially horses) I utterly enjoyed all the scenery and all the shots of the horses. The only reason I would watch this again is for that, not for the plot or the actors. But I'm fairly sure that this one is going to collect dust on my DVD shelf.If you are going to watch a movie about Seabiscuit, I advise to see the amazing 2003 version and skip this one.

I loved watching this period piece about the great Seabiscuit. Theopening scene at the railroad station was shockingly racist. This clumsy attempt at humor was offensive to me as an American, but I must remember this was 1949. After this the movie shows some beautiful scenes of Kentucky horse country. The actor Lon MCallister seems awfully big for a jockey, but is a perfect love interest for young Shirley Temple who does a nice job in the role. The scene stealer is of course the inimitable Barry Fitzgerald who gives a predictably colorful performance as the oh so wise horse trainer. All in all a sanitized version of the real Seabiscuit story.

I remember this movie from my childhood and recently saw it on cable. What I don't understand is why do I remember this very forgettable film. It's really a loser. The horse(s) who played Seabiscuit get the highest acting credits from me. And Rosemary is always deCamp!