Why do people who already have a preconceived notion of what is an acceptable amount of tenderness in a film write reviews for films like "Spirit"? I have one message to anyone with a blindly scathing opinion of this film: if you just don't like children's films, or if you have the rigidness of mind that makes it impossible for you to go back to a time of greater innocence, DO NOT REVIEW THIS FILM! Please.

That said, I can continue that "Spirit" is extraordinary. The animation is technically impressive, from the opening shot to the locomotive scene at the end. The storytelling is straightforward and pure, yet has many totally original moments that combine with the more formulaic, tried and true story elements. Objectively speaking, you can see that a great deal of time and money went into making the movie something that would stand a little taller than its competitors.

Sadly, "Spirit" suffers from its subject matter in a way unfair to the film itself. The film will likely appeal more to the sensitive (read: women, girls and young boys) than a general audience. The story is about a horse, and that means it is NOT likely to have lots of guns, swordplay, singing animals, characters saying, "It's all my fault", or distinct good vs. evil. My word, what happens when someone is courageous enough to make a movie that so deviates from tried and true storytelling devices? The answer: they don't make as much money as the recyclers at the Mouse.

"Spirit" was outshone and outmarketed by "Lilo and Stitch" and did not have nearly as long a run as a result. Guess who lost out because of that? You did, very likely. I saw this in the theater and on home DVD. "Spirit" loses an enormous amount of its power going to the small screen. The opening panoramic, long shot behind the eagle is reduced to a clever camera trick. And the experience of being engulfed in the thunder and masterfully recreated power of the galloping herd of mustangs is reduced to a moment of natural drama and little else. If you missed this movie during the summer of 2002, it is little wonder why you might overlook (or worse, pan) this magnificent milestone in animation.

See "Spirit" with an open mind. Enjoy its fresh take on the Bambi/Kimba/animal adventure tale. If you can, watch it with *children* so you can get a glimpse at the magic that they can easily see in this superior film. When it's over, take a moment and imagine what imagination and heart went into creating this film.

And if you still cannot decide favorably on it at all, watch "Scary Movie" or something that appeals better to your sense of intelligence and taste.

I don't know what's the problem with this movie being politically correct. It only means white men had a kind of barbarian behavior to animals while native Indians had to learn how to live together with them. There's nothing depicted in this movie white men did not do with horses. Okay, is it stereotypical? Yes, in a level, yes, but come on, this is a movie, this is an animated movie, aimed mostly for kids; world is more black&white for them than this movie shows. By the way, the colors of the movie are incredibly beautiful; just as the pictures. Maybe not always really interesting pictures but lovingly beautiful. And the action scenes are better than any in the last two episodes of Star Wars (I had the same opinion about Tarzan after The Phantom Menace). That train sequence... And when ****spoilers*** before the very final scene, Spirit is aimed by guns but is not shot, you can see this movie isn't half as stereotypical about white men as you thought. If you still think it is, you have missed that scene. I personally am sad that this tale could reach only a smaller part of the movie-goers; this might mean that stupid (even if funny), poorly drawn animated features have future and ones like this do not. I certainly would love to see more of this type. 8/10. (p.s. Mustangs are really wild European horses...true)

I feel like part of the reason why DreamWorks's Spirit: Stallion Of The Cimarron works so well (Ebert noted this in his excellent review) is the fact that none of the animals talk. Although the titular horse is given internal narration by Matt Damon (of all people), not once does Spirit, or any other creature ever speak themselves. This allows for more time spent on music, visuals and storytelling free from banter or exposition. When you have a movie with such sweeping scope and majestic beauty, it's nice to just relax and let it wash over you, almost like a music video. I'll always love 2D animation, and here its done exquisitely, the wild frontier rendered in richly colored strokes, the horses vividly brought to life through the illustrations. It's one of the last classic 2D outings, before the eventual switch to computer generated stuff. Don't get me wrong I'm just as in love with 3D animation, but I will always have deep nostalgic pangs for this style as well. Someone once told me that cinema is the only art form in which every single artistic medium you can think of can all inhabit the same space, interacting and complimenting each other to create a symphony for all the senses and perceptions. Spirit is a shining example: exceptional drawing and animation, terrific voice acting, and the music, which is a standout. Both the stirring score by Hans Zimmer and the original songs by Bryan Adams are heartfelt compositions which soar along with the visuals in perfect harmony. Spirit is a wild young mustang, who is captured by a vicious Colonel, gruffy baritoned by James Cromwell. He tries to train the horse and break him, but Spirit has that wild spark of vitality that any protagonist of the animal kingdom must possess. He refuses to give in, never losing hope of one day returning to his herd. He is befriended by young native man Little Creek (Daniel Studi) who is also searching for home. The two form an adventurous bond, putting them against man and nature to return to their origins. Mountains, valleys, corals, trees and the untamed northwest wilderness are all presented in a fashion so gorgeous that the colors nearly pop off the screen. It's just terrific entertainment through and through, never too silly, sappy or frightening, hitting all the right notes along the whole breadth of its breezy 80 minute runtime. DreamWorks doesn't often give Disney a run for its money, but consider this a glowing exception.