Good movie, but tepid ending

Rating: Null/10 (25 August 2003)

Having read about the movie and having seen the trailers (which were very well-done, by the way), I expected the film to be an absolute thriller and a runaway Oscar nominee but when I did see it, I felt it fell short of my expectations...
There is enough controversy about the 1940 Santa Anita race, where Seabiscuit won the elusive title on his third attempt, but I think director Gary Ross really botched that part. I am not talking about the controversy surrounding owner Charles Howard's other horse, Kayak II in the race but about the way Ross ends the movie without showing the actual ending of the race. Quite a few of the people in the theater were wondering if Seabiscuit won that race, or if he was just able to participate in that race. Only those who had done their homework knew that jockey Red Pollard did ride Seabiscuit to a win that day.
Also, a fact-based movie like this one should have an "afterword" or "epilogue" section saying a few words about the future of the lead characters. But there is no such epilogue here, and to me, that is simply unconscionable.
The one part of the film that comes out really well is the famous Seabiscuit vs. War Admiral showdown. Seabiscuit's victory over War Admiral was indeed authentic, and so is its depiction in the movie. No doubt the portrayal was realistic because the riders of the two horses in the film are both Hall of Fame jockeys in real life.
Overall, I went to the movie expecting to see an Oscar contender that would leave its opponents in the dust, as its title character Seabiscuit often did. But now I am not so sure. In terms of class, I would put this movie a lot closer to "Amistad" than to "Schindler's List". And we do know that while the latter ran away with several Oscars, the former hardly made any news.