Kevin Costner and his shitty 3+ hour westerns

[quote]Why?!?!

Fucking Boomers, man. Reminds me of that thread from earlier today where OP was asking why they still have a say.

He can't act. And he's a bore. He's the Neil Diamond of cinema.

And that’s just Part I.

Part II will come out later.

It's going to be the flop of the summer. Well, until Chapter 2 opens on August 16...

I’m looking forward to this, actually.

If it is good, we won’t feel the 3 hour run time.

[quote] Why?!?!

Then don’t fucking watch it. No one’s forcing you to buy a ticket. How is this a hard concept?

Or are you just bored and looking to stir shit?

[QUOTE] If it is good, we won’t feel the 3 hour run time.

You’ll always feel a 3 hour runtime.

He must have always wanted to be a cowboy.

I loved Pauline Kae's takedown of him and Dances with Wolves:

[quote] There’s nothing affected about Costner’s acting or directing. You hear his laid-back, surfer accent; you see his deliberate goofy faints and falls, and all the closeups of his handsomeness. This epic was made by a bland megalomaniac. (The Indians should have named him Plays with Camera.) You look at that untroubled face and know he can make everything lightweight.

Kael*

His only good movie was no way out

Just wait until he released the 7-hour Water Buffalo World.

"Costner has feathers in his hair and feathers in his head....[t]he Indians should have named him Plays with Camera."

R6 = Christine Baumgartner

Was this the movie Chris Hemsworth wanted to do?

There’s no way this movie is going to be a hit.

People don’t even know who Kevin Costner is today. No one under 40.

It’s literally Norma Desmond’s “Salome”.

[quote]His only good movie was no way out

I liked that movie. Unfortunately, it's a one-and-done. Pointless to rewatch it after knowing the twist.

I would also add Silverado and Field of Dreams to your list.

These films should be broken down as a six episode streaming miniseries. Instead he wants us to sit in a theater for six hours to watch cowboys riding horses and women washing clothes with rocks in a river.

I sat through Wyatt Earp. Yikes.

I watched the first episode of Yellowstone; I wanted to like it but I just couldn't get into it.

I actually saw this last Thursday. It belongs on TV as a streaming, multi-part miniseries because though he made it to bring big western movies back to movie theaters, it makes the old west look smaller than life. It is not done in a widescreen, 70MM ‘epic’ format. The film size and ratio are conventional, the 35 mm film often looks grainy (I know purists love this but I didn’t). The locations are sometimes beautiful but the images are never more than pedestrian.

It confusingly tells several far flung (geographically) and disconnected stories about the development of the west near the end of the Civil War, with a minimum of titles and explanation. Some of the actors in different stories look too much alike, so you find yourself trying to remember which story you are in. It’s chaotic, a shambles as narrative.

Some of the plots and individual scenes are interesting and the most compelling story is the Sienna Miller/Sam Worthington/Danny Huston section about the aftermath of an Indian attack on a white settlement. But the acting is uneven, and Costner’s direction never more than workmanlike and uninspired, by either scenery or actors

There is no reason whatever to pay to see a movie this mediocre in a theater. Scott Frank’s Netflix western miniseries “Godless” was far better. Costner has poorly misjudged the market, unless MAGA white christian nationlist douchebags decide to turn out to support it.

Why in earth did you go see it, r20?

Are there any hot guys, at least?

R21, I was curious and in the mood to see a movie, and the starting time was right. Thought it would be better than it was.

R22, Not really. Sam Worthington is easing into middle age nicely but Costner has zero interest in showing off his male stars apart from himself. There are plenty of pretty women in it, which one would expect from this straighter than straight director.

that boy SURE do like to cowboy. . . .

Well, it’s a bonafide flop, grossing just $11 million opening weekend on what is thought to be a $130 million dollar investment, in which some $38 million is said to be Costner’s own money.

The second installment is done, the third is scheduled (don ‘t know if he lined up the money) but it will probably unfold as a streaming miniseries. As such, it might get eyes on it, but I don’t know how it makes anybody any money.

These days, epic movies need to look epic, not small-scaled, grainy and poorly edited and scored. This was made for small screens, Kev.

[quote]If it is good, we won’t feel the 3 hour run time

I said those EXACT SAME WORDS on load 37.

[quote]He must have always wanted to be a cowboy.

Kevin Costner grew up in Compton, California, believe it or not.

Is it as good as The Postman? Waterworld?

R25 It would be embarrassing but most people today under 40 don’t know who he is anymore. It’s like a tree falling in the woods.

He never got over Dances With Wolves

He was great as the cadaver in The Big Chill

He was HOT in Bull Durham, the only movie about baseball you need to see.

Well, get my smelling salts.

I believe Costner would do very well if he developed a great, gritty detective series, or even by doing a lead role in True Detective.

Something set in 2024. No Bonanza revisited crap.

Nobody wants to see shitty 3+ hour westerns.

The second of Kevin Costner’s planned four-film western “Horizon: An American Saga” won’t be arriving in cinemas next month after all.

THR reports that the film is being pulled from the release calendar for now following the disastrous theatrical debut last month of “Horizon: An American Saga – Chapter 1”.

A new date has yet to be announced for the sequel, but a theatrical release is still intended for the title.

The aim of the delay is to allow more time to grow the audience for the first film which cost $100 million to produce.

Just pull from theaters and put it on streaming

I saw this film last week because my parents were visiting and it was pretty much the only film my dad would go and see. It really felt quality-wise like a tv miniseries from the 1980s. Very elaborate and literal narratively and not an ounce of creativity formally. The writing was simplistic and straightforward but nothing unique and as was stated previously, nothing was being done cinematically to make it feel exceptional, which is pretty much mandatory for an epic saga to get a theatrical release in this day and age. I presume Costner attempted to cash-in on his re-emergence due to Yellowstone and the still profitable appeal to Boomers, but it was underwhelming (though engaging).

[QUOTE]A new date has yet to be announced for the sequel, but a theatrical release is still the intention.

How long before Costner gives up and they just put this shit on Paramount Plus where it belongs?

What an ego he has. If not for his height and hair he would be a nobody.

Call in the bomb squad