I find it weird that he won Oscars.
He's an average actor (7 worst actor Razzie nominations). He hardly directs (only 3 movies in 33 years.) I don't even look at him as a director and I don't take him seriously as an actor.
shareHave you ever watched Dances with Wolves?
shareYes. I still find it weird he won an Oscar. When I look at him, I don't see an Oscar winner.
shareI think Dances with Wolves was one of the last great Westerns along with Unforgiven.
shareI'm not sure that the age of great westerns is over, but certainly Dances with Wolves was great. And Costner's other (now largely forgotten) western, Open Range, is also quite good.
For my money, Tombstone will always be the best though.
I sincerely tried to like Open Range but it just felt too long and meandering and the premise about people willing to kill over livestock grazing just seemed a bit absurd (though when I made that point on the board for that movie, someone took me to task for not understanding the history)
shareIf that's how you responded to the movie, then I'll say that was a fault of the moviemakers. When making a film about a historical subject it's incredibly important for the filmmakers to somehow incorporate the context (history lesson) into the film's exposition, so everyone in the audience understands exactly wht's at stake and why everyone is behaving the way they are.
So if a viewer of a Western doesn't understand why people are willing to kill over territorial rights, that means the writers and director have failed to do their job.
Thanks for giving me a little defense. I don’t believe I responded to the critic of my original post because I thought maybe I was wrong and vowed to re-watch it. The film was over two hours and twenty minutes though and I just can’t get myself to trudge back through it. My dad told me there is a new Western out that he really enjoyed but with his advanced age, he couldn’t recall the title. It sounds like you enjoy the Western genre so maybe you (or PrimeMinisterX) might know.
shareI'm afraid it's only a little defense, because my point is that the director needs to make the context clear to even the least attentive viewer! But seriously, making the context clear is Job 1 to any director of a historical film, and while Costner did a decent job of that with "Dances with Wolves", I guess he slipped up with the other movie.
Anyway, sorry, I can't help you with the Western film. It's never been a genre that interested me.
It's been long enough since I last saw Open Range that the plot details aren't clear, though I will agree that if the importance of grazing territory and rights weren't made clear then the director and writers should have done more to make it clear. In any case, as I understand it, driving your cattle to graze on another man's land is regarded as theft because there is only so much land to go around.
As for a new western, you'd have to be a little more specific, though I'll mention I did like Old Henry. It is a "small" movie though and certainly nothing epic like Dances With Wolves or other large-scale westerns.
I started watching it but got bored from Kevin Costner walking around his cabin talking to himself for what felt like an hour. I think I will watch it again but just fast forward to something interesting happening. Goodfellas is more fast paced.
share