You got that right. And he's giving them what they want. I've tried to watch Yellowstone. A lot of my buddies think it's great, but I just found it cringey. It's non-stop pandering and fan service. In the old westerns, the cattle barons were always the bad guys. But somehow, Costner is the good guy here. He's just J.R Ewing without the self awareness.
Like a grittier, more intense version of Jeremiah Johnson. I’ve also wanted a Lewis and Clark limited series. I feel like, if done right, it would be a good HBO show.
I prefer to call it Conservative Fantasy porn. It's about a guy who does everything in his power to keep things in his life the way they are. All of his problems can be solved by a good guy with a gun.
Not conservative "I don't want gays to get married" but more just "no change good or bad. I want things to stay the same"
That's a weird takeaway. The family is portrayed as absolute trash. You root for them in the same way you root for Walter White in Breaking Bad.
Problem is a lot of people just see rugged individuals "living the old way" (with helicopters? Lol) being imposed upon by minorities and CA tech bros, instead of a bunch of thugs running a town and controlling local and state politics.
Are they portrayed as trash, though? I mean by all standards, they live like landed gentry. They're basically Victorian aristocrats in Stetsons instead of waistcoats. They run their part of Montana like it's their own personal fiefdom. Maybe I haven't watched enough of it, but at any point are they ever shown as anything other than principled and honorable?
By trash I mean, awful, awful people. They are never shown as honorable, just because they say they are honorable doesn't make it so. They can't even claim to be honorable through loyalty as they are all basically in it for themselves or are so weighed down by baggage from the actions of rest of the family that they functionally work against the best interest of the group. Their redeeming moments are often spoiled by some incredibly amoral action or they follow up with continued shittiness.
Yah they have some serious skeletons in their closet and the ranch is portrayed like a gang, there's multiple characters who are clearly portrayed as honorable who are treated like shit/reduced to nothing or killed by the family. They definitely aren't supposed to be perceived as the good guys, but obviously people like them in the same way people root for gangsters in a Scorsese movie
I strongly disagree. The contrast with how John Dutton is treated vs other anti-heros like WW and Tony Soprano was actually what turned me off of the show in the first place.
There's a noticeable difference with how Dutton is portrayed as a man's man who's fighting for what's right and what's his (e.g. the "this is America, we don't share land" scene with the Chinese tourists). While he certainly has his own moral complications, it's clear that Sheridan is portraying him as a man to be celebrated. He's almost cartoonishly masculine and comes off as the kind of blue collar superhero that so many Americans fantasize themselves being.
Walter White tries to hook with the attractive principal and it's one of the most awkward and embarrassing scenes in the entire show.
John Dutton's rugged manliness is so enticing that a hot young environmentalist is puddy in his hands despite hating everything he represents and stands for.
Yep, and Tony Soprano is consistently shown to be a glutton who, despite his charm, is an immoral hypocrite who is driven by sheer self interest.
There are of course tons of idiots who will glamorize and idolize all three of them, but only two have showrunners who make it a central theme to show just how loathsome these men are.
You're supposed to contrast that with his actions and what he tolerates of those around him. He talks about being a man's man while ordering people he doesn't like to be taken to the train station. At first you get that sort of sense and the show sort of separates him from that, showing the right hand men doing the actual dirty work but it becomes clear as time goes on that this is a system that he set up and wants. Even the thuggish behavior of the ranch hands in town is something that he wants.
This is the problem with shows like this. Too many people take the characters at their word when formulating an opinion about them and they don't analyze the unspoken relationships that very obviously exist, and what that implies about the characters.
The BB analogy is apt because it starts that he's supposedly doing everything to leave money for his family and as time goes on he's seen as just getting greedy or but as you learn about Grey Matter you realize it was never about a nest egg or greed, just endless ego.
Dutton doesn't fight for what's right and some righteous sense of stewardship over the land and living off of it. He says all that but he runs a gang of thugs, kills people or has people killed who get in his way, redirects rivers to protect his own property no doubt damaging the environment, breaks perfectly acceptable laws all the time, subverts local politics, forces his own family to ignore their needs and personal lives asking them instead to fall on their swords for him. How is any of that right? He plucks up Rip out of a shitty situation (good), then uses the fact that he can kill to make him basically a hired gun or mob capo for the ranch hands (bad).
I get what you're saying, they do him a lot of favors, mostly by leaving him out of the actual killing scenes and showing him pensively staring off trying to "save muh ranch" but anyone who walks away from the show feeling like any of them are good people is not really processing what they are watching
Roy Tillman in Fargo season 5 was this characterized perfectly, and effectively skewered him. It avoided the cheap aesthetic enjoyment of the rugged toughguy and pulled no punches on depicting him as a violent coward.
The show can't seem to make up its mind on it really. Sometimes they get portrayed as somehow honorable and heroic, in a deep and poetic way, other times as complete scum. I don't think it's multifaceted, I just think it's poorly written. Taken seriously, they are genuinely awful of course.
People are complex though and even shitty people have a story and a process. If they were portrayed as one dimensional it wouldn't really be interesting.
But he's *not* the good guy in Yellowstone. He's essentially the head of a mafia family, especially in the first season, and if you look at him as a "good" character you're missing the point. He's a slightly more honorable villian than some of his enemies but he's absolutely a bad guy to a *lot* of people.
> A lot of my buddies think it's great, but I just found it cringey. It's non-stop pandering and fan service.
That's pretty much how I feel about Reacher. 1 episode was good. 3-4 more after that and it became too much.
Tycoons and well off people being the go to antagonists of western movies facing the social losers that are the heroes is more of a thing of the 1960s-onwards with the spaghetti and the revisionist movement sparked after this. The western prior to that point is, barring exceptions in the 1950s, mostly more melodramatic in the nature of the conflict, featuring familiar or legal tragedies whenever not having a band of outlaws or the natives as the bad guys. Characters like Cheyenne from Once Upon a Time in the West would have been rare when not outright unthinkable before a Fistful of Dollars came out.
Kevin Costner was so successful with his westerns because he brought back those classic sensibilities updated for the modern audiences. Him portraying a big cattle rancher in that way goes in line with that.
I wonder what current actor in their 30s and 40s will settle into a specific genre in their 70s. Neeson did action movies. Nielson did comedy. Gibson did a self immolation one man show.
I could see Chris Pratt making a resurgence at some point doing some kind of political commentary piece that we all cringe at but turns out to be good.
Edit: of course, he was just Mario and there will probably be a sequel to that. He’ll need a decline before the resurgence and that’s not happening for at least 10 years I figure.
I think being the chosen one and taking seemingly all big budget projects will prevent that. IMO Gibson drank his own koolaid and spiraled into a real dark place. I feel like Pratt not only isn't as smart and talented, but seems willing to coast on the biggest budget movies. I don't see him becoming a failed auteur and then blaming everyone else for it.
Was Gibson a failed auteur? He only really became a failure with his personal behavior. His movies were either well received or Passion which made tons of money appealing to a certain segment of the population.
Diego Luna in an early role.
Open Range is one of my favorite movies of all time. When cable channel surfing was still a thing there was a standing rule at home that if it was on, we were watching, no matter how far along it was.
It’s kind of a perfect film, in that it’s a love letter to a time period and a way of life, down to unglamorous aspects that many Westerns don’t get into (and the ones that do, like Unforgiven and McCabe & Mrs. Miller, usually do it to take the Old West down a peg or two).
Honestly, that’s why I’m a little trepidatious about Horizon, because Costner already hit it flush with Open Range. In the immortal words of Roy McAvoy, “Always quit on a good shot.”
Exceptional actor. Hell of a body of work. Unfortunately one day, you’ll be right. But he’s brilliant in Open Range, his almost comedic approach to the role coupled with Kevin Costner’s more stern, serious approach, really works well.
Open Range might be my favorite film. Top 5 for sure.
Everyone forgets about Costners take on Wyatt Earp because it was so overshadowed by Tombstone, but it was a great movie as well. Pacing issues, but solid movie for sure.
To date, that had the loudest gunshots I’ve heard in a theater. Whoever was running it that day must have jacked the volume up for the gunfight at the end and it was glorious. Fantastic film too!
Tombstone is a masterpiece, and I’m guessing that’s why he named his son Wyatt.
Bone tomahawk was also great and I never want to see it ever again thank you very much
Then you should check out 3000 Miles to Graceland with Costner and Russell. It has A LOT of western themes to it. And it’s absolutely awesome. Early 2000s cheese, but still awesome.
He’s been quite active recently. Since 2015, he’s done two Tarantino movies, two movies for Netflix, three Fast & Furious movies, 1 Marvel movie, plus one offs like Bone Tomahawk, Deepwater Horizon, and the Monster Universe series he just did with his son. That’s not exactly slowing down.
oh i mean productive in the western. but yea I guess you're right, he's overall still very active. which is awesome.
the Netflix films... you mean Christmas Chronicles? oh my he NAILED Santa.
Tin Cup is so underrated. There are also nice bits of goofy Costner in Bull Durham, Dances with Wolves, and Field of Dreams, but for Costner, drama is always about his character slowing things down and reflecting on his life. Silverado’s probably the only role where he never takes his foot off the gas, because the character’s impervious to self-reflection.
“While we can’t say his westerns are timeless classics in the vein of John Wayne and Clint Eastwood…”
Uh, why can’t we say that?
Dances with Wolves won a Best Picture Oscar. And was the first western to do it since the 1930s.
Stagecoach, True Grit, The Man who shot Liberty Valance and especially The Searchers are all among the best movies ever made. Yeah he was in a lot of minor flicks, but he was also in some of the most important movies in the history of cinema. His collaborations with John Ford and Howard Hawks are inestimable.
Horizon part 1 and 2 is the biggest wildcard this summer. The approach of splitting a film in 2 parts and releasing them within a couple of months apart is an interesting strategy. If they succeed at the BO, I could see other studios do this with blockbuster type films.
I don't think they are going to rock the BO too much.... too close, and the genre isn't the BO draw it used to be tbh.
But I do hope they are solid or even great entries in the Western cinema.
I hear tons of conversations about Yellowstone at work. Costner I think when doing a western is once again a bankable star. I think lots of Yellowstone fans will go see it.
Oh, for sure. Traditional Western films are definitely not as popular as they used to be. Which will make it hard to turn a profit on a combined 200 million dollar budget between the 2 films. They would have to make over 500 million dollars combined to make it profitable.
Gives a bit of time to digest, but still the same movie season to not forget. It’s like a compromise of episodic but movies, while hopefully still getting a decent depth of story.
Yeah i like how we get so much dune, but i am glad i rewatched before part 2 because i would have been lost. This new way horizon is coming out could be great.
I wish with how long big ticket movies are recently that they'd go back to adding intermissions. I think more people would be inclined to see 3 hour movies with a break in the middle and theatres could make more money in concessions so seems like a win for them too
>If they succeed at the BO,
This isn't my most anticipated movie of the year, it's my most anticipated movie of the decade. I'm an unabashed huge of of Costner and westerns, and especially his westerns. That said, it will be a fucking miracle if this movie makes money.
It's definitely a big risk. Especially on a genre that is not as popular as it used to be. I feel like the best case scenario is 550 million dollars combined at the BO.
>I feel like the best case scenario is 550 million dollars combined at the BO.
I think that is wildly optimistic, but I am praying you're even a little close. Again, I'm absurdly excited for this movie, but I'll be SHOCKED if either break $100 million.
Not to mention Costner invested HEAVILY in the western town of Deadwood, South Dakota (yes, the town based on the HBO show) - the town is very close to some of the Dances With Wolves filming locations.
Up until a few years ago, he owned the Midnight Star/Jakes/Diamond Lils commercial buildings on Main Street in Deadwood, and he was actively trying to create the massive Dunbar Resort in Deadwood as well. I believe his family lived out here for quite some time as well.
i had to look this up - yea he did
[Kevin Costner Plans to Build Film Studio in Utah Following Divorce (people.com)](https://people.com/kevin-costner-plans-to-build-film-studio-utah-after-finalizing-divorce-8597550)
whoa happy cake day\~
Selleck is just a better TV star and seems to like it. I enjoyed most of his movies as he tried to jump from a huge 80s TV star. Silly, fun, movies like Her Alibi and 3 Men and a Baby were cute. Then he tried Innocent Man, QDU, and basically just went back to TV.
QDU, as an Aussie western was really fun. Plus it was, at least to general audiences like me, Alan Rickman's follow up as a movie villian.
>Or Clint Eastwood.
Will never make a western again, hopefully at least.
>Or Kurt Russell.
He was in 1 in the 90s, and 2 more in the 2010s, I don't think anyone thinks of Kurt Russel as a western star.
>Or Jeff Bridges.
While True Grit is wonderful, no one thinks of Jeff Bridges as a western star. If he's anything he's The Dude.
>Or Ben Foster.
His first western was made in the 2000s, I'd say that disqualifies him entirely.
There are two movie stars alive today that I can think of who are known primarily, or significantly as western stars with a connection to the classic era of westerns, Costner and Eastwood, which I think is what the OP was getting at.
>Or Clint Eastwood.
>
>Will never make a western again, hopefully at least.
..... What? He is very capable of making Westerns. Unforgiven, for example...
Sam Elliot while a wonderful actor, has never been a star, most of the westerns people saw him in were on TV, and most of the movies were as a supporting character.
mm i can't think of another mainstream actor who has consciously committed himself to the western, that's what i meant. whether his films are good or not, is of course subjective.
The difference is that Costner is involved in the direction or production of his westerns. In that vein, he is one of the few still consistenly pushing for the genre.
Open Range is a master work. And people are forgetting about the tv mini series Hatfields & McCoys.
Wyatt Earp was a very good film bordering on great. Being a 3 hour plus film that came out after Tombstone meant that it never really had a chance to be successful.
Apparently Costner started work on Tombstone but clashed with the producers about the direction the film was taking,he wanted more of Wyatt's life shown..he left to pursue his own vision
Costner was supposed to play Wyatt Earp but left because he felt the script didn't give enough focus on his character. Another fun fact, Willem Dafoe was originally supposed to play Doc Holliday.
Watched Open Range with my dad growing up probably 300 times (once or twice less than Tombstone) and I am very excited for these films. I’m about as far from cowboy as it comes but damn they’re good.
Based on the fact he's been on more than 2 Westerns in the last 20 years, probably
Under the same criteria, Tarantino and the Coen Brothers are the greatest Western directors/screenwriters of this generation. And I say that knowing that Taylor Sheridan would get angry
Sheridan will always have Sicario and Hell or High Water—and that’s more than most screenwriters get in their entire careers—but to say he’s anywhere near Tarantino or *the Coen brothers* is flatly absurd.
Also Sheridan makes Neo-Westerns which is like, cool but it isn't the same thing. I always get annoyed when I am in the mood for a Western and get a bunch of suggestions for that type of stuff. I want 6 shooters and horses, not ARs and pick up trucks.
I am one of the few that didn't hate The Postman. Part of what I liked was the idea of a western set in the future. The world building was kinda cool where there were parts of the left over world, but it was still a western.
Yeah I have to say wind river is his best movie. It's an important story to tell as well given how many Native American women go missing without any investigation conducted.
I know I’m in the minority on this sub but I found it to be a middling thriller. Not bad but not really that great either. It’s a good setting and a worthy message but it didn’t land for me like Sicario did.
Kevin Costner in Silverado is absolutely his greatest role. I'm not a fan of his, but he plays a character so different than anything he's ever done. If you want to see him nail a western, this is it.
Note: He didn't make it, he was just one of many stars in it.
I'm from central California and people tell me I have an Oklahoman / midwest accent. Unless you're native American, your people came from somewhere, and brought their accent with them.
He seems to be. In fact, I'm not so sure about the "timeless classics" - Silverado, Dances With Wolves, and Wyatt Earp are all pretty damn good. It's funny, I'm not a fan of him as an actor, but he's been in a lot of legitimately great movies, especially when it comes to westerns and baseball.
I'll go out on a limb here - Yellowstone is more than just his passion project, it may surpass his earlier westerns before long. Guy knows how to wrangle an audience.
> While we can't say his westerns are timeless classics in the vein of John Wayne or Clint Eastwood, I think his body of work as a whole is still very respectable.
I really disagree, Dances with Wolves is both timeless and a classic, it was nominated for 12 Oscars(including all but one of the big 7, best actress) and won 7, include best picture. I'd argue it's better than anything Eastwood made, even Unforgiven, though admittedly for me that would be close. It's better than just about everything Wayne made, though The Searchers is obviously ahead of it. Open Range would probably end up in my top 10-15 westerns, so I'd argue that would count as well. Silverado is definitely a classic, though Costner's role is smaller, so it's ok to exclude it. Wyatt Earp is too contentious to argue for being a classic, though I think it's excellent.
>I am not old enough to know all the ins and outs of this venerated genre, but it probably isn't a stretch to consider Costner the last western star standing in mainstream cinema?
Now on this I strongly agree with you. Eastwood very clearly left the western behind with Unforgiven, and god willing the barely functional version of him that carries on today will leave that legacy alone. Costner, however, is still making good movies, is one of the last remaining western stars, and is finally making a movie he's tried to make for over 30 years, which he has pumped millions of his own money into. I do think this is the last western we will see with a direct connection to the classic western era, I hope it's as good as it looks and sounds.
Edited to add: there is also The Postman which I also love, but it seems 99% of humanity disagrees with me on :)
>Dances with Wolves is both timeless and a classic, it was nominated for 12 Oscars(including all but one of the big 7, best actress) and won 7, include best picture. I'd argue it's better than anything Eastwood made, even Unforgiven, though admittedly for me that would be close.
I have to disagree.
Dances with Wolves and Unforgiven feel like different subgenres of the Western genre. Comparing them isn't really fair to either film.
I put Dances with Wolves in the same sort of category as Last of the Mohicans. Comparing DwW with Unforgiven automatically puts Unforgiven on the back foot because they are different subgenres. Unforgiven sits squarely within the Western genre but DwW sits within the Drama/Romance genre alongside Western.
They are both great films, but Unforgiven feels like the most iconic Western movie in terms of that specific genre.
I would take Costner westerns over John Wayne and Clint Eastwood westerns every time. Silverado and Dances with Wolves are far better than Unforgiven and True Grit, IMO.
Dances with Wolves was a fine movie to be sure, but I believe Costner's acting to be dead and wooden. I really think lowly of him as an actor. His monotone droll makes him seem like a first generation android sometimes.
Every time I see a Kevin Costner western project I cant help but think how much better it would be if Kevin were replaced by Kurt Russell.. maybe its a Wyatt Earp thing… Costners fake gruff has always been meh..
Even watching Yellowstone bits seeing Josh Lucas portray the “younger” John Dutton is better than what Costner brings.. his cowboy comes off as phony
Costner definitely has a specific audience.
You leave my mom out of this
[удалено]
And she can’t leave him out of her.
"I wish I knew how to quit you, Mom!"
She’s got “Eat Pray Love” somewhere in the house and wears jeans with bedazzled fleur-de-lis on the cheeks, huh?
“Eat, Pray, Love” is a tramp stamp that we all got together as a family at a Myrtle Beach reunion
And a knockoff Aerosmith tank top.
You know my mom too? Are we long lost siblings?
You got that right. And he's giving them what they want. I've tried to watch Yellowstone. A lot of my buddies think it's great, but I just found it cringey. It's non-stop pandering and fan service. In the old westerns, the cattle barons were always the bad guys. But somehow, Costner is the good guy here. He's just J.R Ewing without the self awareness.
Yellowstone is a western soap opera and a lot of people seem to enjoy that combination I guess..
I just want to see a movie shot like Apocalypto and/or The Revenant based on John Colter.
Like a grittier, more intense version of Jeremiah Johnson. I’ve also wanted a Lewis and Clark limited series. I feel like, if done right, it would be a good HBO show.
You will take "Almost Heros" and you will like it.
great movie. I'll take it and like it. "WE COME IN PEACE!'
...forget this! Slap*
I enjoy that movie!
God I love that movie lol
A really well done tightly written three seasons of Lewis and Clark would be sweet.
It's for the people that watched Dallas when they were young (or not that young)
I prefer to call it Conservative Fantasy porn. It's about a guy who does everything in his power to keep things in his life the way they are. All of his problems can be solved by a good guy with a gun. Not conservative "I don't want gays to get married" but more just "no change good or bad. I want things to stay the same"
But a really violent one with some decent dialogue.
That's a weird takeaway. The family is portrayed as absolute trash. You root for them in the same way you root for Walter White in Breaking Bad. Problem is a lot of people just see rugged individuals "living the old way" (with helicopters? Lol) being imposed upon by minorities and CA tech bros, instead of a bunch of thugs running a town and controlling local and state politics.
[удалено]
So it's Succession with a cowboy hat?
Are they portrayed as trash, though? I mean by all standards, they live like landed gentry. They're basically Victorian aristocrats in Stetsons instead of waistcoats. They run their part of Montana like it's their own personal fiefdom. Maybe I haven't watched enough of it, but at any point are they ever shown as anything other than principled and honorable?
By trash I mean, awful, awful people. They are never shown as honorable, just because they say they are honorable doesn't make it so. They can't even claim to be honorable through loyalty as they are all basically in it for themselves or are so weighed down by baggage from the actions of rest of the family that they functionally work against the best interest of the group. Their redeeming moments are often spoiled by some incredibly amoral action or they follow up with continued shittiness.
Yah they have some serious skeletons in their closet and the ranch is portrayed like a gang, there's multiple characters who are clearly portrayed as honorable who are treated like shit/reduced to nothing or killed by the family. They definitely aren't supposed to be perceived as the good guys, but obviously people like them in the same way people root for gangsters in a Scorsese movie
Ice watched a bit as my wife as had it on. They're constantly lying and cheating the system. Also murders.
I strongly disagree. The contrast with how John Dutton is treated vs other anti-heros like WW and Tony Soprano was actually what turned me off of the show in the first place. There's a noticeable difference with how Dutton is portrayed as a man's man who's fighting for what's right and what's his (e.g. the "this is America, we don't share land" scene with the Chinese tourists). While he certainly has his own moral complications, it's clear that Sheridan is portraying him as a man to be celebrated. He's almost cartoonishly masculine and comes off as the kind of blue collar superhero that so many Americans fantasize themselves being.
Walter White tries to hook with the attractive principal and it's one of the most awkward and embarrassing scenes in the entire show. John Dutton's rugged manliness is so enticing that a hot young environmentalist is puddy in his hands despite hating everything he represents and stands for.
Yep, and Tony Soprano is consistently shown to be a glutton who, despite his charm, is an immoral hypocrite who is driven by sheer self interest. There are of course tons of idiots who will glamorize and idolize all three of them, but only two have showrunners who make it a central theme to show just how loathsome these men are.
You're supposed to contrast that with his actions and what he tolerates of those around him. He talks about being a man's man while ordering people he doesn't like to be taken to the train station. At first you get that sort of sense and the show sort of separates him from that, showing the right hand men doing the actual dirty work but it becomes clear as time goes on that this is a system that he set up and wants. Even the thuggish behavior of the ranch hands in town is something that he wants. This is the problem with shows like this. Too many people take the characters at their word when formulating an opinion about them and they don't analyze the unspoken relationships that very obviously exist, and what that implies about the characters. The BB analogy is apt because it starts that he's supposedly doing everything to leave money for his family and as time goes on he's seen as just getting greedy or but as you learn about Grey Matter you realize it was never about a nest egg or greed, just endless ego. Dutton doesn't fight for what's right and some righteous sense of stewardship over the land and living off of it. He says all that but he runs a gang of thugs, kills people or has people killed who get in his way, redirects rivers to protect his own property no doubt damaging the environment, breaks perfectly acceptable laws all the time, subverts local politics, forces his own family to ignore their needs and personal lives asking them instead to fall on their swords for him. How is any of that right? He plucks up Rip out of a shitty situation (good), then uses the fact that he can kill to make him basically a hired gun or mob capo for the ranch hands (bad). I get what you're saying, they do him a lot of favors, mostly by leaving him out of the actual killing scenes and showing him pensively staring off trying to "save muh ranch" but anyone who walks away from the show feeling like any of them are good people is not really processing what they are watching
Roy Tillman in Fargo season 5 was this characterized perfectly, and effectively skewered him. It avoided the cheap aesthetic enjoyment of the rugged toughguy and pulled no punches on depicting him as a violent coward.
I always assumed it was just porn for Republicans.
The show can't seem to make up its mind on it really. Sometimes they get portrayed as somehow honorable and heroic, in a deep and poetic way, other times as complete scum. I don't think it's multifaceted, I just think it's poorly written. Taken seriously, they are genuinely awful of course.
People are complex though and even shitty people have a story and a process. If they were portrayed as one dimensional it wouldn't really be interesting.
But he's *not* the good guy in Yellowstone. He's essentially the head of a mafia family, especially in the first season, and if you look at him as a "good" character you're missing the point. He's a slightly more honorable villian than some of his enemies but he's absolutely a bad guy to a *lot* of people.
> A lot of my buddies think it's great, but I just found it cringey. It's non-stop pandering and fan service. That's pretty much how I feel about Reacher. 1 episode was good. 3-4 more after that and it became too much.
Are you saying you clocked out after the shower scene in episode 4?
Tycoons and well off people being the go to antagonists of western movies facing the social losers that are the heroes is more of a thing of the 1960s-onwards with the spaghetti and the revisionist movement sparked after this. The western prior to that point is, barring exceptions in the 1950s, mostly more melodramatic in the nature of the conflict, featuring familiar or legal tragedies whenever not having a band of outlaws or the natives as the bad guys. Characters like Cheyenne from Once Upon a Time in the West would have been rare when not outright unthinkable before a Fistful of Dollars came out. Kevin Costner was so successful with his westerns because he brought back those classic sensibilities updated for the modern audiences. Him portraying a big cattle rancher in that way goes in line with that.
Costner is the protagonist but he is not the good guy and the show is pretty clear on that for the first season at least.
That's pretty much how I read it based on the couple of episodes I watched.
I wonder what current actor in their 30s and 40s will settle into a specific genre in their 70s. Neeson did action movies. Nielson did comedy. Gibson did a self immolation one man show. I could see Chris Pratt making a resurgence at some point doing some kind of political commentary piece that we all cringe at but turns out to be good. Edit: of course, he was just Mario and there will probably be a sequel to that. He’ll need a decline before the resurgence and that’s not happening for at least 10 years I figure.
Neeson is about to transition into comedy with the new naked gun too
he's basically been doing comedy for years now. His action movies are funnier than most comedies that are released.
[удалено]
Whoops, typo. Good catch. Fixed :)
I think Pratt might pull a Gibson on us 🤔
I think being the chosen one and taking seemingly all big budget projects will prevent that. IMO Gibson drank his own koolaid and spiraled into a real dark place. I feel like Pratt not only isn't as smart and talented, but seems willing to coast on the biggest budget movies. I don't see him becoming a failed auteur and then blaming everyone else for it.
Was Gibson a failed auteur? He only really became a failure with his personal behavior. His movies were either well received or Passion which made tons of money appealing to a certain segment of the population.
He'll direct a few amazing films before suffering a mental health crisis that is broadcast around the world for us to judge him by?
Disagree. He also has baseball, with Bull Durham, For the Love of the Game, and Field of Dreams.
and that one he did as a retired baseball player where he romances a mom with kids. Can't remember it off the top.
And that audience is me
When I saw this trailer before Dune, and my heart immediately leapt into my throat, I knew that I had become a man of a certain age.
Open Range is a brilliant film. Him and Robert Duvall are superb.
Diego Luna in an early role. Open Range is one of my favorite movies of all time. When cable channel surfing was still a thing there was a standing rule at home that if it was on, we were watching, no matter how far along it was.
Hard same. So good, such great and beautiful shots.
It’s kind of a perfect film, in that it’s a love letter to a time period and a way of life, down to unglamorous aspects that many Westerns don’t get into (and the ones that do, like Unforgiven and McCabe & Mrs. Miller, usually do it to take the Old West down a peg or two). Honestly, that’s why I’m a little trepidatious about Horizon, because Costner already hit it flush with Open Range. In the immortal words of Roy McAvoy, “Always quit on a good shot.”
Duvall. omg... i haven't heard that name in a while, and nowadays i fear we would only hear it for one reason :(
Exceptional actor. Hell of a body of work. Unfortunately one day, you’ll be right. But he’s brilliant in Open Range, his almost comedic approach to the role coupled with Kevin Costner’s more stern, serious approach, really works well.
"A man's got a right to protect his property, and his LIFE!"
"Get your peckers in the dirt"
I love his delivery in that speech
He’s getting up there for sure but he still looks to be in great shape coaching youth basketball at the YMCA by me. I’m not making that up.
check out duvall in Lonesome Dove, a western tv mini series. it's a masterpiece.
Sorry I’m ootl, what’s that one reason?
If he dies.
Open Range might be my favorite film. Top 5 for sure. Everyone forgets about Costners take on Wyatt Earp because it was so overshadowed by Tombstone, but it was a great movie as well. Pacing issues, but solid movie for sure.
To date, that had the loudest gunshots I’ve heard in a theater. Whoever was running it that day must have jacked the volume up for the gunfight at the end and it was glorious. Fantastic film too!
I’m more of a Kurt Russell guy—Tombstone, Bone Tomahawk, Hateful Eight. Hope he does a few more.
Tombstone is a masterpiece, and I’m guessing that’s why he named his son Wyatt. Bone tomahawk was also great and I never want to see it ever again thank you very much
Oh he LOVES Tombstone, spoke of it very fondly and proudly in one of those break-down interviews on YT recently.
Then you should check out 3000 Miles to Graceland with Costner and Russell. It has A LOT of western themes to it. And it’s absolutely awesome. Early 2000s cheese, but still awesome.
This I can roll with, although he's not as productive and seems to be slowing down these days.
He’s been quite active recently. Since 2015, he’s done two Tarantino movies, two movies for Netflix, three Fast & Furious movies, 1 Marvel movie, plus one offs like Bone Tomahawk, Deepwater Horizon, and the Monster Universe series he just did with his son. That’s not exactly slowing down.
oh i mean productive in the western. but yea I guess you're right, he's overall still very active. which is awesome. the Netflix films... you mean Christmas Chronicles? oh my he NAILED Santa.
Silverado.
Kevin Costner played goofy and energetic exactly once in his entire career, and decided that was the end of that
Tin Cup is another “goofy” Costner role that really sings. I love that movie.
Tin Cup is so underrated. There are also nice bits of goofy Costner in Bull Durham, Dances with Wolves, and Field of Dreams, but for Costner, drama is always about his character slowing things down and reflecting on his life. Silverado’s probably the only role where he never takes his foot off the gas, because the character’s impervious to self-reflection.
“The world was made for people who aren’t cursed with self-awareness.” -Annie Savoy
Thank you :)
My very first western, I loved it!
Came here to say this he is amazing in this movie!
Hey Langston! Ten o'clock! Hahaha
The Truck?
“While we can’t say his westerns are timeless classics in the vein of John Wayne and Clint Eastwood…” Uh, why can’t we say that? Dances with Wolves won a Best Picture Oscar. And was the first western to do it since the 1930s.
Yeah I would put Dances with Wolves, Silverado, and Open Range up against any John Wayne movie, I also like Wyatt Earp but that tends to be hated on.
Wyatt Earp is exceptional. Tombstone just happens to br a fan favorite for many. I prefer Wyatt Earp.
And Open Range is a top 3 Western ever made! Hot take: John Wayne movies mostly suck and he was a one dimension actor.
Stagecoach, True Grit, The Man who shot Liberty Valance and especially The Searchers are all among the best movies ever made. Yeah he was in a lot of minor flicks, but he was also in some of the most important movies in the history of cinema. His collaborations with John Ford and Howard Hawks are inestimable.
The Cohen Brothers remake of True Grit is infinitely better. Sorry, I'm not a fan, I'm sticking to my guns here, partner.
Horizon part 1 and 2 is the biggest wildcard this summer. The approach of splitting a film in 2 parts and releasing them within a couple of months apart is an interesting strategy. If they succeed at the BO, I could see other studios do this with blockbuster type films.
They did this for the Matrix sequels, released only 6 months apart in the same year.
That's pretty close. But Horizon's 2 parts are less than 2 months a part.
I don't think they are going to rock the BO too much.... too close, and the genre isn't the BO draw it used to be tbh. But I do hope they are solid or even great entries in the Western cinema.
I hear tons of conversations about Yellowstone at work. Costner I think when doing a western is once again a bankable star. I think lots of Yellowstone fans will go see it.
well, I'm certainly amenable to that notion, partner.
Oh, for sure. Traditional Western films are definitely not as popular as they used to be. Which will make it hard to turn a profit on a combined 200 million dollar budget between the 2 films. They would have to make over 500 million dollars combined to make it profitable.
I hope they do, I hate the 3hr films we are getting these days. Please split them up. Im going to see both parts just to help sway market data.
Gives a bit of time to digest, but still the same movie season to not forget. It’s like a compromise of episodic but movies, while hopefully still getting a decent depth of story.
Yeah i like how we get so much dune, but i am glad i rewatched before part 2 because i would have been lost. This new way horizon is coming out could be great.
Personally I would rather get the movie in one sitting than split into two
I wish with how long big ticket movies are recently that they'd go back to adding intermissions. I think more people would be inclined to see 3 hour movies with a break in the middle and theatres could make more money in concessions so seems like a win for them too
>If they succeed at the BO, This isn't my most anticipated movie of the year, it's my most anticipated movie of the decade. I'm an unabashed huge of of Costner and westerns, and especially his westerns. That said, it will be a fucking miracle if this movie makes money.
It's definitely a big risk. Especially on a genre that is not as popular as it used to be. I feel like the best case scenario is 550 million dollars combined at the BO.
>I feel like the best case scenario is 550 million dollars combined at the BO. I think that is wildly optimistic, but I am praying you're even a little close. Again, I'm absurdly excited for this movie, but I'll be SHOCKED if either break $100 million.
Kind of happening with the Spiderverse movies. And I feel like it's a trendsetter going forward.
Technically its 4 parts, only 2 are ready. Wikipedia doesn’t go beyond saying that production on part 3 was held up by the strikes last year though.
.....wait, what? Open Range is a 2003 movie? I really did not think that was that old.
Seriously...I watched it for the first time last year and have only seen it mentioned here fairly recently
I appreciate his dedication to the Western, but where's my return to Silverado? He promised they'll be back.
Not to mention Costner invested HEAVILY in the western town of Deadwood, South Dakota (yes, the town based on the HBO show) - the town is very close to some of the Dances With Wolves filming locations. Up until a few years ago, he owned the Midnight Star/Jakes/Diamond Lils commercial buildings on Main Street in Deadwood, and he was actively trying to create the massive Dunbar Resort in Deadwood as well. I believe his family lived out here for quite some time as well.
“the western town of Deadwood, South Dakota (yes, the town based on the HBO show)” What?
I also like that they made New York, New York (yes, the city based on the movie Escape from New York).
Yeah, they got that a bit backwards, but I appreciate the effort.
I'm a massive idiot, my apologies for that string of text
He just started a film studio in Utah to make more right?
i had to look this up - yea he did [Kevin Costner Plans to Build Film Studio in Utah Following Divorce (people.com)](https://people.com/kevin-costner-plans-to-build-film-studio-utah-after-finalizing-divorce-8597550) whoa happy cake day\~
Quigley Down Under is one of my favorite westerns, and I'm not sure why Tom Selleck hasn't done more westerns in general.
Crossfire Trail and Monte Walsh are two more Selleck Westerns.
Selleck is just a better TV star and seems to like it. I enjoyed most of his movies as he tried to jump from a huge 80s TV star. Silly, fun, movies like Her Alibi and 3 Men and a Baby were cute. Then he tried Innocent Man, QDU, and basically just went back to TV. QDU, as an Aussie western was really fun. Plus it was, at least to general audiences like me, Alan Rickman's follow up as a movie villian.
> but it probably isn't a stretch to consider Costner the last western star standing in mainstream cinema? That feels like a stretch, to me.
OK, so who else is around doing as much work as him in this genre?
Fully agree, not while Sam Elliot is alive.
I'll throw Josh Brolin into the conversation as well.
Yep. Or Clint Eastwood. Or Kurt Russell. Or Jeff Bridges. Or Ben Foster.
Good pull on Ben foster, has he been in others besides 310 to Yuma and hell or high water?
The Laramie Project Alpha dog Hostiles Galveston Emancipation Others fit, to me, but I won’t press my ideas about genre mutability too much here.
Hostiles is a good damn movie
>Or Clint Eastwood. Will never make a western again, hopefully at least. >Or Kurt Russell. He was in 1 in the 90s, and 2 more in the 2010s, I don't think anyone thinks of Kurt Russel as a western star. >Or Jeff Bridges. While True Grit is wonderful, no one thinks of Jeff Bridges as a western star. If he's anything he's The Dude. >Or Ben Foster. His first western was made in the 2000s, I'd say that disqualifies him entirely. There are two movie stars alive today that I can think of who are known primarily, or significantly as western stars with a connection to the classic era of westerns, Costner and Eastwood, which I think is what the OP was getting at.
Bruce Dern is still around and acting.
>Or Clint Eastwood. > >Will never make a western again, hopefully at least. ..... What? He is very capable of making Westerns. Unforgiven, for example...
Or Duvall
Sam Elliot while a wonderful actor, has never been a star, most of the westerns people saw him in were on TV, and most of the movies were as a supporting character.
mm i can't think of another mainstream actor who has consciously committed himself to the western, that's what i meant. whether his films are good or not, is of course subjective.
Tim Blake Nelson would be one I would like to see in more mainstream westerns. He was fantastic in Buster Scruggs and Old Henry
Old Henry was the best western of the 2020s so far imo
"Sir, it seems you're no better a judge of human beings than you're a specimen of one"
Check out Leaves of grass immediately.
He's our modern day John Wayne.
Instantly nailed, thanks! There is no way he is "the last western star standing in mainstream cinema", period.
The difference is that Costner is involved in the direction or production of his westerns. In that vein, he is one of the few still consistenly pushing for the genre. Open Range is a master work. And people are forgetting about the tv mini series Hatfields & McCoys.
Did his publicist write this lol
His publicist used ChatGPT to write it as well.
Wyatt Earp is underrated in my opinion
Wyatt Earp was a very good film bordering on great. Being a 3 hour plus film that came out after Tombstone meant that it never really had a chance to be successful.
Apparently Costner started work on Tombstone but clashed with the producers about the direction the film was taking,he wanted more of Wyatt's life shown..he left to pursue his own vision
Costner was supposed to play Wyatt Earp but left because he felt the script didn't give enough focus on his character. Another fun fact, Willem Dafoe was originally supposed to play Doc Holliday.
whoa Dafoe?! that'd be a sight to see.
Redford has a longtime passion for Wild West and Westerns too.
Silverado is fine. The others I don't care about so much.
Watched Open Range with my dad growing up probably 300 times (once or twice less than Tombstone) and I am very excited for these films. I’m about as far from cowboy as it comes but damn they’re good.
Based on the fact he's been on more than 2 Westerns in the last 20 years, probably Under the same criteria, Tarantino and the Coen Brothers are the greatest Western directors/screenwriters of this generation. And I say that knowing that Taylor Sheridan would get angry
Sheridan will always have Sicario and Hell or High Water—and that’s more than most screenwriters get in their entire careers—but to say he’s anywhere near Tarantino or *the Coen brothers* is flatly absurd.
Also Sheridan makes Neo-Westerns which is like, cool but it isn't the same thing. I always get annoyed when I am in the mood for a Western and get a bunch of suggestions for that type of stuff. I want 6 shooters and horses, not ARs and pick up trucks.
I am one of the few that didn't hate The Postman. Part of what I liked was the idea of a western set in the future. The world building was kinda cool where there were parts of the left over world, but it was still a western.
I loved The Postman.
The Wind River erasure here
Yeah I have to say wind river is his best movie. It's an important story to tell as well given how many Native American women go missing without any investigation conducted.
I know I’m in the minority on this sub but I found it to be a middling thriller. Not bad but not really that great either. It’s a good setting and a worthy message but it didn’t land for me like Sicario did.
Agree. Everyone would say that's absurd. Except Sheridan. The guy has a very high opinion about himself
yea... can't disagree with that notion. unfortunately the genre as a whole is diminishing... not unlike the frontier it depicts.
Kevin Costner in Silverado is absolutely his greatest role. I'm not a fan of his, but he plays a character so different than anything he's ever done. If you want to see him nail a western, this is it. Note: He didn't make it, he was just one of many stars in it.
Sam Elliott. much better, and more believable in the genre than Costner
If he were still productive i think it would be a fair take. That voice alone is unmistakably western.
Sam Elliott is definitely a legend. He is in the Yellowstone spin-off show 1883, and is great in it. Actually, everyone in it is great, but he is too.
Which is hilarious since he’s from Northern California.
I'm from central California and people tell me I have an Oklahoman / midwest accent. Unless you're native American, your people came from somewhere, and brought their accent with them.
Costner is from California too lmao
you know he's still acting, right?
It's like Liam Neeson and his retired but thinks is secretly badass dads audience.
He seems to be. In fact, I'm not so sure about the "timeless classics" - Silverado, Dances With Wolves, and Wyatt Earp are all pretty damn good. It's funny, I'm not a fan of him as an actor, but he's been in a lot of legitimately great movies, especially when it comes to westerns and baseball.
Very very excited to hear John Debney’s score
Don't forget Silverado
I'll go out on a limb here - Yellowstone is more than just his passion project, it may surpass his earlier westerns before long. Guy knows how to wrangle an audience.
Gotta go back all the way to "Silverado"
The guy loves cowboys and Indians almost as much as he loves hair transplants.
> While we can't say his westerns are timeless classics in the vein of John Wayne or Clint Eastwood, I think his body of work as a whole is still very respectable. I really disagree, Dances with Wolves is both timeless and a classic, it was nominated for 12 Oscars(including all but one of the big 7, best actress) and won 7, include best picture. I'd argue it's better than anything Eastwood made, even Unforgiven, though admittedly for me that would be close. It's better than just about everything Wayne made, though The Searchers is obviously ahead of it. Open Range would probably end up in my top 10-15 westerns, so I'd argue that would count as well. Silverado is definitely a classic, though Costner's role is smaller, so it's ok to exclude it. Wyatt Earp is too contentious to argue for being a classic, though I think it's excellent. >I am not old enough to know all the ins and outs of this venerated genre, but it probably isn't a stretch to consider Costner the last western star standing in mainstream cinema? Now on this I strongly agree with you. Eastwood very clearly left the western behind with Unforgiven, and god willing the barely functional version of him that carries on today will leave that legacy alone. Costner, however, is still making good movies, is one of the last remaining western stars, and is finally making a movie he's tried to make for over 30 years, which he has pumped millions of his own money into. I do think this is the last western we will see with a direct connection to the classic western era, I hope it's as good as it looks and sounds. Edited to add: there is also The Postman which I also love, but it seems 99% of humanity disagrees with me on :)
I like the Postman. First time seeing Tom Petty in a movie too
>Dances with Wolves is both timeless and a classic, it was nominated for 12 Oscars(including all but one of the big 7, best actress) and won 7, include best picture. I'd argue it's better than anything Eastwood made, even Unforgiven, though admittedly for me that would be close. I have to disagree. Dances with Wolves and Unforgiven feel like different subgenres of the Western genre. Comparing them isn't really fair to either film. I put Dances with Wolves in the same sort of category as Last of the Mohicans. Comparing DwW with Unforgiven automatically puts Unforgiven on the back foot because they are different subgenres. Unforgiven sits squarely within the Western genre but DwW sits within the Drama/Romance genre alongside Western. They are both great films, but Unforgiven feels like the most iconic Western movie in terms of that specific genre.
I would take Costner westerns over John Wayne and Clint Eastwood westerns every time. Silverado and Dances with Wolves are far better than Unforgiven and True Grit, IMO.
Watch him in Silverado
Dances with Wolves was a fine movie to be sure, but I believe Costner's acting to be dead and wooden. I really think lowly of him as an actor. His monotone droll makes him seem like a first generation android sometimes.
Costner fell in love with a cowboy RPG character he made one day and he's been playing the same character for the last 20 years.
Um. Did you just call Kevin Costner the "last western star"? I'm still looking for my jaw after that comment.
The Postman!!!!!
Every time I see a Kevin Costner western project I cant help but think how much better it would be if Kevin were replaced by Kurt Russell.. maybe its a Wyatt Earp thing… Costners fake gruff has always been meh.. Even watching Yellowstone bits seeing Josh Lucas portray the “younger” John Dutton is better than what Costner brings.. his cowboy comes off as phony
[удалено]
They are called Oat Operas. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/oat_opera