Posts from SXViper in thread „Dances with Wolves (1990)“

Quote from WaynamoJim

I never cared for Bull Durham. I thought Field of Dreams was better as a sports movie. Part of the reason I don't like Bull Durham is I don't care for Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins, though Robbins movie Shawshank Redemption was excellent.

I hear you on the Sarandon/Robbins thing but too me it is a classic movie with some really good characters in it.

Quote from WaynamoJim

If Costner had more westerns under his belt, then I would say add him but, I believe he only has four, Silverado, DWW, Wyatt Earp and, Open Range. Can't remember him appearing in any more. Get another half dozen quality ones in, then we'll talk. Personally, westerns are the only Costner movies I really like. Waterworld and The Postman were ok but, all the rest, who cares. And that includes Field of Dreams

Not to get into a debate over Costner films but "Bull Durham" I think ranks as one of his best and one of the best sports films ever.

Quote from ethanedwards

Would anyone like me to include Kevin Costner in
the Western Screen Legends series? lol

OH god!!!

Carl, I think you took my post the wrong way. I was kidding about the Costner bashing. If you read my statement ::sport_box:Author assumes all responsibility for this post and can take any ribbing that people want to dish out!! hehehehe!!!:teeth_smile:
You will see that I was kidding right back at you and whoever. I know there are many on the site who don't like Kevin and that;s fine. I meant no harm and was just kidding right back to everyone else.

PS Go ahead and mention his name, it doesn't matter to me.

Ouch!! Enough of the Costner bashing, gees!!!







:sport_box:Author assumes all responsibility for this post and can take any ribbing that people want to dish out!! hehehehe!!!:teeth_smile:

I don't think Costner wrote the book or the screenplay so I cannot get how he can blame Costner for "stealing" those scenes from A Man Called Horse. If anything blame the writer of the book and the screenplay.

I agree with the soldier assesments that everyone has, but I still like the movie. what I enjoy most is when Dunbar is getting to know the country/animals and then gettting to know the Souix indians. I thought that was very well done.

I figured that you would get the message of the movie Carl, no offense.

I had a tough time the first time that I watched it. Too see the soldier's depicted the way they were was disheartening. I think that is what made my dad not much of a fan. He was brought up watching western's that showed the calvary soldiers as honorable men, ie Rio Grande, Fort Apache, ect..... and to see a different side to them and a ugly side to boot, it didn't sit well with him.

Hate to disappoint you Carl but Kevin was the director.

And if you remember correctly Dunbar(Costner) was being sent back to the fort(not sure which one) to be tried and possibly hung for fraternizing with the enemy(indians) when the Souix attacked and killed all the soldiers who had showed up at Fort Sedgewick(the outpost).

While not a true story I think it depicts the plight of the Souix indians and what they endured during the expansion of the west by whites.

I guess I am somewhat of a realist as I know that there was some bad things that were done to the indians during that period, for which the US govt. has paid for many times over and it needs to stop, so I din't mind the message that this movie portrayed. My dad didn't care for the movie because of similar views that you have Carl. I told him the same things. Let's agree to disagree.

Quote from The Ringo Kid

Hi Todd no problem ;-)) Why I didn't like that scene, well part of it is because that he was not shot off his horse by any of the Confederates who fired at him-making it totally unbelievable. Also, it must not be forgotten that the majority of Confederate Soldiers who served, were much more experianced in handling and firing weapons than most Billy Yanks were--because also, most of the CSA guys came from rural areas and wereall practically born with guns in their hands. With having so many soldiers shooting at Costner, he should have been a dead Duck.

Not to stay off topic too long but, I do like The Untouchables ;-))

While I don't disagree that they should have killed him. I think you might have missed the point of that scene, especially it being the opening scene. The way I interpreted the scene was that there must have been a higher power looking out for him because he was not meant to die on that battle field as even he thought he was going to do. If you remember, he didn't want to loose his leg and walk around the rest of his life as a cripple, he wanted to die on the field of battle. But because of a higher intervention he didn't die because he had more to do with his life(go out west, ect......).

That is how I thought the beginning was meant to be, maybe that will help you alittle Carl.

Jim, I agree with Taka that you are missing a very good movie. Try to watch it and I think you will really enjoy it.

Quote from dukefan1

I love this movie. I've heard complaints about it being too long, but I even went out and got the 4-hour version. It is so well made and keeps you in the story. Like you said, Keith, it is a masterpiece. I am not among the Costner haters here. I like many of his films and think he is a good actor. And apparently, he knows a good story when he hears one, putting his own money up to get it done. This is a very beautifully filmed picture as well. He captured the beauty of the frontier and the self containing life of the Indian befor the white man came and....well, you know the story. Great film all around!

Mark

I agree with your assesment of the film Mark. I thought when it forst came out that it was a great movie and I too purchased the extended version.

Sorry Carl that you didn't like it. Why didn't you like the "raising of the arms" scene?