MovieChat Forums > Dances with Wolves (1990) Discussion > How incredibly good is this movie?

How incredibly good is this movie?

posted 6 years ago by Heisenberg (6730)
50 replies | jump to latest

Ok in 1990 Costner was still a decent actor, but he's not the greatest artist and this is his first (and best) attempt at directing.
Yet it is a masterpiece of filmmaking for the ages.
I cannot imagine many ways to improve it, it's engaging and enjoyable from start to finish and excellent in all its parts.
I think it's incredibly good, maybe it was beginner's luck but it's one of those rare examples where everything magically falls in the right place.

[–] rudeboymurray (3291) 5 years ago

Gorgeous John Barry score, pretty cinematography, lovely performance by Graham Greene, lyrical story... wooden central performance. It's a very good film but that gaping charisma vacuum at its centre really does lower it a notch or two... his narration is coma-inducing. If Costner had remained behind the camera this could be a classic.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 5 years ago

This is a classic of the highest caliber on every aspect.
Dunbar is played as stoic and cinic and lonely. He also is sensible and fair.
I think Costner played him perfectly, I do not need Daniel Day Lewis histrionics in every movie.
What kind of acting do you think would be better instead?

[–] rudeboymurray (3291) 5 years ago

I honestly feel Costner completely lacks charisma in this role, and yes, Dunbar is quiet and stoic, but he is also soulful and tender, which Costner does not sell to me. I could possibly forgive this if not for the narration, where he sounds like someone who has been forced to read a book aloud against their will.

As I said, I do like the film a great deal, and I like Costner in certain other roles which play well to his limited range - I just feel that another actor (certainly not a Daniel Day-Lewis type... I'm thinking a Jeff Bridges, for example) might have given the role the gravitas it requires and pushed the movie over the top for me.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 5 years ago

I see where you are going with Bridges.
Ok, it's an agreeable choice, but I think it's a matter of taste.

I don't think a more sympathetic and emotional actor would be better in this role, you do. I like apples you like cherries in your pie.
Still the same excellent pie, I think neither choice alters that, only you wanted more flavor, I like it essential.

[–] rudeboymurray (3291) 5 years ago

I completely agree with you here, different strokes etc.

(except that I would certainly take apples over cherries... lol)

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 5 years ago

boymurray, not that rude afterall:-)

[–] rudeboymurray (3291) 5 years ago

HAHAHAHA it doesn’t roll of the tongue so well, but maybe it’s time for a name change...

[–] reichen4eva (252) 5 years ago

I found it too long, maybe 30-50 minutes less would better. Still an ok movie.

[–] blue1981 (8198) 5 years ago

Which version of the movie did you watch? I like some of the added scenes in the Director's Cut, but even at 3 hours the Theatrical cut just flies by.

[–] CoriSCapnSkip (2765) 4 years ago

Pretty good! It really sticks with the viewer.

[–] TimMC (9143) 4 years ago

It's Wolforiffic.

Great movie.

Probably over 10 years since I've watched it.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 4 years ago

Should watch it again today then!

[–] redban (6788) 4 years ago

I wouldn't say "incredibly good." The movie had some long dry spells; the portrayals of the Indians and the whites was too one-sided; and some of the acting was cringe at times.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 4 years ago

Bah, it's seriously well done from start to finish, it's solid and consistent, I didn't notice any dry spells nor bad acting.

Incredibly good it is because it's so good and yet, considering the director was a first timer and it's a western in a year that western were considered finished, and it's pro indians, etc. that makes it an incredible feat.

[–] Jones70 (6873) 3 years ago

I wish I had more time for movies like this.