What was the last movie you've seen?

[MrPopo]

Ack, are you exclusively a B-movie fan?

I think calling the films he's watching B-movies is paying them a high compliment.

[RCBH928]

Ack, are you exclusively a B-movie fan?

I think calling the films he's watching B-movies is paying them a high compliment.

[samsonlonghair]

I have previously mentioned how my expectations greatly influence my feelings in a movie. I don't usually like Westerns, and I don't usually like movies longer than two hours. With some trepidation, last night I watched...

Dances with Wolves

It's hard to know where to start with this review. I'm almost afraid to try. Here we go, anyway.

Dances with Wolves is an American Western Epic, and I don't throw the word "epic" around easily. This is a true epic of exploration, war, love, death, survival, the rise of one nation, and the fall of another. This is a true epic, and no, there are no hobbits involved.

The cinematography really stands out. The rugged yet beautiful landscape of the American West paints the background on which the actors play their parts. The shots of the bison hunt in particular had me silently mouthing "wow" time and again. The extensive use of the Lakota language is a breath of fresh air in the anglocentric world of cinema wherein we are usually led to believe that everyone everywhere knows how to speak english. The Indian cast is believable in this huge film. The motivations of the central character are clear. The use of several standard plot devices works well rather than seeming heavy handed.

I started Dances with Wolves expecting to be bored of a three-hour-long western. Instead, I was blown away. I now have a favorite western movie.

Verdict: Absolutely spectacular! I cannot say enough good things about Dances with Wolves. Set aside three hours to watch this film tonight.

[Ack]

Ack, are you exclusively a B-movie fan?

No, I like a wide variety. I have mainly been watching B- to Z-grade movies lately because I can do other stuff with them on in the background. I am still watching good films(such as one I will probably post about later tonight), but I tend to not marathon them the same way.

[BogusMeatFactory]

I am not going to lie, I have been genuinely more interested in horrible films than I was previously. I have been finding it more and more difficult for me to sit down and watch an emotional drama. I think it all relates to where I am emotionally. Films need to be something truly provocative and stimulates the imagination, mindless action entertainment or a strange and absurdly bad film.

[Ack]

Well, I have certainly been watching a lot of mindless action and truly bad film lately. And I have no intention of stopping just yet either.

[Luke]

I have previously mentioned how my expectations greatly influence my feelings in a movie. I don't usually like Westerns...

Love ya man, but I couldn't disagree more. The movie isn't epic, and is not a Western. It's a civil war movie within a civil war movie about how awesome Kevin Costner is, like most Kevin Costner movies are.

The running length should have been at 1.5 hours, yet for some reason we need so much exposition that the movie runs for nearly three hours.

Dialogue; kind of important in movies, yet we get little of it. We do however get a scene of Kevin watching some Native Americans screw while smiling.

There's something about this film that feels so forced and typecast actors that removes all disbelief. I'm glad you enjoyed it, but it's a one and done for me.

[Jmustang1968]

I have previously mentioned how my expectations greatly influence my feelings in a movie. I don't usually like Westerns...

Love ya man, but I couldn't disagree more. The movie isn't epic, and is not a Western. It's a civil war movie within a civil war movie about how awesome Kevin Costner is, like most Kevin Costner movies are.

The running length should have been at 1.5 hours, yet for some reason we need so much exposition that the movie runs for nearly three hours.

Dialogue; kind of important in movies, yet we get little of it. We do however get a scene of Kevin watching some Native Americans screw while smiling.

There's something about this film that feels so forced and typecast actors that removes all disbelief. I'm glad you enjoyed it, but it's a one and done for me.

Regardless of its genre, I also think it is a great movie. Probably Costner's best, which may not say much as he it very hit or miss. Your favorite Mr Ebert that you always like to quote to support your movie backings also really liked it.

[Luke]

Your favorite Mr Ebert that you always like to quote to support your movie backings also really liked it.

I know for a fact he gave it a four star rating, and if I recall correctly he mentioned it as being one of the most "ambitious" and "visual" films of it's decade.

I agree. But being ambitious and visual doesn't make things entertaining.

I'll always fall back to the adage of "If a film sets out what it means to do, it's always a success". I have no clue clue what this movie sets out to do but be a three hour commercial for Costner looking around a camera.

For me there is no emotion, no intrigue...there is great character development, but that could have been summed up in a half hour.

Sure, I could be missing something. But how people don't find that movie mind numbingly boring baffles me.

[dsheinem]

Dances With Wolves is fine.

Field of Dreams is Costner's best.