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.
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.
shareThis 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?
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.
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.
Pretty good! It really sticks with the viewer.
shareI 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.
shareBah, 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.
Too long , too boring and too overrated
share....is any MCU movie.
But Dances with Wolves is too short, too awesome and too underrated!
Why should i say that i like it when i don't ? To please you?
To me this movie is boring crap , i literally fell asleep on the couch while watching it.
Not to please me.
Only to pretend that you understand anything about movies and don't act like a complete philistine. It's a site about movies, make an effort not to look like a buffoon.
I don't want to pretend to like or either understand anything about movies i just have the guts to say that i don't like a movie (that most people like) if i don't , I'm being myself not a sheep.
shareOK, fair enough, I'm not gonna argue with that.
But I will argue that Dances with Wolves is a great movie and you are missing something by not giving it a chance.
The lenght of the movie goes with the story being told. There are no dead air moments in the script, it's always evolving with Dunbar getting deeper and deeper in.
Boring goes with this too, it's an exploration of a new world and a radical change of character, that action is always happening with new aspects of discovery. And it's beautiful to look at.
Its rating comes from how clearly you perceive it, of course if you spend the whole time being bored and looking at your watch it's gonna be low. I was enthralled by it, it's interesting, entertaining and inspiring, cannot ask for much more and if anything, it's underrated.
I watched because my uncle who likes this movie was watching in it so i had to go through the entire movie and i was bored to death since it is very slow paced , if a movie is not entertaing to me i don't like it , that's it , i'm not here to troll or to bash a movie without a reason.
I also thought that Citizen Kane (one of the most loved movie in history) is even more boring that DWW , i'm not discussing the acting skills of the actors or the directing skills of the director.
I never compared this to any of the MCU movies , i like different kind of movies and yes that includes also MCU movies and i'm not ashamed of that.
Entertainment comes in many forms.
I bet that your uncle finds this film very entertaining.
If you engage its many interesting elements and themes and let your imagination be involved you'll see that too.
Reverse this for any cgi crapfest, it will seem boring once you see that there is not much happening for your brain other than superficial by the numbers action.