What's the beef with Kevin Costner flicks?
POSTED BY: jewelstaitefan
UPDATED: Saturday, April 3, 2010 06:59
VIEWED: 6151
PAGE 3 of 4
Quote:However, I think it works for that film, gives it a realistic feel. I didn't need it to be Mad Max, so I was okay with it.
Originally posted by GWEK:
was pleasantly surprised by THE POSTMAN (although it is slooooooow).
The laughing Chrisisall
"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Personally, I like Kevin Costner. I would, however say that his acting is a lot like Keanu Reeves: they act as themselves. Either one of them do not show a great range when it comes to acting, their characters are almost always seemingly the same person.
However, I personally like Kevin Costner's personality, where I could care less about Keanu's.
That being said, it seems like The Postman and Waterworld were almost the same story. I mean, they're both post-apocolyptic(sp?) stories where Kevin's character takes on the status-quo to bring about a happy fairy tale resolution.
Folks get tired of that. I, however, enjoyed both stories, and generally most all of his work. He's kinda like Dennis Quaid, where as he get older, you just see his work less and less.
And, as always, this is all just my opinion. 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think part of the problem with THE POSTMAN is that it followed WATERWORLD. Having seen the two of them pretty much back-to-back not too long ago, I can can that they're quite different movies. Although they're post-apocalyptic, the tones are very, very different.
www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I am surprised nobody has picked this one
Mind you Scott Glenn, and Kevin Kline put in the better performances... and Danny Glover was great too... and John Cleese makes me laugh as always
but Costner was still in it...
does still count right
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Waterworld was the worst... absolutely puke-able.
The laughing Chrisisall
Please read the OP and provide specific valid reasons for your claim.
Costner is a gill man... why exaxctly? No time to evolve another species, no science that advanced yet... oh, and if he's so strong as to survive pressures at the bottom of the sea, why can't he bend some FLIMSY bars or break rusty locks? Speaking of pressure, how'd the girl survive her trip to the bottom? And HOW did Costner pull down a thing with such severe buoyancy?
See Lwaves post for my other reasons.
Clearly you were not paying attention.
Gills: clearly explained as the mutantions derived among some, he was detained at the atoll merely because he was labeled "muto" and for no other reason. Loss of terra shade, trees, protection from radiation, thus are the causes of mutation.
Bodily structural integrity is not the same as leverage. You think hand strength equates to diaphram stength? Thought fail. And a few hundred feet depth is not exactly "bottom of the ocean"
If you're asking about decompression from her trip, slow ascent can account for soem of that. They were down a loooong time before resurfacing.
He didn't need strength to pull her down, that was what the weight on the bubble was for, it's called ballast - balance the weight against the bouyancy. there would be more weight, because the cable is pulling up witht he bouyancy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GWEK:
Coster films are, traditionally, somewhat pompous with glacial pacing.
Does that make 'em all bad? Nope. Does it make me stay away from them? Yep.
Making a general statement, when Costner directs, he's a little too in love with himself and with his scenery. Despite the basic Hollywood adage of "less is more," Coster seems to think it's a good idea to do in 10 minutes what normal folk would do in 3. Occassionally, he is right, but more often, he's just taking too long.
Having said that, there are quite a few good Coster movies. Not going through the entire list, I enjoy OPEN RANGE quite a bit (sidenote: his character reminds me of Mal) and was pleasantly surprised by THE POSTMAN (although it is slooooooow).
WATERWORLD is not as bad as people give it credit for, but it's definitely not a good movie (bad acting, predictibly slow, weak and obvious plot... and, yet again, a woman throws herself at Coster for no reason other than that he's Costner).
WYATT EARP isn't bad, either, bu as someone (CiA?) said, after TOMBSTONE, why bother? Yes, I know they're different movies with different purposes, but when you compare the two and see the ENERGY that TOMBSTONE has that's lacking in WYATT EARP, I think it's easy to see some of the flaws in a traditional Costner film.
www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."
So you dislike all slow paced films, not just Costner? That's the most reasonable explanation so far, thanks.
But, I actually considered Open Range to be far slower than the others here, almost as slow as Merchant Ivory work.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry.
*FAIL*
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Stegasaurus:
Personally, I like Kevin Costner. I would, however say that his acting is a lot like Keanu Reeves: they act as themselves. Either one of them do not show a great range when it comes to acting, their characters are almost always seemingly the same person.
However, I personally like Kevin Costner's personality, where I could care less about Keanu's.
I feel the same about Will Smith, haven't seen him act yet. I get more out of Costner, and even Reeves. But I get your meaning.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I am surprised nobody has picked this one
Mind you Scott Glenn, and Kevin Kline put in the better performances... and Danny Glover was great too... and John Cleese makes me laugh as always
but Costner was still in it...
does still count right
Ooooooo. Brian Dennehy, another fave.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:Quote:
Originally posted by GWEK:
Coster films are, traditionally, somewhat pompous with glacial pacing.
Does that make 'em all bad? Nope. Does it make me stay away from them? Yep.
Making a general statement, when Costner directs, he's a little too in love with himself and with his scenery. Despite the basic Hollywood adage of "less is more," Coster seems to think it's a good idea to do in 10 minutes what normal folk would do in 3. Occassionally, he is right, but more often, he's just taking too long.
Having said that, there are quite a few good Coster movies. Not going through the entire list, I enjoy OPEN RANGE quite a bit (sidenote: his character reminds me of Mal) and was pleasantly surprised by THE POSTMAN (although it is slooooooow).
WATERWORLD is not as bad as people give it credit for, but it's definitely not a good movie (bad acting, predictibly slow, weak and obvious plot... and, yet again, a woman throws herself at Coster for no reason other than that he's Costner).
WYATT EARP isn't bad, either, bu as someone (CiA?) said, after TOMBSTONE, why bother? Yes, I know they're different movies with different purposes, but when you compare the two and see the ENERGY that TOMBSTONE has that's lacking in WYATT EARP, I think it's easy to see some of the flaws in a traditional Costner film.
www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."
So you dislike all slow paced films, not just Costner? That's the most reasonable explanation so far, thanks.
But, I actually considered Open Range to be far slower than the others here, almost as slow as Merchant Ivory work.
Yes, I do dislike slow-paced movies. If a movie is slow, it typically means that the script is failing, the direction is failing, or both (or there's a disconnect between the two). I would draw a dividing line between a "slow" movie and one that moves at (for lack of a better term) a "stately pace", but such movies that are slow for good reason rarely pull if off.
Often, good acting and rich character development offsets slow pacing (as I felt happened to some extent in OPEN RANGE).
Point is, though, if you're looking for an answer for what's wrong with a lot of Costner films: many of them can tell the same story as well (if not better) and be a good 10-20% shorter than they are. That means 10-20% of the movie is waste.
www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME