Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:

The Postman - not seen.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:


Waterworld was the worst... absolutely puke-able.

The laughing Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lwaves:
In my opinion:

Waterworld - I was seasick before I saw water.

---

Quote:

---

The Bodyguard - Blurgh. Only became a hit because of that bloody song.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:

No Way Out-haven't seen it

---

Quote:

---

And here's a few others not yet mentioned, all of which I liked:
Mr. Brooks
Open Range

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
Best thing he ever did is:
FANDANGO
Made that with his friend and director Kevin Reynolds - who Costner saddly disassociated himself with over Waterworld (which is more fun than people let on) and which - when you think about the logistics - Reynolds actually did a very good job over. Saddly he was locked out of the editing room by the studio and his 'friend' Costner and therefore Reynolds was unable to see his vision realised. He's never quite recovered from that.

Hollywood eh!


And there's some film he did with Jennifer Aniston which somehow I got roped into seeing with my girlfriend and that film is TERRIBLE!!!!!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:

No Way Out-haven't seen it

---

Gene Hackman in another of his mean-bastard-who-kills-his-mistress-and-covers-it-up roles. Also has an early role for Will Patton, who later teams up in Postman.

Quote:

---

Robin Hood-refused to see it. Errol Flynn is the only Robin Hood I need.

---

So you won't watch the Russell Crowe/Ridley Scott version?

Quote:

---

And here's a few others not yet mentioned, all of which I liked:
Mr. Brooks
Open Range

---

I'm well aware of the plot of No Way Out, seeing as how it is a remake of the great film noir "The Big Clock." It's just one I never got around to seeing.

I probably won't see the new Robin Hood. I am a semi-Ridley Scott fan too, but not so much of Russell Crowe.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lwaves:
In my opinion:

Waterworld - I was seasick before I saw water.

---

Are you trying to say you dislike water so you went to see a movie named Waterworld and this is the sole reason you dislike it, or the Charleton Heston narrative turned you off, or do you have something more substantive to report?

Quote:

---

The Postman - Tries to be something it isn't.

---

So what do you think it was, and what do you think it tried to be, and how do you think it fell short?

Quote:

---

The Bodyguard - Blurgh. Only became a hit because of that bloody song.

---

Are you referring to the 2 decade old Dolly Parton classic?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lwaves:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lwaves:
In my opinion:

Waterworld - I was seasick before I saw water.

---

Are you trying to say you dislike water so you went to see a movie named Waterworld and this is the sole reason you dislike it, or the Charleton Heston narrative turned you off, or do you have something more substantive to report?

Quote:

---

The Postman - Tries to be something it isn't.

---

So what do you think it was, and what do you think it tried to be, and how do you think it fell short?

Quote:

---

The Bodyguard - Blurgh. Only became a hit because of that bloody song.

---

Are you referring to the 2 decade old Dolly Parton classic?

---

Waterworld - I'm not afraid of water and don't get seasick so probably not the most accurate comment but then it was meant to be descriptive of the fact that I felt I had wasted my money (the sick feeling) on this film instead of seeing The Usual Suspects. Costner was still a big cinema draw at the time and that had persuaded us to pick this over the others. The phrase 'It's a Costner movie, it can't be that bad' being uttered.
As for the actual film Costner himself failed to show any kind of acting skill. Dennis Hopper was so OTT it was laughable (in a bad way). It was obvious to me from the start that the little girls tatoo was a map and that she and the woman would eventually break down Costners 'shield'. The other characters were just cliches that had been seen so many many times before.

The Postman - I liked the idea of this, keeping the world going by keeping communication going which gave people hope. It tried to be an epic and thought itself a epic but it wasn't. It tried to be more meaningful than it needed to be. It was a simple message that could have been done well. It ended up being a plodding, mostly boring, overly patriotic story of what should have been a normal man making a difference, instead of a film showing Costner as the American Hero.

Bodyguard - Partons song is a classic, I agree with you. But it wasn't Partons version in the movie. It was Whitney Houstons and over here it seemed to be on the radio incessantly, you just couldn't escape it. All she did differently from the original was sing it as loud as she could in that way that divas do on covers. Fair enough that a lot of people liked it but a portion of those fans would then see the movie bacause if that song, not because of the film itself, helping boost the box office.
As for the film it was a completely by-the-numbers affair which signposted every plot point that was coming along. Totally predictable with bad writing and bad acting (especially Houston).

Is that enough detail for you?



"I don't believe in suicide, but if you'd like to try it it might cheer me up to watch."

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Cstner 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?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
The Mummy films are like this

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GWEK:
was pleasantly surprised by THE POSTMAN (although it is slooooooow).

---

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.

---

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..."

---

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.

---

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

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
Sounds like your complaint about Costner flicks is that Costner flicks are soooo excellent that your level of expectation is so much higher than for any other actor that when the editor, director, writers, or producers create a less-than-spectacular film, you blame Costner. Like Streep or DeNiro never had a dud. Not to mention Gabriel Byrne or Kevin Spacey.
Summarized enough?
Thanks for your explanation, that helps explain the attitudes which caused me to start this thread.

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

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.

---

This is true of most big stars.... or even not so big ones. I, for instance, have not seen a lot of variation between Fillion's roles, either.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lwaves:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
Sounds like your complaint about Costner flicks is that Costner flicks are soooo excellent that your level of expectation is so much higher than for any other actor that when the editor, director, writers, or producers create a less-than-spectacular film, you blame Costner. Like Streep or DeNiro never had a dud. Not to mention Gabriel Byrne or Kevin Spacey.
Summarized enough?
Thanks for your explanation, that helps explain the attitudes which caused me to start this thread.

---

I don't see how you draw that conclusion from my comments. Fair enough if it's your take on what I wrote but that's not how I feel on this subject.

If you look again at my first post you will see that, of the films of his that I've seen, I like more of them than I dislike. The Postman, Waterworld and The Bodyguard are what I consider to be his worst. And I certainly don't feel that I fit in with the attitudes that you mention in your original post. My comments were directed more at him because your post was about Costner and his movies, not just the movies as standalone items. He isn't completely to blame for how I feel about these movies but the emphasis of your original post led my comments to be about him. Plus he directed The Postman, was involved in directing on Waterworld and was a producer on all three of the ones mentioned. That shows he had a lot of involvement in how these films turned out so he has to take his share of the criticism (good or bad) that goes with that.

I don't hold him in any higher esteem than any other actor that I like. I am a big DeNiro fan, I like a lot of his movies. Again, like Costner, they tend to be the earlier ones. I haven't seem much of either of their recent movies, not because I think it's bad, but because I have a lot of other things to watch and their recent movies just haven't appealed to me in a way that their earlier works did. I don't really have an explanation as to why they don't appeal except that it's the way I feel about them. Doesn't mean they are bad movies.

Your comment that DeNiro, Streep, Byrne and Spacey have made dud films (and they have, every actor has or will) but don't seem to accept that I think Costner has made some duds. My comments aren't about Costner flicks in general or even really Costner himself. They are about those particular three films, and Costner in them, that you singled out for me to explain myself further.

To me, you seemed to have generalised my comments about three of his movies to mean all of his work. If I'm wrong on this I apologise.

To sum up I like Costner and I really like some of his movies. As I said above Field Of Dreams is one of my all time faves and a style of film that I find myself drawn to.
But he has made some very poor movies in my opinion.


JSF: you haven't really commented yourself about which ones you like/dislike, barring a couple of them in your replies. You asked us what we think but what do you think?



"I don't believe in suicide, but if you'd like to try it it might cheer me up to watch."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

I own Waterworld, and enjoy it repeatedly.

---

Quote:

---

I own Postman, and enjoy it repeatedly.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

I own Waterworld, and enjoy it repeatedly.

---

If ya like it, that's fine. I just can't get past the laffable 'science.'

Quote:

---

I own Postman, and enjoy it repeatedly.

---

I own that one, I think it's really good- I find the patriotic thing strangely appealing, and the post-apocalyptic vibe is a subtle thing, more realistic because it's not in your face like in a Mad Max movie (not better btw, just more eerie for it's understatement IMO).


The laughing Chrisisall

---