Goodfellas was a heck of a movie, but on rewatches I find it grinds a lot in the second half. The very last few minutes are terrific but after the Lufthansa heist, it gets a little tedious. The fall isn’t as entertaining as the rise.
It was probably better than “Dances with Wolves” in a lot of ways, but it wasn’t perfect, and it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that Kevin Costner came up with a movie as good as Martin Scorsese in that particular year.
Interesting parallel in both those movies is that the Pawnee take it in the ass in terms of their general portrayal. This is particularly egregious in Little Big Man, where the portrayal is worse than in the book ( for example the Cheyenne who eventually adopt Hoffman actually did largely wipe out his family, after his father stupidly gives them booze - not the Pawnee as in the movie ).
It’s a curious inversion of the old ‘cowboys and indian’ films of the past in that the tribes like the Cheyenne and Sioux that were at the forefront of the armed resistance are now lauded. Meanwhile those that sought accomodation and largely fought with the United States are somewhat villified. It still plays into the admiring ‘noble savage’ myth and in a curious way is just as patronizingly black and white as in those earlier movies where the calvary rides to the rescue.
I saw this movie soon after it came out, and just a couploe of years ago with my kids. Upon reviewing, I was surprised that it was not as horrible as I had remembered it. Still not a fan of Costner, tho.
I liked it, a lot. It’s definitely the best of all his movies. Even in comparison with similar movies like Last of the Mohicans it comes out looking pretty darn good.
Looking over his listing at IMDB, he has made a bunch of bad to unremarkable movies. Of the big epics, while The Postman wasn’t as horrible as many people say it is, it’s not exactly a great movie either. If every scene with the “Smokers” had been cut, Waterworld could have been a good movie. There was a good quest/survival story there that was almost completely buried in extraneous crap.
So, you’re saying that if Waterworld was a completely different movie, it could have been good.
Doesn’t that apply to just about every crappy movie?
I feel like the last 20 or 30min of the movie do drag on, but the farewell that Dunbar gets from the guy who had been his quasi-enemy just gets me every time.
The movie does have flaws, but I rate it as a “pretty darned good” movie, and it certainly has a lot to recommend it.
I also don’t particularly dislike Costner, and I enjoyed his acting in this movie.
I do like Dances with Wolves because it is a good movie that and a friend of mine was in it as an extra…
The John Dunbar character should have been named “Thinks He Can Act”.
–It’s always Kevin Costner as “whatever the character”. He is usually a bit over dramatic, but I think the John Dunbar character was well done. My husband thinks that other than DWW Costner hasn’t played a role well other than in Fandango.
The actor who plays Wind In His Hair is jaw-droppingly gorgeous.
–Rodney Grant, not too bad to look at
Why was the pond full of dead animals?
–The dead animals pollute the water so the native Americans can’t use it. For the scenes with dead animals they used roadkill animals, sick animals that had been euthanized, and taxidermied animals and fake animal models.
Did I mention that Wind In His Hair was hot?
– 
The actor who portrayed Kicking Bird reminds me of Jack Soo, and I like him.
–Graham Green- Yay!
That buffalo liver looked like cherry Jell-o to me.
–It was actually made out of Jell-o
–In the scene where the buffalo charges Smiles A Lot (I think), They got the tame pet buffalo to “charge” for a pile of Oreo cookies
I was really amused by the reactions to Dances With Wolves. First, there was tremendous fawning, and then it was heavily looked down on for stealing Goodfellas’ thunder and for being somehow related to Costner’s floppish follow-ups. For me, it was a decent movie with some novel (at the time) things to see on screen. I don’t see the fuss either way, to be honest.
It was one of many movies that were well-liked by most people and which I myslef liked seeing on the big screen, but have no desire to see ever again due to their lack of resonance (others in this catagory include Braveheart and There Will Be Blood)
Years from now, marketing & re-packaging exectuives will finally realize the existance of this catagory of film and overcome both the legal and technical obstacles to give them second life, with the addition of, say, sleestacks.
Talk about damning with faint praise!
I’ve said it before, but I think Costner gave his liveliest performance in The Big Chill.
I really liked Wyatt Earp. I think it is KC’s best directing but there was Costner backlash and Tombstone had come out earlier in the year.
Dances with Wolves, to me, always rang as an American version of Lawrence of Arabia.
Someone once remarked that the British did just the same thing concerning the north-west frontier of India - namely, mythologize the “noble martial races” that fought against them vs. those tribes and ethnicities that submitted.
The difference I suppose is that they did this at the time, rather than retrospectively.
Yep. I feel kind of stupid, but just thinking about that moment (shouting “can you not see that I am his friend” from the cliff) gets me all choked up.