In a No Way Out discussion in this thread (unboxed spoilers), I asked why everyone dogs on this Kevin Costner flick. The Gaspode replied:
I agree with that assessment. It’s as if movies that were once good retroactively suck.
But I feel Cosnter made some pretty good flicks (a few even post-WW). The weird thing is, most of the time, it would have been just as good a film had Kurt Russell, Dennis Quaid, Mel Gibson, or Harrison Ford had been given the lead. He is kind of a pleasant, Midwestern sort of guy. He got a good script and he didn’t screw it up. Maybe after his success with Dances, he became too much of a chief and not enough of an indian…
Either way, he has a solid filmography:
The Untouchables- My favorite. The cast was great and Costner did a solid job playing an idealistic fed who has to learn the Chicago way.
Bull Durham- The only film that I can see that would have suffered had it not featured Costner. This was his best work as an actor.
No Way Out -A fun thriller; though the Family Guy joke was hilarious
Robin Hood -I’ll take some heat for this one, but I liked it. Now it would have been better had he used an accent…or had he been Mel Gibson… but the film was an excellent swashbuckler.
JFK- The older I get the more dishonest I find the movie. But the film was down right interesting, and Costner’s desperation was believable.
Field of Dreams- I’m not as impressed with this one as other people, but it was pretty good. Costner puts in a nice performance in a film that, for all its positives, is fairly boring.
The Bodyguard- A fun little turd. Not high cinema or anything, but a decent little picture. Of course, anyone could have been in the role. Kurt Russell, Dennis Quaid, Steve McQueen…
Tin Cup- Bull Durham with a putter. But an enjoyable flick. Plus, it was filmed in my neighborhood…
13 Days- His most recent film that I have enjoyed. But really, they could have cut his part and the film would have been more interesting…