Review: Kevin Costner's "Dances With Wolves" (1990)

This review has been some time coming. I have required a bit of time to ponder the film after a recent revisit to the once considered 'great' film. The movie is about a man, who's interest in life has been shaken, frustrated he attempts to end it, but in trying to do so is made a hero in a failed act of would be suicide. Then uses his 'hero' status to get a pass to make his way out west to see the frontier...

The opening scene is a bit empty, the viewer has no reason to be invested in the "dramatic" act by Costner's character. Sometimes I believe we love a film until enough films of higher quality reveal to me the truth, the truth that so many "greats" don't last the test of time. I believe we are pushing out the 'once greats' with the current greats, and I also believe the caliber of these new greats are superior to most of our self chosen classics. The greater films hold strong, but nostalgia normally hangs on to films longer than we should allow. This film is victim to nostalgia.

"Dances With Wolves" was great. It truly was great each time I watched it, until now. It is falling into the Hollywood norm, the section that dies off after 10-15 years of shelf life. If something carried the film, it wouldn't be the performance, as it is bare minimum, missing any sign of award quality. The film has interest, but its an interest for what could be developing. Problem is, not much develops. If the story was better written and some casting changes were made, it might have held up for another 5 years, but unfortunately it is deeper. It is the vision, or the depth of the film. It is the very message the film is making that just echoes cliche. This story is the same as Disney's "Pocahontas" all the way to the current "Avatar". It is hard to create a story then transfer it to the screen and make it good no matter what content it is, but when it comes to a good Samaritan or reconciliation story, they can really be the worst kinds.

The director reveals that the only good in the film lies with the natives, and how just a single white man has come to realize this and change his ways to becoming like them.

The message in the end isn't even clear, there is no solid finishing statement. The film just abandons you on the side of the road.

The film did however have some exciting adventures. There were a lot of firsts in this film for me, different interactions or visuals that were fun when Costner was exploring the land, but when the film tried to get serious and start adding to what the story was leading up to, it felt forced and unbelievable.

The landscape, costumes, and the few adventures of the film where the film's more interesting elements.

"Dances With Wolves"
6 / 10

Hollywood Suicide

Money, money, money, and money is all Hollywood cares about today. The city is losing movie talented stars by the minute, and trading them for sexually appealing and marketable faces. Whether its Transformer's Megan Fox or just maintaining older sex icons like Angelina Jolie, we are losing out on the true talent and great films are becoming more and more scarce. Meryl Streep is dropping down the list of highest paid actresses, and there aren't many actresses worth mentioning in terms of talent, for that I blame the "sex sells" rationale.

The great actresses are departing, and they are being replaced by beautiful and talentless models. I just want to shine a light on the top paid actresses and try to see a trend of quality products flowing from them.

First on the list is Angelina Jolie, who at some points in her career it seemed she took things serious, but that is roughly once every 6 films. She is willing to show off her body in its entirety or just sign for obviously terrible movies for top dollar. Where is the honor? That is what makes Hollywood less and less attractive to serious film seekers, the lack of honor.

Second is Jennifer Aniston, the actress from 'Friends', which may be her only honorable mention. How is she anywhere near the top of the list? Was it her affiliation with another star in Brad Pitt? Who knows. What I do know is that she hasn't shown us the talent for which she is being paid. One chick flick after another, which is fine if that is where Hollywood wants to go. I think there will be a time in the near future of film that decides to place a fork in the road for Hollywood, either allow the current studios destroy what classy groups of men and women build for almost 100 years, or separate itself from the constant garbage pumped out weekly.

The award shows are slowly but surely being affected by this change, and is becoming more and more biased with each passing year. I am tired of these award shows and their inconsistencies. I don't want the Sandra Bullocks to be nominated and win for things that don't even meet cable quality films.

There are few filmmakers today that still operate on old school methods and even fewer who are choosing to build new methods which also separates them from Hollywood. By Hollywood, I mean the Fox "empire" and all of its other companions.

When a community, and primarily the only community who is responsible for bringing us most of our films every week, is limited to giving us constant remakes, reboots, and never ending sequels, it is hard to find originality, and originality is what made Hollywood in the first place.

I am tired of seeing films being scheduled for release before plans are made about it's production, like casting. Spider-Man sequels for example, have been scheduled in the secret books of Columbia Pictures for a long while now. When those dates were set it was assumed even by everyone involved in it's production that the original cast would be sought out, but then that all changed, and now nothing from he originals remain. This is just another sign of where Hollywood's priorities are, money first.

Money first proved wise for the movie Ava'tard', but that was one of the few exceptions. Normally it is originality that makes the money. For example, Star Wars, most Pixar films... just look at the top box office results and you will see the trend of success from the past being met with the current infiltration by the 100 Shrek movies, or the comic book movies, and everything else marketable. Although some comic book movies might be good, they don't always deserve the records. The Dark Knight was an exception on many levels. It was a very original set of ideas with a well acted cast and well learned director who made a great film. Normally you will have sensually terrific faces playing overly sexual roles of even children genres like Megan Fox in Transformers.

Most people don't think about it or care about it because they aren't avid film goers. If someone feels like going to the theater, they just check out what is currently playing and buy tickets for which ever one seems most interesting. Not me. I don't have money to waste on passionless art. I am not even a faithful tither in my church, don't think for a second I will shove money I don't have into Transformers XXVI.

I could go on and on down the list of actresses, or name evil production companies and make negative "shout outs", but I think my point is well out there now and I doubt rambling on will further anything new. There will be a shift in how things are done in film making, and it will not be limited to originating from Hollywood. It is time for Hollywood suicide, and the birth of something new, and maybe something original for the first time in decades.

For new, exciting, and original films, stay tuned, but pay close attention for key words, like Coen Brothers.

Review: The Edgerton's "The Square" (2008)

Are there a new set of brothers in town? Yes. The Coen brothers still hold the throne, but a new rising pair has emerged. Nash Edgerton is the director Joel Edgerton is the writer and also acted in the film.

"Some things can't be buried", 'The Square' is about a man who falls apart in lust. The film is led by David Roberts in a spectacular performance, fully convincing me this was a real man making real decisions and paying for it in real consequences.

The rest of the cast in the film were very well performed for what was needed of them as they convinced me of how naive they were in their own filth. I see some of the lines drawn to the Coen brothers' film 'Blood Simple' but I personally felt that this film was done better. These creators know exactly how to push and pull you emotionally at will.

If I were to make a complaint or two I would start with the forced and uninformed love between the main character and his mistress, and the second would be the deep theology which lies in most of the Coen brothers' films.

Imagine a roller coaster you ride and when it is over you think about what it would be like if more of those rides existed. This is exactly that, it is a ride just like some of the goods which the Coen brothers have provided, but instead of a corkscrew going left, they gave you a corkscrew going right. No matter the similarities, I think so far this is the years best to date.

"The Square"
8.5/10