The Untouchables

John_Hudson said:
The Untouchables (Connery wins the Oscar), Bull Durham (Ron Shelton is nominated), Field of Dreams (Nominated for Best Picture and Best Writing), Dances with Wolves (Wins Cinematography, Director, Editing, Score, Picture, Screenplay), JFK (Wins Cinematography and Editing) Nominated for Supprting Actor, Director, Score, Picture, Screenplay), Wyatt Earp )Cinematography), Tin Cup (Nominated for Golden Globe for Actor) .....
Click to expand...

Costner, meh.

I don't think Connery needed Costner to elevate his acting. But on the otherhand perhaps ANYBODY would look good opposite Costner. :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

He comes off to me as a ham. Perhaps his best acting performance was in The Big Chill. (j/k :evil: )

The only two movies I enjoyed his performance in were No Way Out and Bull Durham. He was okay in Field of Dreams but I felt James Earl Jones made that movie. I liked Open Range in spite of him...same with The Untouchables.

He was just terrible in The Postman, Waterworld and Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.

For me, he is one of those actors that I might actually NOT see a movie because he is in it. And his "masterpiece" Dances With Wolves? I have no idea why this is so highly acclaimed. It seemed to me an exercise in self indulgence. In fact, I probably point to this particular movie as the milestone that turned me off on him. He has only done two movies since that one that I can honestly say I liked: Open Range and Thirteen Days.
 
Last edited:
I really think Costner may have a chance to redeem himself later in his career when he stops taking himself so seriously, ala William Shatner and Burt Reynolds. :)
 
Blaine said:
I really think Costner may have a chance to redeem himself later in his career when he stops taking himself so seriously, ala William Shatner and Burt Reynolds. :)
Click to expand...

I truly liked him in 13 Days and the Untouchables... but besides those two... he ain't so hot IMO... isn't the world great! We've all got such different perspectives on things! I think it's cool!
 
I believe Costner has the ability to put out a great preformance, but what prevents him is that he is a dolt. But he picks terrible characters/movies to play in that mostly deal with the same kind of character/acting. As I said earlier, most of career is a joke. Even his Oscar win for direction is moot considering his other movies(Waterworld, The Postman and Open Range which is a poor "cowboy" movie).
 
I believe Costner has the ability to put out a great preformance, but what prevents him is that he is a dolt. But he picks terrible characters/movies to play in that mostly deal with the same kind of character/acting. As I said earlier, most of career is a joke. Even his Oscar win for direction is moot considering his other movies(Waterworld, The Postman and Open Range which is a poor "cowboy" movie).
Click to expand...

You cannot be serious!



That analysis could not be any more wrong. I think you're attempting to spout fact but it's more just an opinion. Where your opinion is rooted in is a mystery though

He's a dolt ? Costner is a stupid man ? What ? Man has written, produced, directed and starred in numerously successful films (Open Range, Thirteen Days, Message in a Bottle, The Postman, Waterworld, Wyatt Earp, The Bodyguard, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, Dances with Wolves ...)

Starring in these gems:

13 Days *
For Love of the Game
Message in a Bottle
Tin Cup *
The Bodyguard
JFK *
Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves
Dances with Wolves *
Field of Dreams *
Bull Durham *
No Way Out *
The Untouchables *

Now these films listed are generally considered good films. Some might argue even great films *.

This isn't a case of my opinion or your opinion but in general speaking terms; most people tend to consider these cool films. Listing subpar films, B-Movies or early career bit parts won't do any actor justice.

he picks terrible characters/movies to play in that mostly deal with the same kind of character/acting
Click to expand...

How's that ?

A baseball player twice ?
A bodyguard
A escaped Con on the run
A federal prosecutor
An FBI law man
An officer in the Union Calvary
A Russian agent
A Mariner in a post apacalyptic world
A golf pro
A yacht builder widower
Robin 'effin' Hood
a bicycle athlete
Kenny 'effin' O'Donnell
an Elvis impersonator (Criminal)
a cowboy

Terrible characters to play, hmmm ? The same kind of acting ?

As I said earlier, most of career is a joke.
Click to expand...

Yes, the One and half Billon dollars in Box Office he has garnered supports this notion.

Even his Oscar win for direction is moot considering his other movies(Waterworld, The Postman and Open Range which is a poor "cowboy" movie).
Click to expand...

His Oscar for direction is moot ? Waterworld and Postman I can see as considerable bombs (I like them) but Open Range ? Did you even watch it ?

That's one of the best cowboy movies ever made. The gunfight alone in the end is probably the best Cowboy shootout ever made. 12,000 people on IMDB give it an average 7.5. Hell, even RT gives it a 79% from its critic base.

See, whether or not you like him or the films; those are opinions. Saying he is a dolt or has a joke of a career is not only not an opinion but is plain wrong.
 
That's one of the best cowboy movies ever made. The gunfight alone in the end is probably the best Cowboy shootout ever made. 12,000 people on IMDB give it an average 7.5. Hell, even RT gives it a 79% from its critic base.
Click to expand...

Open Range just made it to the top of my Netflix Queue.

Thanks Hudson.
 
Getting back to the Untouchables.. those of you who have seen it know the part where Costner throws the guy off the building (toward the end)... my friend Matt Derr's late father Joe Gilbride was the stuntman who made that high-fall... Matt's brother Kevin is also a stuntman and he's done a lot of work as well.
 
The Machinist said:
Open Range just made it to the top of my Netflix Queue.

Thanks Hudson.
Click to expand...

Dude

You'll love it.

It does to the Cowboy gun fight what Private Ryan did to the Combat scene
 
Of course its my opinion, just as yours is yours.

The fact is, he has been in more crap then quality in the last 15 years. I was going to make the quality review mark at 7.5 on IMDB but saw he only had two movies so I changed my mark to 7. Being as this is a matter of opinion, lets consult the opinions of all those who took their time to post on IMDB.

Quality
Open Range - 7.5
13 Days - 7.3
The Upside of Anger - 7.1
JFK 7.9
A Perfect World

Crap
Rumor has it - 5.5
Dragonfly - 5.7
3000 Miles to Graceland - 5.3
For Love of the Game - 6.3
Message in a Bottle - 5.4
The Postman - 5.2
Tin Cup - 6.1
Waterworld - 5.4
The Bodyguard - 5.3
Robin Hood Prince of Thieves 6.5


Now for somebody who has a easy pick of movies and roles he wants to do, those are some pretty shoddy scores. Not to mention he is suppose to be some great actor, didn't notice too many great preformances there either. Not to mention, just because a movie scores well, doesn't mean an actors preformance matches the quality of the film. Nor the opposite, but I didn't see any quality acting in any of the "crap" movies.

I guess Open Range would be good if I never saw a decent western in my life. This again is just my opinion. Compare it to TBTGATU or OUATITW or The Wild Bunch or Unforgiven or The Magnificent Seven or The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance or the great Treasure of the Sierra Madre and it really does not hold up to these imo.

Its all good his(Costner) films may be considered cool or they have a really great scene in it, but that doesn't make up for the fact most of his movies are not that great nor even mostly good. Plus his acting leaves much to be desired.
 
Last edited:
Your list is a little misleading since your cherry picking left off The Untouchables (7.9) and <even thought I hated it> Dances With Wolves (7.8) and A Perfect World (7.0).

Don't get me wrong...I'm not a Costner fan, just the opposite. But I want to see a little "truth in advertising"
 
Last edited:
Not really, since I was talking about movies made within the last 15 years. Plus if we want to go further back we can include his early movies he starred in which will add more to the crap list. If anything we can add Dances With Wolves. Not to mention my whole arguement is that his earlier works do not make up for where he is as an actor currently.

EDIT: A Perfect World was left off in error.
 
Some amending

I gotta assume a 6 and over is considered comendable being no one is hitting a homerun each time up to the plate, right ? Other films in the 6 Range are:

http://www.imdb.com/List?ratings=6#more

I would strongly defend a 6 would not be cosidered shi*e. It isn't the top of the heap but it surely isn't the bottom and is indeed above the average that is 5.

I also noticed your casual omission of No Way Out, The Untouchables, Dances With Wolves, Bull Durham, Field of Dreams and A Perfect World (why would you omit his best works ? To suit your needs?)


Quality
Open Range - 7.5
13 Days - 7.3
The Upside of Anger - 7.1
JFK 7.9
No Way Out - 6.9
Tin Cup - 6.1
Robin Hood Prince of Thieves 6.5
The Untouchables - 7.9
Bull Durham - 7.1
Field of Dreams - 7.6
A Perfect World - 7.0
For Love of the Game - 6.1


Crap
Rumor has it - 5.5
Dragonfly - 5.7
3000 Miles to Graceland - 5.3
Message in a Bottle - 5.4
The Postman - 5.2
Waterworld - 5.4
The Bodyguard - 5.3

--------------------------------------------------------------

That being said; take a look at any Top Actor/Directors resume and see how many outright successes they have on the list. It's a bit skewed I'd say, to take this approach.

A man doesn't bring over a billion dollars in box office being a hack.

EDIT

And please with your 15 year rule. It's convenient to knock off the years 1987 to 1990 isn't it ?
 
It is my whole arguement, those earlier movies do not make him great because of his 15 year stint of mostly crap.

Its like saying somebody is a good spouse because for the first few years they were the greatest and for the last 15 they have been abusive. Early greatness does not make up for the crap he has done since, especially with the "star power" he has/had.

EDIT: Not to mention, he is being considered a good if not great actor by some, wouldnt that dictate a good or great score? Instead we see a bunch of six and sevens. And this is not a 5 and over equals good, most would agree Waterworld and The Postman are absolute crap, being in the 5s, would that make 6s next to crap?
 
jpeck said:
It is my whole arguement, those earlier movies do not make him great because of his 15 year stint of mostly crap..
Click to expand...
I guess that pretty much makes Brando a POS.:Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
 
Brando in his early years was one of the greatest actors of all time, with some of the most memorable preformances ever. But one cant help but feel that during the end of his career he lost it, he was not the same Brando from the Godfather. Can somebody defend that he was a great actor throughout his whole career because of his early work? No.

However we can looking only at his early work say that during those years he was on top.

EDIT: All people will have bouts with greatness and dissapointment in the film industry. Take a look at Kurosawa, one of the greatest most influential men in the film industry, he nearly killed himself because of the stint of critical failures he went through, however he was not consumed with failure and continued to make great works after that, rivalling even his greatest of films.
 
John_Hudson said:
You are correct. It is yours.
Click to expand...
Just as yours is yours. This post does nothing to add to the topic at all.

EDIT: Thought I would make mine as artistic as yours. <3
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top