comment #1

ZacharyTF says ...

I saw the trailer and here's what I think happens in the movie:

Kevin Costner goes out to a sea rescue and almost gets killed.

When he recovers, his superiors take him off active duty and have him teach the young guns.

Ashton Kutcher and Kevin Coster butt heads during the training process, in which we Ashton getting the girl, but eventually both become friends.

Ashton and his fellow trainees get called to a harrowing sea rescue.

Kevin gets sent out there when it's evident that the new guys can't get it done.

Kevin dies, Ashton gets the girl, and we all live happily ever after.

I hope I'm wrong, considering that the movie is from the director of The Fugitive, I'm hoping it's not a formulaic picture, but my guy instinct is telling me otherwise.

comment #2

Nicol D says ...

I have a huge respect for the screen presence of Kevin Costner. I'm glad to see him in a major release again that is touted as a potential hit.

I'll be there.

comment #3

p.Vice says ...

How anyone could see this movie's trailer or read some washed-up Variety review and think, "Why not waste 139 minutes of my time on this bullshit", DVD, theater, HBO, whatever?

Nobody seemed to think that about Anapolis, or whatever that "brash recruit to cool professional" garbage was that was out earlier this year. I'm all for supporting Costner, but not when he's succumbed to making more movies we've all seen a thousand times already.

comment #4

Undercover Brother says ...

I agree with the naysayers. This looks way too formulaic and cheesy. The preview spelled it all out and there's nothing left to imagine about. The only thing surprise is that they let Costner headline it. I figured someone would've called Tommy Lee Jones. I guess he didn't feel like swimming.

comment #5

Nick Rogers says ...

To ZacharyTF (spoiler alert):

With but one minor wrinkle (very, very, very minor), everything you thought happens happens. An utterly uninventive, slavish adherence to formula that might be the worst movie Andrew Davis has ever done (and I've seen "Collateral Damage" and "Chain Reaction"). And for everyone that talks about being ballsy in killing off heroes, just know Costner's been milking that cow for years, although nothing tops a post-death bronzing in "The Postman."

comment #6

Dan Revill says ...

Wow, someone actually finished The Postman? I shut it off after 45 mins. Never had any desire to see what I missed, but thanks for letting me know. My life is complete.

comment #7

Nate West says ...

I wonder what is it about Costner that makes his screen presence so unlikable.

comment #8

nemo says ...

Wow, we finally found something we can all agree on. Everyone hates Costner.

Oh, except for perennial outsider Nicol D. Hell, Nicol, for once I agree with you on something. I kind of like Costner, even if I often find his movies downright painful.

And by the way, except for Dennis Quaid, Costner's Wyatt Earp was a total snooze. Nowhere close to the same class with Tombstone. And I like both Quaid's Doc Holliday and Val Kilmer's, as different as they were. Although Quaid was a lot more convincing as a guy on the edge of death from consumption. Kilmer looked far too plump and healthy. But I agree that Kilmer was robbed when he didn't get at least a Best Supporting Actor nomination.

As for Kilmer being campy and over-the-top? Who wasn't in Tombstone? And they were all great. One of Powers Boothe's best roles. Stephen Lang too, and Billy Bob. And they were all about as campy as Kilmer. Don't say campy like it's a bad thing.

comment #9

Joe Leydon says ...

Esteemed? Moi? Since when?

Oh, and P.Vince: How can I be washed-up when I was a nobody to begin with?

comment #10

Circumvrent says ...

People who have no love for Costner have obviously never seen THE UNTOUCHABLES, DANCES WITH WOLVES, REVENGE, etc. etc. etc.

We can all agree on NOTHING.

comment #11

AlexStroup says ...

I actually mildly liked The Postman but I don't really have much hope for this one.

And I am obligated to see it Wednesday night.

comment #12

Josh Massey says ...

I have always liked Costner, and continue to do so. That doesn't mean I like "3000 Miles to Graceland" and "Dragonfly," but I still think his performances in "Tin Cup" and "The War" are among the most underrated of the last 20 years.

Seriously, the guy has too many great movies under his belt to dismiss him (and he was good in them all). "No Way Out," "The Untouchables," "Bull Durham," "Field of Dreams," "Dances With Wolves," "JFK," "A Perfect World," "Tin Cup," "Thirteen Days," "Open Range," "The Upside of Anger" ... Not too many other actors have such a solid resume.

comment #13

Josh Massey says ...

Joe: Don't worry, it seems he called the review "washed-up," not the reviewer. Maybe it's a clever pun based on the film's premise.

comment #14

Nick Rogers says ...

I meant not to imply that I dislike Costner when I said he's been milking the leading-man death for a long time. It might be fashionable to knock on his choice of roles, but I'll take his good-to-bad ratio anytime over that of Tommy Lee Jones. As bad as it can get for Costner, at least he doesn't have a "Man of the House" on his record.

"Dances" and "Open Range" aside, Costner's usually better when he's not directing (or ghost-directing, as was said of "Graceland"). Without him, "The Guardian" would be unwatchable instead of an ass-number. There are some moments of life thanks to him. The blame lies ultimately with Kutcher (who, I'm sorry, is good at pranks, not crying) and the screenplay by Ron L. Brinkerhoff, writer of Stallone's awful, DVD-scuttled "Eye See You."

comment #15

Josh Massey says ...

Well, when you say "'Dances' and 'Open Range' aside," you're only leaving one film. Remember, the guy has directed three films, and two of them are legitimately wonderful.

I think if "Dances With Wolves" hadn't skunked Scorsese and "Goodfellas" at the Academy Awards, it would be remembered as the great film it is. People tend to let their Oscar-based vitriol cloud their memories.

Sure, I would have voted for "Goodfellas" too, but "Dances" is certainly better than any Best Picture winner of the last decade.

comment #16

breadlymoore says ...

"Without him, "The Guardian" would be unwatchable"

I second that.

Costner's scenes with Sela Ward are fantastic. He's a great actor with a huge ego that he's not afraid to fly - that's why people hate him.

GUARDIAN is pretty bad.

And why do directors think step-printing looks good?

comment #17

p.Vice says ...

To Joe L. --

My point was that any review from Variety has to be taken with a grain of salt. Variety isn't interested in whether films are worth seeing as much as reflecting what the middle-of-the-road concensus will be and how that affects a film's marketability.

Just curious: aren't you tempted to tear into some of the stuff you write about but have to temper your review to fit the paper's "voice"? I mean, your review of "The Guardian" seems to say, "Well, it's crap, but since it's done a little bit better than the bottom line some people might actually like it."

comment #18

rr3333 says ...

Andrew Davis is seriously washed up.

The Fugitive came out over 15 years ago!

comment #19

Nick Rogers says ...

To Josh: I should have been more inclusive in listing Costner's meddling in a directorial or authorial sense as evidence that he's better when he's just acting. (On a side note, I totally agree on "Dances" being hated because it beat "Goodfellas.")

There are the Kevin Reynolds spats - first on "Robin Hood" (making his own cut of the movie) and then "Waterworld" (where he reportedly finished the movie after Reynolds walked).

comment #20

actionman says ...

"And why do directors think step-printing looks good?"

Because it does. It looks cool and stylish and visceral and immediate.

comment #21

breadlymoore says ...

"Because it does. It looks cool and stylish and visceral and immediate."

If this was a serious comment, please don't ever make movies. We already have enough of you.

comment #22

Joe Leydon says ...

"Just curious: aren't you tempted to tear into some of the stuff you write about but have to temper your review to fit the paper's "voice"?"

I'm constantly amazed by the misguided notions people have about Variety reviews. To address this question specifically: I tear into movies all the time, on those occasions when the movie I'm reviewing deserves a good tearing. (Most recently: "The Wicker Man.") I am not censored, I am not told how or what to write. And, trust me, I am not the only Variety critic who often writes reviews that most certainly DO NOT reflect the middle-of-the-road concensus. (My colleague Todd McCarthy actually wrote one of the more appreciative reveiws of "The Postman," and I have panned quite a few films that have gone on to make lots and lots of money.) Naturally, I always include some speculation about possible audience and critical response, because I am, after all, writing for a trade paper. But saying "Variety isn't interested in whether films are worth seeing" strikes me as, well, to be put it politely, an ill-informed statement.

comment #23

Rich S. says ...

Re: The Guardian (and its ilk)

When they made An Officer and a Gentleman, they should have broken the mold.

comment #24

actionman says ...

"Because it does. It looks cool and stylish and visceral and immediate."

"If this was a serious comment, please don't ever make movies. We already have enough of you."

Sorry to burst your bubble but I work in creative development and will be producing movies in 5 years!

comment #25

MASON says ...

No you won't.

comment #26

actionman says ...

of course i will! already on my way!

comment #27

L.B. says ...

"The Fugitive came out over 15 years ago!"

It's 2009 already?

I always hold out hope for Costner because I loved his pre-1991 films.

But the GUARDIAN preview made me lose consciousness. Gimme a break. Try again. I'll support him, but only when it's a worthy cause.

comment #28

iamanerd says ...

Because of his work acting and directing Open Range, combined with his performance in The Upside of Anger, I am willing to cut him a little slack because those films are relatively new/fresh in my mind. They help me forget the stretch he had from 1993(ish)-2001(ish). I loved Open Range for the same reasons I loved Unforgiven: real characters played by great actors, actions sequences that are violent but believable, and simple stories that the direction makes seem bigger and more important than they probably are. His performances in Upside and Open Range stuck with me after the movies were over. That doesn't happen a lot nowadays.