Horizon

I was really looking forward to this movie with a great cast. Finally some real Costner cinema and some good old western action.

Well, I was dissapointed. Yes the filming is great. Beautiful locations. Casting is spot on and the characters look amazing. Real nice.

But. This movie was all over the place. The characters skipped years in one scene and were back in another. The editting is done so terribly that I didnt understand any of the timeline at some point. There are so many flaws like that in this movie that it gets annoying.

Also there are about 4 or 5 different stories n the movie and that doesnt help. The one time you are looking at a hooker with some kid, and the next screne you are in a whole different place where some guys hunt indians.

Costner obviously plays the silent string type who has a sixth sense for danger as he always does. But thats ok. I just hope part 2 will be more coherent.

Horizon is watchable and even enjoyable in parts. The cinematography was well executed, a visual feast in places, and there were some interesting story arcs. However, I've never seen a movie so messed up by atrociously bad editing. Several times while watching I found myself wondering what the hell was going on. Had I missed a scene? How did we get here? Then it really goes haywire towards the end without even referencing what it is doing. As if someone has fast forwarded the movie.

The we come to the story and script... if you were expecting a viscerally raw portrayal of the realities of the old west similiar to Cormac McCarthy's 'Blood Meridien', you'll be sorely disappointed. Horizon is more akin to 'Little House on the Prairie'. Some of the dialogue and interactions are embarrassingly mawkish. Your sense of credibility is stretched to breaking point.

After you've finished watching Horizon, and someone who hasn't seen it asks you what it was about, you're likely to scratch your head and say, 'Er..........'.

I get the feeling Costner has bitten off more than he can chew with this production. He seems to have aimed for 'the western to end all westerns'. In my opinion, he's fallen far short of that. I hope the remaining 'chapters' save the day but I wouldn't bet on it.

Nice cinematography with Utah standing in for Arizona. But seems loosely based on no plot. Many many characters are introduced right off the bat. And the story line jumps to and fro. I had trouble figuring out who was who and related to what. I realize it's a mini-series of sorts. But after one hour in the viewer should be quiet clear as to direction. This thing is a meandering disjointed mess of a screenplay. I'm very disappointed with Costner considering he has been involved with some of the most highly rated westerns known to modern audiences. (Silverado, Dances With Wolves, Open Range etc). Can't recommend.

Look I'll be the first to admit I groaned and rolled my eyes at everyone in the theaters at the end of The Fellowship of the Rings when a few morons said out loud "wait that's it?!?" At the end of the 1st of 3 movies.... But, in the case of this movie (which I understand is just Chapter 1 with Chapter 2 in the eves) wait that's it?

I just watched a 3 hour movie, with 15 main characters, and 30 subplots. Each of which got 25 minutes? It just felt incredibly disjointed. The weird spoiler-y preview at the end was spoiler-y as hell. I feel like this would have been a great mini-series, but in this convoluted fashion it fell flat for me.

It was beautifully shot. And was fun to watch visually, but I have no idea about any of the characters, they history, reason for being. It just drops you in the middle of each journey and it genuinely feels like I missed and entire movie before this. Maybe Chapter 2 will solidify some stuff, but that is a stupid way to do things.

I'm a massive fan of the Western genre, so when I heard that Costner was making this, I couldn't have been more excited. I pre-purchased tickets the day they went on sale. I knew this was going to be Part 1 of a four-part epic, so I fully expected that the story's development would be different than a typical film. Considering that, I was relatively disappointed in this first installment. Without giving any spoilers, here's the context for the whole review: The movie sets up multiple storylines that I expect will converge over the course of the remaining three installments. Each storyline focuses on a different aspect of Western expansion. That said, here's what I liked and was disappointed by.

Let's start with the good.

The subtitle of this film is "An American Saga." It is clear that Costner intends this to be precisely that. The storylines created in this first episode touch on virtually every aspect of Western expansion and the birth of America as we know it today. You have both sides of the conflict between the settlers moving west and the native population already occupying those territories. You have the military and the civil war. You have the "Wild West" component where a specific type of man was drawn to the lawless environs that would allow him to pursue his vices virtually unrestrained. And you have the appetite to take more and profit more, which is such a factor in history.

The story does an excellent job of showing just how difficult life was for virtually everyone in that ecosystem. It adeptly demonstrates the brutality, vulnerability to the elements and conditions, and the sheer amount of work required to live in the West. There are also quite a few subtle examples of very accurate aspects of history and life in the West that show a great deal of attention to detail.

The costumes, sets, and visuals are all what you would expect out of a great western.

Most importantly, the story is interesting. I am interested in what happens moving forward. And the story is unique, which is saying a lot given the current state of Hollywood, where 90% of films being released are just reboots of existing brands and stories we've already seen.

Having said all that, here's why I was disappointed.

To start, the writing could be better. Much of the dialogue is contrived, and several conflicts don't make much sense. In addition, the acting could be better too. Maybe it's the scripts they had to work with, but many actors seem like actors. That might sound weird. What I mean is that you look at them as an actor playing a part in a western rather than buy into them as the character they are playing.

In addition, some of the plot points are hard to follow. It's unclear why characters are making the decisions or why the story took the turn it did. Some characters appear out of nowhere and cause a significant turn of events that don't have rhyme or reason. There are also substantial jumps in time, which by themselves don't bother me. Still, in these cases, it's not obvious that significant time has passed or why the character you just saw in a previous scene is now making the choices they are making with some considerable time that's happened between scenes. (With all of this, I must be purposefully nebulous to avoid spoilers.)

The third aspect that disappointed me was the look of the film. Westerns are known for their epic, cinematic quality. They have a color grading that screams, "Big Feature Film." This movie does not. It looks more like an episode of Yellowstone than a feature film. Also, for fans of the Western genre, those quintessential beautiful landscape shots that make the land a character unto itself are half of the enjoyment. This film doesn't do that. You have a few brief wide shots. But this takes place in Arizona, Wyoming, Montana, and Kansas, giving ample opportunity for gorgeous panoramas. But we don't.

I am reserving judgment until I see the remaining three installments. I was so excited to see a 10 out of 10. Instead, I got a solid 6.8. So I'm rounding up and giving this a 7. Let's hope the remaining three bring up the average and this becomes the film for the ages that I know Costner wanted it to be.