Advertisements

What the Hell Happened to Kevin Costner?

costner 2013

In the early 90’s, he was arguably the biggest star in Hollywood.  His films were hits.  His directorial debut swept the Oscars.  Kevin Costner was at the top of the A-list.  Twenty years later, his films go direct to video and he’s been reduced to playing Pa Kent in the new Superman movie.

What the hell happened?

Kevin Costner - Sizzle Beach USA

Kevin Costner – Sizzle Beach USA

Kevin Costner’s first film was a little gem called, Sizzle Beach USA.  The movie sat on the shelves until after Costner became a star and then was released on video to cash in.

Kevin Costner - Night Shift - 1982

Kevin Costner – Night Shift – 1982

Costner can also be spotted very briefly in Night Shift!  He plays “Frat Boy #1” in the party scene at the morgue.

Kevin Costner

Kevin Costner – The Big Chill – 1983

Costner filmed scenes for the 1983 hit, The Big Chill.  He played Alex, the college friend whose suicide brings the rest of the cast together.  Unfortnately, Costner’s flashback scenes were cut and he ended up playing a corpse.  His face was never seen in the movie.  But he did lay still very convincingly.

Director Lawrence Kasdan was a friend and promised to make it up to him by casting him in another role later.

de mornay - testament

Meanwhile, Costner continued paying his dues in movies like Testament.

In Testament, Costner had a small role opposite Rebecca De Mornay.  She and Costner played a young couple who decide to leave town after losing their baby.

Testament was originally filmed as a an entry for the PBS TV series, American Playhouse. It received a small theatrical release before eventually airing on PBS. Reviews were mostly positive.

Kevin Costner and Judd Nelson - Fandango - 1985

Kevin Costner and Judd Nelson – Fandango – 1985

In 1985, Costner starred opposite Judd Nelson and Sam Robards in Kevin Reynolds’ coming-of-age comedy, Fangango.

Costner, Nelson and Robards played recent college grads who embark on a road trip circa 1971.  Costner’s character has broken up with his ex played by model-turned actress Suzy Amis in her acting debut.  Robards’ character is engaged but is having second thoughts about getting married.  Nelson played the friend with a car.

The movie started out as a student film by Reynolds while he was attending USC film school.  Steven Spielberg liked his student film well enough to fund a feature-length version of the movie.  But Spielberg was disappointed in Fandango and had his name removed from the final film.

Costner audition for the lead role in the student film but was not cast.  He auditioned again for the feature-length version and won the part.  He and Reynolds became good friends.  They would go on to collaborate several more times including Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves and Waterworld.

Robards and Amis also had future collaborations.  Robards, the son of Jason Robards and Lauren Bacall, married Amis in 1986.  They had a son together but divorced in 1994.

Spielberg chose not to give Fandango a wide release despite mostly positive reviews.  Director Quentin Tarrantino has high praise for the movie which he was able to track down during its limited time in theaters:

Fandango is one of the best directorial debuts in the history of cinema. I saw Fandango five times at the movie theater and it only played for a fucking week, all right.”

Over time, the movie has developed a small but loyal cult following.

Next: Silverado and The Untouchables

Advertisements

Posted on August 20, 2011, in Movies, What the Hell Happened?, WTHH Actor, WTHH Director and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 487 Comments.

  1. After “Open Range” and “The Upside of Anger,” I felt like Costner had finally settled into a decent mid-career groove, in which he was no longer expected to be a HUGE STAR, but still had the clout to have good parts in good films, if he kept choosing them. Then he made “Rumor Has It…” and “Mister Brooks.” I have a hard time judging actors fo their choices of roles. I have absolutely no problem with Michael Caine choosing to do that awful Jaws sequel, for example. But when a guy like Costner is SO A-list that he can write his own ticket like that, well his choices start to define him in a major way.

    Like

    • Agreed. Costner was never going to return to his Dances/Robin Hood/Bodyguard heyday. But he seemed to hit a good stride there for a while with smaller, adult films. But then the old 90’s Kevin came back making really horrible decisions again. (Although I kind of get why he made Rumor Has It… Not a good movie, but it was a good part for him. Right in his sweet spot.)

      One of the fun things for me writing these articles is to kind of go back and relive film history. Frequently, I have forgotten just how big a star was at their peak. That was definitely the case with Costner. Until I went back and looked at his winning streak, I forgot just how powerful this guy was. Like you say, he could write his ticket. The problem is, instead of making more passion projects like Dances With Wolves, he made more passion projects like The Postman.

      Caine in Jaws 4? Caine was always cashing paychecks. This time he got a free vacation too. Shame he had to miss picking up his Oscar, but what are you going to do. But like you say, Costner had choices. He could pick his project and cash a paycheck at the same time. He just messed up.

      Like

  2. i think kevin costner is still a good actor. he did well with the untouchables, tin cup, 3000 miles to graceland, field of dreams, the guardian, dances with wolves, robin hood and no way out. i never saw the postman, but i heard it’s good.

    Like

    • I think Costner has a really good, easy screen presence. He’s a good actor with a limited range. And there’s nothing wrong with that. That describes a lot of movie stars. In the right role, Costner’s gold. The problem is, his creative instincts are pretty lousy sometimes. And once he got big enough to have creative control, he dug his own grave.

      Like

  3. Some say he’s a minimalist, I think he is just a limited actor. Take away baseball pics and westerns and Costner’s filmography is bad. That being said, I’m mostly positive about his career. No Way Out and the Untouchables might arguably be his best films, Waterworld is a true Heaven’s Gate-level flop, but The Postman was pure Hollywood ego. I hold a degree in political science, so I enjoyed Thirteen Days and I’m a horror fan so Mr. Brooks was interesting. I believe that Costner’s name could still add gravitas to a film in a supporting role, but his headlining days are over.

    Like

    • I think you are right that he is a limited actor. But in the right roles, that works. His overall track record is pretty horrible. And some of his most popular movies are just plain bad. But I don’t blame Costner for that.

      I actually think that being cast in Man of Steel is a win/win for Costner and the movie. He should be great in the role. And he will add some gravitas, plus get a little career bump himself. If he can choose the right projects in which to get supporting roles, he could build up a nice third act for his career.

      Like

  4. i still think costner can do a great movie. he is still an oscar winning actor and director who is very talented. he can do action movies a lot better than tom hanks.

    Like

    • He’s actually not an Oscar winning actor. He won for directing. He’s only been nominated for his acting.

      He’s won Golden Raspberries before though.

      Like

  5. well he did a good job winning an oscar for directing dances with wolves. but he has done good action movies you got to admit.

    Like

    • His action movie track record is pretty spotty. His two best “action” movies are The Untouchables and No Way Out. Neither one is purely an action movie. His pure action movies (Robin Hood, Water World) aren’t very good.

      But I do think he is unquestionably a talent. You can’t be as successful as Costner was without having some kind of talent.

      Like

  6. yeah you’re right. i don’t have a problem with that.

    Like

  7. I took a couple days to think on this and decide just what I feel happened to Costner. I’ve come to the conclusion that he simply forgot how to act naturally. His early acting comes across smooth and natural. He seemed at ease in his roles and you really could forget that he was acting at all.

    Then something happened. Probably he started reading his own press and along the way started overacting. See Waterworld for what I mean. If that isn’t the most ham-fisted performance you’ve ever seen I don’t know what is. Tin Cup and Swing Vote are other examples of this. He also started taking his baseball roles way to seriously. Trying to recapture Bull Durham no doubt, but lightening couldn’t strike twice. He’s made his money though so if we see him once every couple years in a supporting role he can probably reclaim some standing.

    As an aside I grew up in the Black Hills of SD where parts of Dances was filmed. Gambling has been legal in the small hills town of Deadwood for many years now. He and his brother opened up a hotel casino there so he became sort of a semi-regular fixture in the area. What I heard from folks who ran into him was that he is something of an ass. So he’s got personality issues to boot.

    Like

    • Oops…almost forgot. The Guardian was a Coast Guard rescue squad flick that was supposed to be Ashton Kutchers break out role. In this one you get to see two hack performances for the price of one.

      Like

      • You’re right. I forgot they were talking up Kutchers like he was the next Tom Cruise and The Guardian was his Top Gun. Didn’t quite work out that way.

        Like

    • I do think his ego went wild and did him in. I hadn’t thought about that seeping into his performances. That’s an interesting take. I always sort of figured that after mangling his accent in Robin Hood he spent the rest of his career over compensating.

      He gives off that “something of an ass” vibe. I could definitely see that being the case.

      Like

  8. occasionalwatcher

    ” the film was dubbed a huge bomb at the time. But it was actually very successful overseas and on video. Despite earning a profit, Waterworld is still one of the most notorious bombs in history. ”

    Your comments here seem a bit contradictory. What other yardstick does Hollywood have for success other than profit?

    Like

    • It wasn’t the studio that was upset with the returns of Waterworld. No doubt, they’d have liked it to do better domesticaly. But they were probably just relieved to turn a profit. In point of fact, Waterworld was not a bomb.

      But the media coverage of Waterworld focused so heavily on its budget and troubled production, that people perceived it as a bomb before it was even released. And then it underperformed at the box office. The fact that it turned a profit overseas never made the headlines.

      Basically, after months of telling the public “Water World is a bomb” and cracking snide jokes to that effect, the entertainment press didn’t bother publishing stories that corrected their earlier one. Ask most people, they will tell you that Waterworld was a bomb based on those stories. But it did make money.

      Believe it or not, that’s not all that uncommon. There are plenty of movies that conventional wisdom says are a bomb (or a hit) when the financial reality says otherwise.

      Like

  9. …and since the studios are making some of their money on video sales, the story never really ends until a title goes completely out of print.

    Like

  10. kevin costner has his hits and flops but some of them are great.

    Like

  11. Waterworld was a lot better than oh so many movies, definitely better than ANYTHING Meryl Streep was in (including my favourite pretentious movie ‘Deer Hunter’). Any movie where Dennis Hopper is missing an eyeball and is chasing a pee-drinking fishman is OK. “Nothing like a smoke when you miss your ma”

    Like

  12. Waterworld is definitely the best urine-drinking film Costner has ever done. He should look into bringing some of Moliere’s works to the silver screen.

    Like

  13. Lord Wellington's Beef Trapeze

    Costner and co-star Madeline Snow should certainly have had chemistry along the lines of Costner and Sean Young. Heck, Snow radiated chemistry. (I don’t know why she never caught on…)

    Maybe because you’re thinking of Madeleine Stowe?
    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000656/

    Like

  14. i really got to see the postman and jfk.

    Like

  15. “Reduced” to playing Pa Kent? Uh, I guess Michael Kane was “reduced” to playing Alfred in the Batman movies.

    Like

    • Apparently Michael Caine was reduced to having his name misspelled… 😉

      Yeah, playing Pa Kent is a demotion from being a Hollywood power player! The last person to play Pa was a Duke boy!

      I’m just having fun with you. But I’m not sure what part of that phrase you find objectionable. Care to elaborate?

      Like

      • Yes, I know how to spell his name. I guess I was distracted by having a backwards swastika next to my post.

        I’m just saying if you’re gonna talk predecessors, I somehow doubt that Glenn Ford had any regrets.

        Like

        • As swasticas go, it’s at least decorative. If that was randomly assigned, I think I’d go out and find a new avatar! Yikes!

          I love Glenn Ford in Superman. The Smallville sequence is one of my all-time favorites. But Glenn Ford was never an A-list power player the way Kevin Costner was at the height of his career. The fact that Costner is now playing Superman’s adoptive father shows that he has been reduced to a character actor.

          No disrespect to the Superman mythos or any of the previous Pas intended. But it is a sign of how far Costner has fallen.

          Like

      • I don’t think that judging the casting of Kevin as Pa Kent just by whom played him on the TV series “Smallville” is totally fair (that’s almost an apples and oranges argument since they’re too different interpretations/adaptations/mediums of the same source material). Lawrence Fishburne is going to play Perry White in “Man of Steel”. On “Smallville” that role was played by Michael McKean (Lenny on “Laverne and Shirley”). With that being known does that make the Laurence Fishburne’s casting more demeaning then by that point-of-view?

        Like

    • I too don’t exactly understand how playing Pa Kent in a Superman movie is exactly a truly bad thing or bad sign in Kevin Costner’s career? This Superman movie is more than likely going to be on of the biggest movies of 2013. It isn’t exactly like Kim Basinger playing Zac Efron’s mom in “Charlie St. Cloud” or Michael Keaton playing Lindsay Lohan’s dad in “Herbie: Fully Loaded”. Other than the notion that arguably it highlights that Kevin Costner can no be regarded as more of a character actor than a true, A-list leading man.

      Like

  16. The late Gene Siskel once said that Costner’s divorce (which resulted from an extra-marital affair he had) also affected the way people viewed him-much like Meg Ryan.

    Like

    • That’s an excellent point. Costner’s divorce didn’t play out on the tabloids to the degree Ryan’s infidelity did. But it had to have some impact on his “aw shucks” guy next door image.

      On the other hand, I think Costner was trying to shed that image anyway with his anti-hero roles. But it couldn’t have helped his career any.

      Like

  17. As Homer Simpson said while watching a baseball game after giving up drinking, “I never realized how boring this game is.”

    I definitely agree with your takes on Robin Hood and Waterworld. Robin Hood was annoying because it was so overhyped and successful despite being a relatively low quality, off-key, sloppily put together movie. Waterworld, on the other hand, was bashed beyond all reason and never seemed as bad as people made it out to be. Maybe the quality of the two movies, both directed by Kevin Reynolds, is not that far apart. But the relative hype factor of them makes me much more sympathetic to Waterworld. Granted I also prefer sci-fi to middle-ages period pieces. I think my expectation for a Robin Hood movie would be that it succeeds on the story and character level. The myth and the setting aren’t all that interesting on their own. But a lot of the entertainment value of a movie like Waterworld is in seeing that high-concept, distinctive vision of the future brought to the screen, which the movie on the sheer merits of its technical credits did. Also interesting is that Titanic got almost the same pre-release press as an over-budget, waterlogged box office bomb that was destined to sink the studio, but the results were quite different. Which shows you the relative value or lack thereof of pre-release press.

    One notable thing about Kevin Costner’s filmography is that the movies with the best titles were more successful, while all his bombs, especially the ’90s ones, had pretty bad titles, at least going by the way I judge titles. A good title should not be too generic and it should capture the essence of the movie in a memorable way. The title should be distinct enough that someone can simply say the title years later and you’ll be able to recall the movie, even if you only ever saw the ads. The title should not be just as easily applied to any number of other movies as it is to its own movie. That’s why generic titles like The Postman, A Perfect World, The War, Swing Vote, The Guardian or maybe the worst title of the bunch, Revenge, are all failures. Tin Cup is right on the cusp of being a passable title. Ideally you want the audience to be able to tell what the movie’s about from the title alone, as in Waterworld. You at least want them to be able to understand why the movie is called that after seeing a 30-second trailer, as they can with The Bodyguard or Dances with Wolves. And it doesn’t hurt if the title has its own little catchy flair, like Silverado or Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (or another good example, Purple Rain). Bull Durham has some poetry to it; Mr. Brooks doesn’t. Field of Dreams is poetic, memorable and descriptive, one of his best titles.

    I would argue that No Way Out would’ve been a more successful movie if it had a better title. No Way Out is a good title if it literally means a guy is trapped in a room or a coffin. But titles that are just abstract turn of phrases, tend not to work, especially when they are commonly used phrases. I think it’s almost impossible for even well-regarded movies like No Way Out or Bill Murray’s Quick Change to garner a cult following with such a generic title. It’s hard to even get someone interested in having a conversation about a movie with a title like that, or for them to remember that they had the conversation a week later.

    Titles aren’t everything of course. Wyatt Earp was the best possible title for that movie, maybe a better title than Tombstone, but the movie wasn’t successful, although it wasn’t because people didn’t know about it or know what it was about. 3,000 Miles to Graceland is a great title, but it’s also successful at drawing people away who know they don’t want to see a movie about Elvis impersonators.

    I’m not quite sure if Costner has it in himself to revive his career. He’s tried playing against type and with type and neither seem to be working. I think he suffers from the fundamental problem of not being that interesting an actor. I know he had some female fans, but other than that, even in his most successful movies, people enjoyed the movie as a package, not just as a showcase for Costner’s performance. It’s hard to imagine him walking on for a 5-minute supporting role and blowing the audience away like Jack Nicholson or Christopher Walken can. I don’t think he ever even had the intrinsic star appeal that Harrison Ford or Tom Cruise did. Even an average Joe off the street might feel that he likes seeing Harrison Ford in a movie, but I can’t see very many people saying that about Costner. He doesn’t seem appropriate for much else but a leading man, but his age means those days are over for him. Maybe he should look into doing some alternative indie dramas a la Little Miss Sunshine? Or reviving the spoof genre in deadpan Leslie Nielsen/Peter Graves-style? It would probably take a director of real and possibly twisted talent to reinvent Costner and make him feel fresh again at this point, so unless Tarantino’s hiring, I doubt Costner has a chance.

    Like

    • After the success of Hatfields and McCoys, I see Reynolds and Costner concentrating on similar projects. They would be crazy not to. Clearly there is an appetite for Costner in Westerns still. And a TV mini-series seems like the best format. Maybe this time he’ll get on a higher profile cable channel. They will be lined up around the block, I’m sure.

      I like your title theory too.

      Like

  18. field of dreams fifth best film from costner besides untouchables, tin cup, the guardian, the postman. i love everything about it. father and son tale, baseball, magic, characters, road trip, redemption, forgiveness, inspiring speeches and of course james horner’s musical score for that as well as bicentennial man, sneakers, commando, star trek 2 and 3, 48 hrs 1 and 2,etc.

    Like

  19. When did his real downfall begun?:
    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000126/board/flat/168752750?p=1

    1) Waterworld. Although this film went on to make money, the set was destroyed, there was tension on set, and the film ended up becoming the most expensive movie ever made at that time-and it wasn’t supposed to be. As a result of all the bad press, it was deemed a failure before it was even released. The press at the time, and anti-Costner people these days love to bring that up.

    2) Dances vs. Goodfellas. I agree that Goodfellas is a great film. Almost any other year I would have thought it deserving of the best picture Oscar. However, at the time, and even more so now, there is a large group of people who are somehow mad at Costner that Dances beat out Goodfellas for best picture. I think these message boards in and of themselves are a good example of the animosity many Goodfellas fans have towards Costner as a result of him (in their opinions) “stealing” the Oscars from “Goodfellas”.

    3) The Postman. Okay, so this is what everyone claimed “Waterworld” was… a box office bomb. Although I like the film a lot (minus 2 cheesy scenes), this film cost around 80 million dollars to make and I believe it made about 20 million total (if that). That was a shame, in my opinion, because after the P.R. disaster of “Waterworld”, Costner had a nice comeback with “Tin Cup”. He received a Golden Globe acting nomination for his performance in Tin Cup and it did very well at the box office. But, not only did “The Postman” bomb at the box office, but he turned down the lead in “Air Force One”, which went on to be one of the biggest films of the year, because he was still working on “The Postman”. Costner even recommended Harrison Ford for the part. Imagine how much longer he may have stayed a box office champ had he gone from Tin Cup to Air Force One? Anyway, I still like “The Postman”, but concede it did him no favors.

    4) Robin Hood. By not having an English accent the critics had a field day with him. I believe this is where he really started getting Razzie attention. This put the target on his head for any movie thereafter. And while I think Costner had great physicality and strong screen presence to the film, I understand why he was nominated for a Razzie for this film (which I still enjoy, anyway).

    5) His characters in “The Bodyguard” & “Message in a Bottle” & his narration in “Dances With Wolves”. In “The Bodyguard” Costner was playing the role of a bodyguard, who is always professional and doesn’t let his emotions get the best of him. He plays the part very tight on purpose, but for some, he comes off as “wooden”. If you watch him at his father’s place in the woods, he is much looser and laid back because his character no longer felt he had to be “on the clock”. If you watch, you will see that. In “Message in a Bottle” he is playing a character who is still grieving and internalizing his pain. He plays the part very much still in mourning and again, I think he came across as wooden to his critics. Also, his narration in “Dances With Wolves” also gives the impression to some as if he is wooden, or dull. The whole point of his narration is as if he is reading his own journal to the audience. he is not trying to do a voice over for a car commercial. He is actually supposed to be reading the journal and he plays it that way perfectly. Still, I think some people don’t get that.

    Like

    • Guest Post: The rise and fall of Kevin Costner’s career:
      http://flixchatter.net/2011/05/26/guest-post-the-rise-and-fall-of-kevin-costner%E2%80%99s-career/

      With the news that Costner will play Jonathan Kent in the new Superman film, Man of Steel, I thought I should write up about his rise to super-stardom and his fall from that status.

      You see I never thought of Costner as good actor and yet I’ve seen every single film of his from 1985 to 2003, starting with Silverado and end with Open Range. It’s kind of ironic since both the first and last film I saw him are both Westerns.

      To me, Costner was never a strong leading man, even though a lot of his films in the late 80s and early 90s were box office hits. Don’t get me wrong, I like a lot of his early films, The Untouchables, Field of Dreams, Revenge and Dances with Wolves were quite good. In those films, he just never stood out; I felt like he was there but not really ‘carried’ the movie but somehow he made it worked. Especially in Revenge, I always thought had someone like Bruce Willis or Tom Cruise starred in it, the film could’ve been even better.

      I’ll list the films that made him a superstar and films that ruined his career as a leading man. Here goes:

      The Untouchables

      This was his first starring role in a big summer movie, co-starring with Robert De Niro and Sean Connery. The movie was a big hit at the time and catapulted Costner into an A-list leading man status. Looking back, this was a big gamble for Paramount, having a relatively unknown actor as the leading man for a summer film. Of course it paid off for both the studio and Costner, it didn’t hurt that they surrounded him with veterans like Connery and De Niro.

      No Way Out

      This film also came out in the summer of 1987, two months after The Untouchables, in fact. Even though it wasn’t a huge box office hit, it cemented Costner as a sex symbol to a lot of his female fans. I saw this film when I was in my early teens and I fell in love with Sean Young, who’s quite sexy in the film.

      Bull Durham

      Now that he’s an elite leading man, Costner decided to tackle romantic comedy and his first baseball theme film. This film was released in the summer of 1988 and again it was a box office hit. I didn’t particular like this movie, I thought the chemistry between Costner and Susan Sarandon didn’t really click.

      Field of Dreams

      Costner decided to do another baseball theme film and I thought this one was much better than Bull Durham. Again this one was a box office success and Costner can pretty much do whatever he wanted in the Hollywood.

      Revenge

      After two lighter films, Costner decided to star in a dark thriller and this was his first box office misfire since becoming a Hollywood star. I did like this film but I thought Costner was wrong for the part. He just wasn’t strong enough for this role and apparently many people agreed since the film barely made more than $20mil at the box office. Also, I think maybe because of the film’s violent content, it might’ve turned off many of his fans.

      Dances with Wolves

      He turned down the role of Jack Ryan in The Hunt for Red October so he could star and direct this Western. Well, I guess it was great a move on his part because the film made close to $200 mil at box the office and won him an Oscar for best director. (Scorsese should’ve won that year, but that’s another debate at another time.)

      Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves

      By this time, Costner was on the top of world and it seemed everything he touched turned to gold. This film came out in the summer of 1991 and again it was a huge hit.

      JFK

      In this film he teamed up with another A-lister, Oliver Stone, the film did pretty well in theaters and also got several Oscar nominations. I thought this was a very good movie, just a tad too long in my opinion.

      The Bodyguard

      After several serious films, he decided to come back and make a romantic-themed film. He teamed up with Whitney Houston (she was a huge pop singer at the time) and of course the film was a box office gold. I really hated this movie, the chemistry between Costner and Houston just didn’t click and the plot was more of a TV movie of the week than a big screen film.

      A Perfect World

      So after a few box office hits, he decided to team up with another A-lister, Clint Eastwood and make this film. I believe this is the film that started his downfall as a box office leading man. The film didn’t do well in theater and it didn’t receive any praises by the critics. I’m sure the studio executives probably thought, hey we got Eastwood who’s just won an Oscar for Unforgiven and a young hot box office star, it’s a sure box office gold. Well it didn’t turn out that way and the film got zero Oscar nominations. Personally I thought the film was okay, the plot’s really uneven and again Costner just wasn’t a strong enough leading man to carry the film.

      Wyatt Earp

      After the disappointment of A Perfect World, Costner’s back doing a Western. This time he played the title character and it’s a big budgeted summer film. Unfortunately most people have already seen a similar film a few months earlier, Tombstone. So this movie barely made back it’s $60-mil plus budget and again Costner’s bankable leading man status went down fast. Now I actually like this film better than Tombstone, I know I can’t believe it either, I really dug the whole back story of the Earps family and I thought Dennis Quaid played Doc Holliday in a more realistic way than Val Kilmer’s version.

      Waterworld

      Even though his last two films were box office duds, Universal still believed Costner was a bankable star, so they greenlit this $100 mil plus action/sci-fi film. The film was in trouble right from the beginning, Lawrence Fishburn left the project a few weeks before shooting starts and they had to scramble to find his replacement. Dennis Hopper ended up with the role. Then just a few weeks into shooting, a hurricane destroyed the sets and so they had to rebuild them. By now the film’s budget had ballooned up to $150 mil, some even said the film’s final budget was somewhere between $170 to $200 mil, this was the mid-90s when that kind of numbers was unheard of.

      Then towards the end of shooting, director Kevin Reynolds and the studio people were in disagreement over the tone of the film. The studio wanted him to cut down the violence so it could get a PG-13 rating; Reynolds on the other hand wanted a more gritty and violent film. Costner stepped in and sided with the studio and Reynolds left the film before editing even started. He still received a directing credit even though Costner finished the movie in post-production. The film opened in the summer of 1995 and of course it tanked big time and pretty much ruined Costner’s cred as a bankable leading man.

      Tin Cup

      After a string of box office misfires, Costner decided to go back and starred in another romantic comedy. The film opened in the summer of 1996 and it did a pretty decent business at the box office. I actually enjoyed this film quite a bit, probably because I was madly in love with Rene Russo at the time and not because of Costner. A lot of people in Hollywood around this time still think that he’s a bankable star. Which explained why his next film got made.

      The Postman

      Warner Bros. somehow believed that Costner could still open a movie with just his name alone, why else would they give him $80 mil to shoot this movie, right? This film was based on some little-known novel of the same name, which I had never heard of the book until they announced the movie. I assumed Warner Bros. thought Costner can make another Dances with Wolves since they scheduled the film to open on Christmas Day of 1997.

      Well, a few months prior to the film’s release date, the trailer was shown and a lot of people in theaters around the country laughed out loud at the title and the test screening didn’t go too well either. A friend of mine got selected to the test screening at the Mall of America theaters and he told me to stay away from it at all cost. I didn’t listen and went to see the movie anyway; after I saw it I wish I’d listened to him. A few months before the film open, it got such a bad word of mouth that Warner Bros. decided to not to even spend big money promoting it. The film made about $17 mil and pretty much destroyed Costner’s career as a bankable leading man.

      After The Postman, Costner made a few films with similar genre that made him a big star in the first place but none of them were big hits. By the late 90s and 2000s, leading men weren’t really necessary to open films anymore, people went to see big films for only certain genres. Of course, some big-named stars could still open films on their names alone, i.e. Tom Hanks, Jim Carrey, Will Smith and Tom Cruise, just to name the few. But around this time, it’s clear that Costner is not in that club anymore. As I mentioned earlier, the last film of his that I saw was Open Range and I thought it was great. It didn’t wow many people so it didn’t really help Costner’s career at all.

      I’m curious to see how big a screen time he’ll get for the new Superman film, it’s hard to believe how his career has fallen so fast as it did. [rtm’s note: Deadline has just reported yesterday that he’s working on a TV miniseries for the History channel]

      Like

      • When Costner Was King: An Actor’s Rise and Fall (and Rise?)

        http://www.themillions.com/2012/10/when-coster-was-king-an-actors-rise-and-fall-and-rise.html

        I’ve never really believed in God, but for a brief time in the late ’80s and early ’90s, Kevin Costner came pretty close. Last weekend, Costner won an Emmy for his lead role in the History Channel miniseries, Hatfield & McCoys, his first major prize since the 1991 Academy Awards where he took home Best Director and Best Picture for Dances with Wolves. At the time, he seemed poised for many, many more.

        Twenty-five years ago this summer, those titans of testosterone, Brian De Palma and David Mamet, teamed up to deliver a film adaptation the Camelot-era television series, The Untouchables. With marquee names like Sean Connery and Robert DeNiro in supporting roles, the lead role of famous lawman Eliot Ness was given to a then relatively unknown Costner. Barely into his 30s at the time, this film would kick off one of the most impressive runs in the history of American cinema. Just two months after The Untouchables, the Cold War thriller No Way Out debuted to both box office and wide critical success. On the popular online review database Rotten Tomatoes, No Way Out maintains an amazing 97 percent approval rate. To put that in perspective, that’s better than The Graduate (88 percent) and just shy of The Godfather, Part II (98 percent). Famously cut from The Big Chill in 1983, and more visible in a commercial that same year for Apple’s failed “Lisa” computer, by Labor Day 1987, Kevin Costner was a household name.

        I had just turned seven when Costner broke big. In 1952, when my father was the same age, Gene Kelly was singing in the rain while Gary Cooper watched the clock in High Noon. Films like The Untouchables, No Way Out, and Bull Durham (released June 1988) were all a bit mature for my innocent eyes. But with 1989’s Field of Dreams, my Costner man crush truly began. I honestly don’t remember seeing it in the theater. It must have been VHS. Either way, I remember the feeling. That film, pie-in-the-sky as it may be, still gets me. For many years I told myself that I would eventually make the trip to Iowa and visit the real “Field of Dreams.” It was the closest thing I’ve ever had to Mecca. In September of 2002, just after my 22nd birthday, I led an impromptu road trip to Iowa with a couple of my female coworkers. None of us knew each other very well, but it was just the kind of spontaneous thing that makes being 22 so great. We ate cheap food, slept in questionable motels, and attempted to solve the mysteries of the universe through conversation and hipster music. I’m not certain if it was part of their original plan, but after the first couple of days, the girls talked me out of visiting “the field.” We opted for the urban pleasures (shopping) of Chicago. I might still be bitter about the whole experience had I not fallen in love with and subsequently married one of them. I tease her about it to this day. It’s still there. I could go. But for some reason that I can’t fully explain, I don’t need to anymore.

        In October 1975, Bruce Springsteen famously appeared concurrently on the covers of Time and Newsweek. After two consecutive commercial failures and his career on the line, Born to Run made “Bruce Springsteen” possible. In much the same way, though with a bit more success behind him, Kevin Costner appeared on the June 26, 1989 cover of Time. Looking into the distance, his eyes on the proverbial prize, Costner’s face somehow lives up to the magazine’s hyperbolic headline, “The new American hero — smart, sexy, and on a roll.” Big words. Big expectations. Little more than a year later, Rolling Stone would declare him, “An American Classic.”

        At the 62nd Academy Awards on March 26, 1990, Field of Dreams went 0 for 3, losing Best Score (The Little Mermaid), Best Adapted Screenplay (Driving Miss Daisy), and Best Picture (again, Driving Miss Daisy). At the 63rd Academy Awards, Costner faired a bit better. Dances with Wolves, his directorial debut, was the fourth highest-grossing film of 1990 ($424 million) behind Ghost, Home Alone, and Pretty Woman. It would go on to win seven Oscars including Best Director and Best Picture. Say what you will in retrospect, but this was a BIG film, one of those event movies that everyone, even 5th grade kids (this one at least) were talking about. Think Titanic. Think The Dark Knight. Costner was able to do this with an often-subtitled Civil War-era film about Native Americans. No small feat.

        1. The Gulf War. Nirvana. Magic Johnson’s HIV. JFK. Half a decade after bursting onto the scene as do-gooder Eliot Ness, Costner returned to crusade for justice as New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison in Oliver Stone’s controversial film on the events of November 22, 1963. That summer, with Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, Costner gave us a fun if forgettable summer adventure. But few were ready for the cultural phenomenon that was JFK. Even Seinfeld referenced the “Magic Bullet Theory.” Having recently re-watched this film for the first time in years, I was shocked at how well it’s held up over the past two decades. JFK was the sixth highest-grossing film of 1991, taking in more than $200 million. For a 189-minute film about conspiracy theories and legal minutia, this is utterly amazing. Much of the success can be chalked up to the buzz and controversy, but my money’s on Costner. By this point, he’d crossed that invisible line of trust with the general public. Every now and then, we (Americans) make a collective silent decision about an actor/actress. We love them. We like them. They’re one of us. We’ll follow their lead. Jimmy Stewart. Tom Hanks. Kevin Costner. Well, almost. Even though his streak wasn’t completely over, I feel that JFK marks the end of Costner’s golden age. His next release, 1992’s The Bodyguard, was a huge hit, but more for its soundtrack than anything else. Perhaps sensing a change, Costner took on his first villain/anti-hero role in Clint Eastwood’s criminally underrated 1993 film, A Perfect World. Playing an escaped convict who befriends a young boy, Costner finally gets to show his full range. He’d been the everyman (The Untouchables, Field of Dreams), the charismatic liar (No Way Out), and the sexy rebel (Bull Durham). But with this little movie, shot on the back roads of rural Texas, Costner is able to mix those ingredients together for something new. Unfortunately, we haven’t seen it since.

        The Golden Raspberry Award or “Razzie” as it’s better known, is an annual award for the worst in movies, the polar opposite of the Oscars. In 1991, Kevin Costner was awarded the Razzie for “Worst Actor” in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. It was his first nomination and first win. No big deal. The movie made a ton of money. Many great and well-respected actors have had the (dis)honor of taking home a Razzie or two. It happens. But Kevin Costner, through bad luck, bad choices, or a combination of the two, has since received an additional six Razzie nominations for “Worst Actor,” winning twice for Wyatt Earp (1994) and The Postman (1997).

        The debacle that was Waterworld has been written and talked about ad nauseum. I have nothing to contribute to the conversation other than to say that it wasn’t as bad as everyone said it would be and it made more money than was expected. As for The Postman? That one will forever be in the WTF file. I’m 32 now. I’m sad to say that for more than half of my life, I’ve been living in a post-Costner world. For many years I held out hope that he would return to form. There were moments. Tin Cup had a Bull Durham-esque appeal. And Costner, who seems to naturally take himself way too seriously, is very appealing when he lightens up and goofs around. Open Range was a good western. Not a great one, but pretty damn good.

        In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter earlier this year, Costner seemed ready for a vibrant third act. “I don’t give up. I’m a plodder. People come and go, but I stay the course.” Who knows, with the success of Hatfields & McCoys, perhaps some of the sparkle is returning to Costner’s star. Next summer he plays Clark Kent’s father in the hotly anticipated reboot, Man of Steel. But much of the audience, many born in the post-Waterworld era, will have no idea that for a brief but glorious period in my formative years, Kevin Costner was, at least cinematically speaking, Superman himself.

        Like

  20. 9 of the worst Oscar winners ever:
    http://guyism.com/entertainment/movies/worst-oscar-winners-ever.html#5-6-kevin-costner

    Dances With Wolves is a noble movie with a noble message, blah blah blah, but there are three things working against Costner’s Academy Award for Best Director – one, he’s Kevin Costner. Two, Dances With Wolves and Costner both won their respective categories even though they were going up against Martin Scorsese and Goodfellas which is damn near criminal. And third, well, he’s Kevin Costner. This is one of those things that cause people twenty years later to look back with astonishment, like how in the world could society let something like this happen? It’s just irreconcilable with everything that we know about the man. Kevin Costner is an Oscar winner. Just think about that for a minute. Kevin Costner.

    Like

  21. 5 Roles That Could Salvage the Careers of These Struggling Actors:
    http://www.pajiba.com/seriously_random_lists/5-roles-that-could-salvage-the-careers-of-these-struggling-actors.php

    Kevin Costner, Jack Ryan — Save for some solid supporting turns in the little seen The Upside of Anger and The Company Men, as well as a well-received turn in another box-office blip, Mr. Brooks, Kevin Costner hasn’t been a factor in feature films in well over a decade. Hollywood has decided to reboot him, however, giving him plum roles in Man of Steel and Clark Kent’s father and, more substantially, as a mentor to Chris Pine’s Jack Ryan in the Jack Ryan reboot. He’ll also return to his athlete roots in McFarland, about a track coach “who transforms a team of athletes into champions.”

    Like

  22. lebeau@The only reason why people like you talk trash about Kevin Costner is because Kevin Costner doesn’t kiss ass in Hollywood to get what he wants like so many other actors do in the business.

    Like

  23. 20 Movies That Made Us Think Differently About The Actors In Them (And Not In A Good Way):
    http://styleblazer.com/73727/20-movies-that-made-us-think-differently-about-the-actors-in-them-and-not-in-a-good-way/2/

    The movie was Waterworld, a tale set in a post ice cap melted Earth before “Global Warming” became a buzz word. Both a critical and commercial disaster, Costners career sunk faster than the Titantic. Lately, everyone’s favorite Robin Hood has been working his way back into relevance, starring in History channel drama, Hatfields and McCoys.

    Like

  24. A Study in the Second Act: Kevin Costner:
    http://www.laineygossip.com/Kevin-Costner%E2%80%99s-second-act/24421

    He was one of the biggest stars on the planet in the 1990s, not only bankable as an actor but as a director, too, courtesy the success of Dances with Wolves. Through 1994, Kevin Costner was king.

    But then came Waterworld—at the time, the most expensive movie ever made—which was disastrously bad and while it has ultimately made money, it was labelled a “bomb” because of its poor domestic box office. Then two years later, Costner took an even bigger hit with The Postman, which is still ranked as one of the biggest flops of all time. And though Costner worked steadily in the ensuing years, all the heat disappeared and he went from Movie Star to punch line (a meeting at work recently concluded with me saying, “The Postman: the movie that ruined Kevin Costner’s career”).

    So why are we talking about Kevin Costner? Because all of a sudden he’s one of the hottest actors out there, coming off a huge mini-series and signing multi-picture studio deals to front major tent pole properties.

    Lainey asked me to assess Costner and his resurgence (am I a guest lecturer in the Faculty of Celebrity Studies?), and what I found as I poked at the rock Costner’s been hiding under for seventeen years is that Costner is not alone, that the Movie Stars of the 90s, most of whom have seen their prestige wane if not disappear altogether, are recalibrating for the new, post-Movie Star reality. Kevin Costner’s second act is the Movie Star’s second act.

    Costner has actually been working regularly, it just hasn’t been particularly relevant or distinguished. Fans of Westerns might single out Open Range (which he directed and managed not to set a pile of money on fire, thanks entirely to a sub-$25 million budget), and documentary fans will point to his participation in the top-notch Tom Petty doc, Runnin’ Down a Dream. But those are rare bright spots in a time when he attempted to foist Dane Cook, Serious Actor on us (the hellacious Mr. Brooks) and participated in the classic “don’t do this” school of filmmaking gem, 3000 Miles to Graceland. The most relevant public moment for Costner in the last decade-plus was his effort to help with the BP oil spill cleanup.

    At least until he appeared at Whitney Houston’s funeral, which…yeah, it’s gross but such events, with celebrities, there’s always another angle. No matter how sincere the grief, there is always another angle. Remember Princess Diana’s funeral? I’m not cheapening Costner’s real friendship with Houston but…her big moment was his, too. They’re inextricably linked in our minds. Her voice, THAT SONG, and we think of him. It was a, “Oh hey, yeah, Kevin Costner” moment, at her funeral. It was a reminder of the place he once held though his Movie Star days were over.

    And they still are, simply because the Movie Star is dead. But Costner is catching a wave that is still building, a trend that is still sinking into the cultural psyche—he’s re-emerging not as Kevin Costner, Movie Star, but as Kevin Costner, Portrayer of Memorable Characters. This is the way forward for actors in a star-less world. Their names will, for 99% of them, not be enough to guarantee audience returns. But the right actor playing the right character? We’re already seeing the fruit of this new branding in which celebrity and character persona merge from RDJ as Tony Stark to Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock Holmes. These days, I don’t think a true star can break through unless it’s on the back of a signature character.

    This is the strategy Costner is deploying. He came back strong this summer with the History Channel’s record setting mini-series Hatfields & McCoys, which is nominated for 22 Emmys, including a Leading Actor nod for Costner. Next he’ll be seen as Superman’s Earth-dad in Man of Steel—he narrates one of the trailers—but it’s the deal he’s working out with Paramount that marks his return to bankable status. Paramount is negotiating for him to play William Harper, who will make his first appearance in the Chris Pine-fronted Jack Ryan reboot, and will provide continuity for the proposed spin-off, Without Remorse, with all of it potentially culminating in a movie centered on his character. It’s a deal similar to Samuel L. Jackson’s gig with Marvel, but the implication is that Costner’s deal will be more lucrative than the cheapsies deals Marvel strikes (whatever, that’s good business sense on Marvel’s part).

    It’s a promising future, a chance to reestablish himself as a premiere actor with a multi-picture deal under a major studio that includes a starring vehicle. But it depends more on the character than Costner. Paramount isn’t signing Kevin Costner to make Kevin Costner movies. They’re signing Kevin Costner to make “William Harper” movies. This is the future. This is the Movie Star’s second act. It’s not about the star anymore. Now it’s about the Celebrity Character.

    Like

  25. They Believed The Hype (And It Blew Up In Their Face): 15 Celebrities Whose Careers Were Hurt By Hubris:
    http://styleblazer.com/131706/they-believed-the-hype-and-it-blew-up-in-their-face-15-celebrities-whose-careers-were-hurt-by-hubris/6/

    Kevin Costner was Hollywood’s favorite everyman hero for almost a decade. With hits like the Academy Award winning Dances With Wolves, Costner proved he had bank with audiences and curried favor with critics. That was, until his ego kicked in. Then came the disasters that were The Postman and Waterworld. Both films are post-apocalyptic dramas featuring Costner squaring off against monstrous warlords and single handedly restoring civilization. Their failings would be for very different reasons—Waterworld was a high concept sci-fi actioner trumpeted as the most expensive film of its time. What began as a hit turned into a publicity nightmare driven by the actor’s ego. Costner fired the director during the shoot, demanded a multitude of onset rewrites (which scribe Joss Whedon described as “seven weeks of hell”), and kept expanding budget. The film recouped a profit, but barely. The Postman would be released two years later as a thoughtful, dramatic approach to a post-apocalypse plot and was labeled pretentious by critics and audiences alike. Both films helped end Costner’s reign as Hollywood’s top leading man.

    Like

    • 10 Questionable Reasons Why Actors Turned Down Big Roles:
      http://whatculture.com/film/10-questionable-reasons-why-actors-turned-down-big-roles.php/9

      2. Kevin Costner – The Shawshank Redemption

      Let’s face it, Kevin Costner is kind of the poster child of turning down juicy roles. But for the purposes of this article, I’d like to focus on his biggest and most egregious error in judgment. Back in the early 90s, Costner decided against taking the role of Andy Dufresne in The Shawshank Redemption, a character which Tim Robbins ended up playing in the Oscar-nominated modern classic. His reason? He was busy making Waterworld.

      As far as I’m concerned, “I’m busy making Waterworld” is one of the worst excuses I’ve ever heard of not to do something, right up there with “I’m having my carpets shampooed,” or “I think I’m getting oral surgery that day.” Because at least either of those excuses don’t threaten to ruin your credibility as an actor/director. Seriously, Kevin…Waterworld?

      Like

  26. 10 actors who tried to bounce back from a flop:
    http://www.denofgeek.us/movies/13978/10-actors-who-tried-to-bounce-back-from-a-flop

    KEVIN COSTNER
    The Flop: The Postman

    Contrary to popular belief, Waterworld was in no way a flop, given that it made around a quarter of a billion dollars at the box office, and picked up a few admirers along the way. It’s harder to argue that The Postman didn’t dent a few bank accounts though, with Costner’s sophomore directorial outing hardly a critical darling either. It cost around $80m to make, and barely scraped a quarter of that back at the US box office.

    In the wake of The Postman, Costner would never really be a movie star on the scale that we saw in the ’90s again, but instead, he simply carried on choosing his roles well. Message In A Bottle wasn’t great, but was a modest hit, while For Love Of The Game wasn’t a bad way to end his baseball trilogy. However, the pressure of being a movie star relieved from his shoulders, he instead picked films such as Thirteen Days, Open Range and, er, Dragonfly. In short, the commercial peak of his career has long gone, but he can still spot an interesting movie – usually – from 20 paces.

    Career status: downsized.

    Like

  27. Mr. Floppy 9.15.07: The Postman:
    http://www.411mania.com/movies/columns/59797/Mr.-Floppy-9.15.07:-The-Postman.htm

    Year of the cock-up : 1997

    Budget : $80,000,000

    Domestic gross : $17,626,234

    Foreign gross: $ 9,400,000

    Worldwide gross: $27,026,234

    During the 1998 Academy Awards, Billy Crystal’s comedic creativity was at an all-time high. In his opening montage, he parodied Titanic among others, and Kevin Costner was such a player that he made a cameo as The Postman. He poked fun at himself, but I think he wouldn’t be so easy-going if he knew that his career’s downward spiral was promptly started by this movie alone. No, Waterworld really wasn’t that bad.

    Kevin Costner was at one point in his career nicknamed “the golden child”. And it was actually appropriate at that time. Everything Kevin touched really was turning into gold. His resume was filled with success. Kevin Costner was getting better and better roles as 80’s drew to a close, which culminated in a certain Field of Dreams touching every true American’s heart and doing quite well at the box-office as an added bonus. In 1990 Dances with wolves proved he’s also a terrific filmmaker (his Indian epic even won 7 Oscars, two of which went to Mr. Costner’s talented hands) and the subsequent Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, JFK, The Bodyguard and A Perfect World solidified his status as one of the biggest Hollywood stars. He was getting awards and his movies were making truckloads of money. His career was at an all-time high.

    Kevin however wasn’t exactly an easy-to-work-with guy. He became notoriously known for always trying to flex his creative muscle on the set of his films, but the problem was his vision differed from the one of the person actually directing the picture. During the production of Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves Costner and director Kevin Reynolds’ differences (and heated arguments) got to the point, where Costner basically fired Reynolds and did the final cut of the movie himself. The movie was a huge success however, so the two decided to work together again. Unsurprisingly, a similar creative process repeated itself during the making of Waterworld and a disgusted Reynolds was quoted afterwards, saying that “Kevin should direct all of his future movies himself, so he can film them with his favorite director.” I don’t think they send each other Christmas cards anymore.

    Kevin took his former friends’ advice to heart and after Waterworld nearly flopped and Tin Cup didn’t set the world on fire either, he decided a return to directing would be his ticket back to the top. Studio executives were still on Kevin’s side and with him directing, they obviously envisioned something like Dances with Wolves happening (i.e., a big time box-office and maybe some awards too). The Postman was the project meant to serve as Kevin’s big comeback.

    And this is where the happy days of Kevin Costner were about to come to an end.

    The Postman is an adaptation of a David Brin novel. Brin and his wife actually wanted Kevin Costner cast as the hero of the novel. Brin’s wife was apparently very moved by Field of Dreams and thought that this is the emotional impact best suited for her husband’s story about the greatness of post-apocalyptic post office. Brin said that, unlike typical post-apocalyptic movies that satisfy “little-boy wish fantasies about running amok in a world without rules,” the intended moral of The Postman is that “if we lost our civilization, we’d all come to realize how much we missed it, and would realize what a miracle it is simply to get your mail every day.” That’s deep right there.

    Funny thing is, Ron Howard and Tom Hanks were slated to participate while this movie was still only in development. Both men probably realized this ehm, ambitious material is not worth their time.

    So everything was set to go. Costner cast himself in the leading role (surprise, surprise), rewrote the script and the shooting started. Costner was able to get even a pretty solid actor like Will Patton on board- poor Patton maybe had an Oscar nomination in his mind. The other actors are relatively unknown, which should serve as a proving point, that The Postman wasn’t exactly considered hot stuff in Hollywoodland. The production wasn’t plagued by disasters like the Waterworld one, but there was another problem on hand that was essentially as damaging- Big Kev’s ego. You see, it was growing out of proportions at an exponential rate and there are numerous facts indicating this sad progress of Kevin Costner’s mindset. Kevin likes to massage his ego and he did so in glorious fashion here. Directing the picture and being the leading man wasn’t enough- Kevin decided it’s time for the entire world to finally admire his undiscovered musical talent, so he recorded a song that ran during end titles. The song’s name- “You Didn’t Have To Be So Nice”. No Kevin, you really didn’t.

    Does anybody think that is all? Nobody? Good. So as Costner was working on his epic, he was thinking- “What’s the thing that this movie needs? What is the one little thing that will catapult it to greatness?” The answer he came up with- his children. Costner Jr. is included in the film’s most pathetic scene (and that’s saying a lot). It’s the one, with the boy giving the Postman riding a horse a letter. The scene is like 5 minutes long, fully in slow-motion and it’s so bad it makes you feel embarrassed to watch this film. Costner obviously thought otherwise, because he used that scene again during the movie’s finale. Costner Jr.’s sister also started to earn her acting chops here, by giving us a heartfelt delivery of America the Beautiful. I wonder what the studio execs were thinking, when they saw the dailies involving Kevin Costner’s kids in the film’s pivotal moments. They must’ve loved it.

    Since this particular story was set in a dystopian future, the producers needed to be quite generous. The movie’s official budget is to this day announced as 80 million dollars, but unofficial estimates talk about 130 millions, so Kevin’s big project received a mock-name Dirtworld, as a jab at his previous not-so-successful post-apocalyptic epic.

    The sentimental celebration of U.S. Postal Service, overflowing with pathos, hit the cinemas on December 25th 1997, probably as a Christmas present from Kevin to all the good movie-goers. That and also to be able to participate in the next years’ awards race. Critics panned the film without remorse and the movie-going public showed no enthusiasm in seeing another three-hour Kevin Costner vehicle. The opening weekend for the presumably anticipated film was a catastrophic sum of $5,260,324. It left the theaters just a mere month later. So the news was- dystopian, pathetic, sentimental, overlong and shitty films were not in fashion. Who would have guessed? This movie shouldn’t have even gone into production as the sentimental approach to postmen (no offence to anybody doing this job) is just absolutely ridiculous.

    To give you a couple examples of what absolutely ridiculous pathos is, here are some excerpts from the film’s dialogue:

    General Bethlehem: You see the reason you don’t want to die for anything is because you have nothing to die for. That’s the difference between you and me. You don’t believe in anything.

    The Postman: I believe in the United States.

    Woman: You are a Samaritan, a savior!
    The Postman: No ma’am, I’m just a postman.

    Get the picture?

    The award-hoping studio got what they wanted after all, but probably not in a way they wished or imagined. The Postman raided the 1998 Razzie awards with a clean sweep, taking home 5 awards. Kevin Costner himself received the nods for worst director and worst actor. I’m sure he keeps them right next to his two Academy Awards.

    Mr. Floppy

    The premiere week’s Mr. Floppy award goes rather unsurprisingly to Kevin Costner. He’s the one to blame, because it really is HIS movie. He could have done something better with the premise- he could’ve removed the sentiment, avoid a desperate celebrity cameo of Tom Petty, and generally approach the movie with a more common sense.
    That was not the case, which can be contributed to the aforementioned ego of Mr. Costner. He really thought this self-involved, pathetic commercial for USA and its postal service would cut it.

    It’s understandable, he wanted to do something that worked previously in his career, but unfortunately, he didn’t understand the same heartfelt, naive approach of Dances with Wolves simply CAN NOT be used on a movie like this.

    His career suffered ever since. He managed to have a modest hit with Open Range a couple years back and Mr. Brooks is pretty good (although no hit by any means), but it’s obvious Kevin Costner’s career is in a rut and a change doesn’t appear to be on the horizon. Some people might say Waterworld was the flick that ruined Costner’s career, but I don’t think so. He still had the chance. He had the chance to show everybody- critics, public and producers that he still is able to make a hell of a picture. The Postman really was the last straw that broke the camel’s back and there is only one person to blame for its failure.

    So, since The Postman was a Kevin Costner vehicle, I hereby award him the title- Mr. Floppy.

    Like

  28. Hollywood Career Killers: 15 Movies That Helped Do Away With Major Tinseltown Players:
    http://styleblazer.com/141888/hollywood-career-killers-15-movies-that-helped-do-away-with-major-tinseltown-players/6/

    Waterworld was supposed to be Kevin Costner’s next Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. Instead, it turned into the 90s equivalent of Heaven’s Gate. The film can be best described as Mad Max on the high seas, with Costner fighting steam punk pirates to help an innocent community. The film was a fun, if conventional Hollywood actioner, though one that was blighted by reports of Costner’s raging ego. The film ran over budget, over schedule, and was the subject of constant rewrites dictated by Costner (who reportedly butt heads with the film’s director, Kevin Reynolds). By the time the film was released, Waterworld‘s budget had skyrocketed close to $200 million. It was a big flop for Universal Studios and put an end to Costner’s status as golden boy.

    Like

    • 10 Directors Who Completely Ruined Their Careers With One Movie:
      http://whatculture.com/film/10-directors-who-completely-ruined-their-careers-with-one-movie.php/8

      4. Kevin Costner

      The Killer Movie: Waterworld (Co-Directed)
      It seems the world is finally remembering why we all loved Kevin Costner thanks to his incredible, understated performance in Man Of Steel. Given his relative obscurity in the past decade, it might be easy to think he was semi-retired, or at least that he wasn’t nearly as well-loved as when he was knocking out Golf and Baseball romances every six months, but Costner the actor never lost it.

      The same cannot be said of Costner the director however. After debuting with the excellent Dances With Wolves, and disproving the occasional myth that debuts need to be smaller in scale to help foster talent, Costner set his eyes on something just as epic in scope, a futuristic, watery sci-fi set in a post-apocalyptic Mad Max style world, which he initially produced, but was forced to direct the end of after sacking original director Kevin Reynolds.

      Sadly, despite Costner taking control towards the end, Waterworld sunk. It tanked. It was a fishy mess. And all manner of other nautical criticisms: basically it was widely derided and ridiculed as an over-blown disaster without the necessary restraint or discipline that a more accomplished director might have given it. He clearly didn’t have the time or the capability to save it from Reynolds’ shoddy work, and that has to reflect badly on him, as both a producer and a director.

      Looking at it now, it’s not actually all that bad, because cult has wrapped a forgiving arm around its shoulders, but back when it was released it was awful.

      Undeterred by the belief that he wasn’t actually a good director, Costner then made The Postman. Smart move.

      Like

  29. Boned When…:
    http://www.bonethefish.com/viewtopics.php?702

    # Reason Why? Votes Vote
    1 WATERWORLD You drink your own urine in the future? BTF!!!
    21
    Please Login to Vote
    2 Never Boned Still rocks.
    2
    Please Login to Vote
    3 Day 1 Sucked from the start.
    2
    Please Login to Vote
    4 Dances with Wolves Horrible Director! Stick to acting
    2
    Please Login to Vote
    5 No Way Out How does Kevin Costner keep getting work?
    1
    Please Login to Vote

    Like

  30. “Dances With Wolves” is an excellent movie and the only one outside “Gone with the Wind” that can justify such a long running time. It has a moment towards the end, that makes it worth the long running time, in spades.

    Like

  31. 10 actors who could use a Quentin Tarantino-steered comeback:
    http://www.hitfix.com/galleries/overlay/10-actors-who-could-use-a-quentin-tarantino-steered-comeback#7

    Costner’s about to have a big of a commercial resurgence with key roles in ‘Man Of Steel’ and ‘Jack Ryan,’ so he’s not hurting for work, but being in big commercial movies and doing good work are not always the same thing. Costner is one of those guys who has always seemed to have a dark subversive streak that is at odds with his midwestern movie star looks, and the last time we saw him give a really engaged performance was in the underrated ‘Mr. Brooks.’ If anyone could find a way to bring the most interesting elements out of Costner, it would be Tarantino, and it would be thrilling to see the two of them collaborate.

    Like

  32. “Dances With Wolves” was on cable tonight That scene towards the end had me awash in tears, yet again. it is so annoying not to have better control over that after more than 20 years.

    Like

    • I have to admit I don’t think I have rewatched it since it was in theaters. I enjoyed it tremendously, but never set aside 3 hours to rewatch it.

      Like

  33. Man Of Steel: Kevin Costner’s Magnum Opus?

    http://whatculture.com/film/man-of-steel-kevin-costners-magnum-opus.php

    Kevin Costner’s career arc may be the great American story of redemption.

    What began with a surge of notoriety and acclaim with titles like 1989′s “Field of Dreams” and continuing into the onset of the 1990′s with starring turns in flicks like “Dances with Wolves”, “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves”, and “The Bodyguard”, Costner’s star was on the rise.

    But what started as so-promising a career, quickly derailed in the mid-nineties with what may still be one of the biggest box-office bombs in Hollywood history. One that even now nearly twenty years later, is not easily forgotten.

    The stains of 1995′s “Waterworld” still are hard to rinse away. That, and the opening scene of Costner drinking his own urine, apparently filtered through some type of “purification” system, left bad tastes in everyone’s mouth who bore witness to this maritime disaster.

    “Waterworld” was an immediate stinker, and the ensuing years saw Costner seemingly grow more desperate in his search for any role to cleanse his palette of stale piddle, playing a womanizing golfer in “Tin Cup”, wandering as a post-apocalyptic civil servant in “The Postman”, a scruffy romanticizer in “Message In A Bottle”, and an uninspired Elvis-inspired bank-robber in “3000 Miles to Graceland”. None of which managed to rescue Costner from Hollywood’s no-man’s land.

    Come 2007, the running gag of a Costner film being a guaranteed flop may have contributed to the success of the lower-budget, unassuming “Mr. Brooks”, which was a surprisingly serious and bone-chilling turn for the then fluffy-duffy, gee-shucks Costner. Costner’s name attracted an audience, perhaps not for the best reasons but nonetheless, it certainly brought lowered expectations to what turned out to be a successful film both financially and more importantly, finally giving Costner some traction to regain his former footing as “serious, respected ac-tor”.

    With HBO’s “Swing Vote” in 2008 followed by some mainstream success with 2010′s “The Company Men”, the table finally seemed set for Kevin Costner to take back his seat and reclaim his fleeting glory. But, the question remained: what role would Costner be able to snag to showcase his underappreciated skills?

    Enter Zack Snyder’s upcoming reboot of Superman: “Man of Steel”.

    Like Costner, Clark Kent’s alter ego’s cinematic adventures have certainly seen better days. Having arguably peaked with 1980′s “Superman II”, a film still notorious for its big comic-book-style downtown Kryptonian showdown.

    Kal-El has since found the silver screen to be lined with kryptonite, with three feature films all failing to hit the series’ previous high water mark of critical and commercial praise.

    Seeking to capitalize in no small part from the successes of DC’s “other” hot property Batman with Chris Nolan’s “Dark Knight” films, as well as rival studio “Marvel’s The Avengers”, Warner Brothers signed screenwriter David Goyer to craft the story that would eventually become June 14′s “Man of Steel”, what hopes to be Superman’s triumphant return to critical and box office accolades. A franchise long removed from its former heyday, and who could only look on as fellow, lesser-known superheroes took his old mantle.

    To call 2006′s “Superman Returns” the “Waterworld” of the Man of Steel’s filmography would not be too far of a single bound, even for Superman.

    Superman’s thrilling exploits in “Returns” amounted to little more than dead-beat-fathering, eavesdropping, and a newly discovered power of super-sulking. All of which did not pack quite the same gut-wrenching nausea as witnessing a bearded Costner down his own excrement back in ’95, however, watching “Superman Returns” certainly did leave one with the feeling of being sold a yellow snow cone. And it’s not lemon.

    Although, if interviews and trailers are to be believed, the upcoming “Man of Steel” looks to be a story worthy of the myth of Superman. A tale of a man torn between two fathers. His birth father, Jor-El, sending him to Earth (in a line pulled directly from Grant Morrison’s “All-Star Superman”) “to give the people an ideal to strive towards”, struggles with his adoptive father’s (Jonathan “Pa” Kent) warning of “keeping secret” his incredible powers out of fear of what human discovery would mean.

    By resetting the alien Superman legend and grounding it into this poetic paternal conflict, by making relatable the superhuman, Goyer and company may have finally achieved the ever-elusive super feat where so many others have fallen short or missed the mark, to humanize a man of steel.

    As the June 14 release date for “Man of Steel” draws near, the trailers and TV spots have included many of the tropes and standards of modern CBM’s: we get glimpses of action, a pulse-pounding score, and relatively dark tones. But perhaps the most startling of discoveries upon the collective comic book community’s consumption of each new “Man of Steel” teaser wasn’t Superman’s new “neo-medieval” inspired suit, nor the sacriligous lack of red briefs. It wasn’t even over the Matrix-like ground-crackling flight takeoffs.

    The parts of “Man of Steel” that have seemed to have found the greatest resonance with audiences thus far don’t even feature the caped “big blue Boy Scout”, but just a boy and his father, Jonathan Kent.

    After Costner, as “Pa” Kent, reveals to young Clark the true nature of his arrival on Earth, a teary-eyed Clark asks his father, “can’t I just keep pretending I’m your son?”, to which a comforting Costner replies, “you are my son”, (lines taken from Geoff John’s “Secret Origin”) pulling in his troubled son as his voice breaks with emotion.

    This one line, delivered with almost perfect, born-to-play inflection, seemed to light up the internet as immediate praise was heaped upon Costner in anticipation of the film’s release.

    Hans Zimmer’s soaring soundtrack subsequently being mixed in have only added further dimension and accompanied the subtle texture of this superhero first-contact drama.

    The “Man of Steel” marketing campaign has been rather brilliant and extremely clever in showing minimal physicality in released footage, and with each new 30-second commercial, debuting small clips and showcasing the different themes of the film, tantalizing and hyping the masses.

    The eleventh and latest TV ad to drop may perhaps be the most epic yet.

    Yes, the new spot debuts action, showcasing astounding effects, as well as the promise of a throw-down-drag-out of Kryptonian proportions, but the narrative and scope combines all the best and transcendental moments of the former previews: an introspective piano strikes slowly over the previously referenced Clark-Pa Kent “you are my son” heart-to-heart.

    Only in TV spot eleven, both soundtrack and paternal dialogue are played in perfect juxtaposition, with each piano-key tugging at the heart as Pa continues, “but somewhere out there you have another father”, Costner trembles, his throat choked with apology in unconditional love.

    I had to stop the video after this line and give serious thought to: “Is Kevin Costner about to make me cry?

    And by cry, I mean bawl like a baby at Man of Steel?”

    “And he sent you here for a reason”, Costner’s Jon Kent concludes in the preview, his raspy baritone giving way to more images and scenes of what looks to essentially be an absolute epic science-fiction tale of a young man who is living under the weight of two legacies while attempting to forge his own destiny. Trying to fill the big shoes left by one father, while shrouded in the towering shadow of the other.

    The rise-and-fall, and rise-again, story of Superman on film, as well as Kevin Costner’s career and comeback, are both converging for a potential renaissance together on June 14 with the release of “Man of Steel”.

    Like

  34. Kevin Costner: 5 Awesome Performances And 5 That Sucked:
    http://whatculture.com/film/kevin-costner-5-awesome-performances-and-5-that-sucked.php

    For more than 25 years now, Kevin Costner has been an American icon, starring in Hollywood’s biggest films ranging from political thrillers, to romantic comedies, to westerns, to science fiction, and period dramas. Often he was the conscious and dignity of America on our screens, an All American with an impossible dream or a hero who would do anything to save the ones he loved.

    Whether you love him or hate him, it’s impossible to completely ignore Costner’s impact on American cinema and there was hardly a bigger actor in the early 90s. He is an immensely successful actor, a musician, a producer, a director, and, at times, a mix of all four. He has two Academy Awards to his name (both for Dances With Wolves as a producer and director respectively, missing out on winning for his Best Actor nod to Jeremy Irons in Reversal Of Fortune), Golden Globes, and just recently, an Emmy. On the not-so-positive side, though, he has also been nominated for, and “won” several Razzies for his performances.

    A roller coaster of a career, Costner has had his fair share of ups and downs. He went from the top of the Hollywood ladder to almost an afterthought when the movie Waterworld bombed, with few highlights in the past 15 years. Though Costner’s very much on the comeback trail recently with the success of The Hatfield And The McCoys production for The History Channel and his role in the biggest movie of the summer, Man Of Steel (pictured above), in which he plays Jonathan Kent, the adopted father of Superman.

    Like

  35. Waterworld’s summary “Mad Max on jet skis” sounds a lot cooler than “Postman as messiah”

    You can watch Waterworld on a Saturday afternoon-just don’t say its one of your favorites- but the Postman – ugh- I’m patriotic- but its just embarrassing.

    Like

    • I have to admit I watched The Postman many years after it came out and bombed. So my expectations could not have been lower. I won’t say I was pleasantly surprised. But it was so bad it was fun to laugh at.

      Like

  36. Costner’s decisions hurt him badly in the mid nineties- but aging didn’t help.

    He didn’t break out until his thirties- and while he only turned 40 in ’95- he played a convincing middle aged guy in JFK with minimum makeup.

    If you compare him with Harrison Ford- Ford was 40 in ’82- and still able to play Indy and Solo.

    So – basically Costner wasted some of his pristine years on Waterworld/Wyatt/Postman/ – when he got back on track- well- he had to do love scenes with Rene Russo (who is the romantic equivalent of cheesecloth on a camera lense)

    Like

    • You’re cracking me up this morning. Great line about Russo.

      I agree with you, but I think Costner’s age is actually helping him at this stage of his career. He’s going to clean up on folksy old guy roles.

      Like

  37. As much as I loved Robin Hood as a kid, Costner is just one of those bland people who got lucky (i.e. Christian Bale, Kristen Stewart, Keanu Reeves, etc)… Bland people who get lucky tend to get bumped off the A list since the requirements for long lasting A list is either pure talent (i.e. Denzel Washington) or having distinct looks and/or personality (Leonardo DiCaprio, Jack Nicholson) since they make memorable characters; they’re irreplaceable; there aren’t people like them. Jack Nicholson doesn’t really act but he always has a job because his natural personality is weird, making him memorable. Hollywood is a hard business for this reason, because it’s dictated by genetics mostly.

    In terms of the age thing, I think it seems like Hollywood favor aging men more but the reason for that is because it’s usually guys who have stronger personalities; traits needed for leading roles (also why men get paid more, because there’s more of them in the lead). I’m saying it’s not that Hollywood doesn’t like old chicks, it’s more like it’s hard for women to get out of that love interest personality; the strong personality ones get to stay longer.

    Back to the point; Costner’s career went down because he’s not memorable and his acting is ok. When you’re in the ok and bland category, there’s more competition (replaceable); they have it harder than the distinct or pure talent people. Another factor is probably the fact that he doesn’t bother to network much; the introvert aspect also makes it hard because charisma is big in Hollywood.

    Like

    • I am going to have to disagree. Costner’s only bland some of the time. In the right role, he captivates. Early in his career, he had a streak of movies like The Untochables, No Way Out and Bull Durham where he was killing it.

      I would actually point to Robin Hood as the point where Costner became bland. He had all the control. He started handing in lazy performances in vanity projects like Water World and The Postman. Ego got the better of him. He was absolutely positive that he was the only guy in the room who knew what he was doing. And yet, most of his decisions post Dances With Wolves were terrible.

      Like

    • Costner had tons of charisma in Bull Durham- he just went off on this messianic streak after Dances- and it really got bland.

      He had charisma in Man of Steel- he might be able to do a few cool character actor roles –

      Like

    • Revisiting Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves:
      http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/kevin-costner/32998/revisiting-robin-hood-prince-of-thieves

      The Kevin Costner-headlined Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves is a darker blockbuster than people seem to remember…

      This article contains spoilers for Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves. It is entirely illustrated with pictures of Alan Rickman.

      It tends to be a forgotten fact that, in the late 1980s, there were actually three competing Robin Hood projects fighting for a greenlight. A trio of separate scripts were being developed by Tristar Pictures, 20th Century Fox and Morgan Creek Productions, and the only one that would go forward to become a movie would, ultimately, be the Robin Hood screenplay that Kevin Costner chose he wanted to make.

      Of the three, the Tristar project was apparently barely in the running. But for a long time, it looked as if 20th Century Fox would win this particular race. It had a director on board, with John McTiernan – hot off the back of Die Hard and in the midst of The Hunt For Red October – set to make its Robin Hood film. And at that stage, it was the most advanced of the projects.

      Costner, while this was going on, was making his directorial debut, Dances With Wolves, and was determined not to get boxed in on screenplay changes as he had done on the film before that, Tony Scott’s Revenge. He took a meeting or two with McTiernan with that in mind, and things looked like they might happen.

      Like

  38. “Waterworld” was indeed enjoyable if one looked at it as a big budget “b-movie”..

    But great God!, “The Postman” was one of the worse atrocities I’ve ever witnessed.

    Like

    • I have to admit, I watched it for the first time relatively recently and I enjoyed laughing at The Postman quite a bit. It is terrible. But if you are laughing at it, it’s also a lot of fun.

      Like

    • 10 Films That Were Clearly Vanity Projects:
      http://whatculture.com/film/10-films-that-were-clearly-vanity-projects.php/5

      7. The Postman – Kevin Costner

      Kevin Costner seemingly never learned from the horrific experiences associated with his previous apocalyptic epic Waterworld, deciding that lightning couldn’t strike twice and took up the opportunity to adapt David Brin’s novel of the same name back in 1997. With the plot focusing on a nomad who turns postal carrier between two warring factions, it never seemed to be an appealing prospect on paper.

      The problem with the film is that is incredibly boring, barely stirring any glimpse of action or character development, instead opting for the hokey faux sentimentality that proved successful to Costner in the past. While admittedly the 1st half of the film does reveal intriguing elements to it, it becomes bogged down by the excruciating long running time and Costner’s lack of charisma or charm.

      The Postman effectively killed off Costner’s career as a leading man and while he has since found success in TV and supporting roles such as the recently released Man of Steel, Costner will never each the dizzy heights he once commanded in the 80s and 90s.

      One must only look to The Simpsons joke with “Kevin Costner” endlessly apologising on the film’s commentary to realise what legacy it left.

      Like

  39. Re-read this post after the Rene Russo post. So intrigued by Tin Cup, and the fact that our Lebeau liked it, Lebeau who doesn’t do romcoms or sports movies. It’s on my Amazon order list as of tonight.

    Like

    • Tin Cup has a lot in common with Bull Durham, but it’s not nearly as good. It’s at least a half hour too long. But that is less of a problem on video than it is in the theater. I actually consider it under-rated.

      As you say, it’s really not my kind of movie. And I have never felt compelled to watch it a second time. But I do remember enjoying the chemistry between Russo and Costner. That was enough for me to enjoy it.

      Like

  40. Rowdy Reviewer Special: JFK:

    As the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination approaches, Rowdy steps out of his realm to take on one of the biggest cinematic blights on history ever made. Part 1 of 2 in the “JFK vs Lee Harvey Oswald” review.

    Like

  41. While Costner reached bigger heights than perhaps any other WTHH alumn, for my money he is possibly the worst actor of the bunch. He is in my top 5 most reviled actors. I will refuse to watch movies if he is in it. He’s deplorable.

    Like

    • Pent up resentment over his attempt to kill Tombstone, perhaps. 😉

      I actually think he’s a good movie star if not all that much of an actor. He has a natural charisma that serves him well in the right role. But when he gets too much control of a project (and he is always looking for more control) more often than not, bad things happen. He’s like the reverse Edward Norton in that respect.

      Like

    • I admit he’s terrible in Robin Hood-

      You really don’t like his performance in Bull Durham? I thought he nailed that, at least.

      Like

  42. After Hatfields & McCoys struck gold,it seemed that Costner’s luck had a new life……..Now
    coming off his 3rd dud in as many flicks,what really went wrong strategy-wise????

    Like

    • I think Costner is striking while the iron is hot. The Hatfields and McCoys along with Man of Steel have his phone ringing. He’s taking every offer before they dry up. I can’t say as I blame him. I think he still has enough clout to get a TV Western made if he wants. I really don’t think these duds hurt him all that much. He’s got nothing to lose.

      Like

      • Yep, and he still has two more movies coming out this year.

        Like

        • Kostner has certainly made the most of his career boost from Hatfields and McCoy’s, there’s no denying it got him back on Hollywood’s radar. A supporting role in Man Of Steel or a Jack Ryan movie is one thing, but now he’s back to having the lead in movies again. Since his lead roles are underperforming this won’t last, but it’s impressive that he’s even getting a second shot at leading man status again at this late stage.

          Like

        • It’s basically the same thing that happened to Harrison Ford post Indy IV. I expect both will ride on supporting roles for a while.

          Like

  43. Why no mention of 3 days to Kill (which was a cliche action movie, but Costner stood out in it, IMHO), or Draft Day??

    Like

    • 3 Days to Kill and Draft Day came out after the article was written. I do go back and update articles from time to time. But this one is a little behind.

      Honestly, it was easier keeping up with articles when I only had a few dozen to deal with. Now, I have to weigh how I spend my time. Do I go back and update older articles or work on posting new ones. I tend to spend more time on the newer articles as I think that’s what most readers want. I also tend to spend more time keeping up the more popular articles. This one isn’t one of the more popular WTHH entries, so it has fallen a bit behind. Also, Costner has been pretty active since Man of Steel and The Hatfields and McCoys. So he’s left me quite a bit to update in quite a short amount of time (relatively speaking).

      I am grateful to guys like Rick Moranis and Bridget Fonda who retire so I can leave their articles alone! 😉

      Like

  44. lebeau i noticed u didn’t mention company men did u not like that movie. Big fan of your work by the way it leads to ask u a question who do u think had a better career and is better actor kevin costner or ben affleck. you should do an article about it. have people decide. also what do u think of tom hanks as an actor hes my fav actor . Kevin costner is 2nd

    Like

    • Honestly, this article needs a little fleshing out. I’ve been going back and updating some of the older articles a little at a time. This one really needs some attention. I’ll be sure to add in Company Men when I get to it.

      Like

  45. but lebeau what do u think of my idea for a costner vs affleck article

    Like

    • It’s an interesting idea. I’ve done some things like this with the Smackdown articles. But at the moment I’ve got a lot on my plate. There just never seems to be enough time.

      Like

  46. but tell me your opinion do u prefer costner or affleck. Both have similar career both won oscars in directing tried rebooting there careers with superman type films . i prefer costner more .

    Like

  47. iam goign to the tiff this year to meet costner he will sign my movie untouchables his movie black and white is premiering there and so far its getting good reviews with oscar buzz so he can get a nom next year like keaton next year you might have to take him off the site lol

    Like

    • Getting an Oscar nom doesn’t disqualify an actor from WTHH consideration. All you need is a rise and a fall. Anything after that is just a continuation of the story.

      As always, I wish my subjects nothing but the best. I hope they all win Oscars.

      Like

  48. but getting an oscar nom for costner would raise more doors and the article would end him with him getting an oscar nom

    Like

    • The article would continue to be updated for as long as he’s working and in the public eye. No WTHH article is ever complete. I’m always going back and updating them.

      An Oscar nom would probably result in Costner getting more work which would mean I would have to update his article more often. Other than that, it doesn’t really change anything.

      Like

  49. if you want i can get his autograph for you lol and have him leave comments about this website lol

    Like

    • lol – That would be awesome. Tell him I said “hi”. Or maybe don’t. If he knows about the site (and I doubt he does) he probably doesn’t like me very much.

      Like

  50. even if his next 20 movies are hit he will still be on the site

    Like

    • Yep.

      Then it will be the story of his rise and fall and one of the biggest comebacks in movie history. It would require some rewriting, but the article would not disappear.

      Like

  51. i seen costner interview hes not the egotistical jerk he was in his in heydays iam sure he would find it funny he jokes about the failures of his movies . Iam sure being in the spotlight he handles critisim

    Like

    • One would hope.

      I know Sean Young didn’t care for her article. She came by and said as much in the comments. And Val Kilmer supposedly sent someone to speak up on his behalf. I have yet to hear from a celebrity who was happy to be included. But I would respect the heck out of someone who did.

      Like

  52. sean young is crazy she is know to have mental problems lol kilmer deserve it hes an egotistical ass who dont sign autographs to fans . These actors are in the spotlight so they have to expect some criticism

    Like

  53. they make millions of dollars whats a little critisim worth

    Like

  54. its not like you dont highlight the ups of there careers you do put them in a positive light too your not insulting them or degrading them

    Like

    • I do make an effort to be fair with the understanding that I’m also going to be giving them a gentle ribbing. Although I do sometimes feel guilty over all the fat pictures of Val Kilmer. That wasn’t very fair of me.

      Like

  55. if kilmer was a nice guy i would think u were a jerk for the fat pics but kilmer is an ass to fans he dosent just tell him he dosent want to give them autgrpah he insults them . ps here is an article u must read about the black and white about it give costner oscar nom http://www.showbiz411.com/2014/08/04/kevin-costners-hot-comeback-film-could-be-oscar-bait-gets-early-look-in-hamptons

    Like

  56. costner should work with good directors again his last big name director was eastwood he worked with and caught eastwood in his few flops. I think it would be good to work with binder who obviously from upside brings out the best in costner

    Like

  57. I’m loving the WTHH happened series, JUST discovered it after typing, “What happened to Val Kilmer” in Google search, LOL. It’s interesting to go back and revisit actor/actresses previous performances to try a & see what happened.The thing is though NO ONE stays on the “A-list” forever at most I could see 5 to 7 years.

    To me a WTHH is when someone seems poised for stardom, or comes into stardom, & disappears out of nowhere. Or controversies & other unfortunate situations causes the person to never fulfill their potential, anyway keep up the excellent work.

    Like

    • That’s it exactly AJ. You’ve got the concept down. I’m glad you found us. Val Kilmer has been a gateway for a lot of my readers. I always hope they will get hooked and stick around. Thanks for reading and commenting. Hope to hear from you again.

      Like

    • You bring up a valid point about the A-list, AJ. No one stays on that coveted A-list forever, eventually everyone falls off, even the biggest of movie stars do eventually. As an example, I grew up as a kid watching old James Stewart movies on tv, and back in his heyday of the 1930’s, 40’s, 50’s and even into the 60’s he was a big box office draw, yet by the time I was a kid he was already in his 80’s and far beyond his box office draw days. Was he still an A-list actor in his 80’s? No. Was he a living legend? Absolutely. That’s where lines may become blurred with certain actors, to say a living legend is not on the A-list any longer can offend some. Was Elizabeth Taylor still a box office draw in the 1980’s and the 90’s? No, not at all. Was she a living legend? Of course she was! I hope that makes sense….

      Like

      • Bless you, Craig! I have been trying to make that distinction for years. A lot of people want to argue with me that their favorite actor or actress is “permanent A-list”. But there is no such thing. The A-list is constantly changing as power fluctuates. Your past performance may qualify you as a legend. But the A-list is all about the present and the future.

        Like

  58. but i know black and white will help costner career he might get a nom when he wants to it he can pull a good performance upside of anger good example.

    Like

  59. true even cruise although a list i slipping a bit in last years with flop of lions of lambs and edge of tomorrow but still is a list and great career.The 2000s have been bad for harrison ford only 3 movies in 2000s were hits what lies beneath ,indiana jones and 42 but rest were flops i wouldnt be surprised if he had a page on him too but hes still looked upon as an a lister and a legend

    Like

  60. What’s this black and white movie with costner about? The first time i’ve heard about it is here. It’s seems like everyone’s saying it could be his comeback

    Like

  61. http://www.showbiz411.com/2014/08/04/kevin-costners-hot-comeback-film-could-be-oscar-bait-gets-early-look-in-hamptons heres is link long story short costner fights for custody of his black granddaughter it premiering at tiff and early reviews saying its costner best performance could get oscar nom

    Like

  62. Sounds pretty dramatic. Like i said before i’m not a fan, but it would be nice to see him in a different kind of role.

    Like

  63. given the right material he pulls it off. this movie might created alot of controversy given the racist theme but iam sure it will be interesting

    Like

  64. i know you are busy lebeau but if you have the time are u going to mention company men which he was in 2010 or mention that man of steel did wonders for his career he is going to have altogether 5 movies in 2014 plus critics said he stole the show in man of steel despite not having alot of screentime

    Like

    • Did Man of Steel really do wonders for his career. I thought it gave him a bump. If anything, I think the Hatfields and McCoys probably helped him more.

      Like

      • That was a TV movie didn’t really count man of steel was the highest grossing movie in his career and he started getting more offers after that it have kind of been small role but he stole the show although Turing down django was a dumb move for him he’s getting more work hopefully he gets a nom for black and white and they don’t give his slot to untalented affleck who looks flat in gone girl

        Like

        • I would say Hatfields and McCoys counts more than Man of Steel. Man of Steel was a high grosser. But in relation to expectations, it came up short. Also, Costner wasn’t the reason people went to see Man of Steel. He gets no credit for its success. What it did do was remind people that he’s still out there. But Hatfields and McCoys showed he can make money.

          Like

        • Costner headlined two theatrical movies this year, 3 Days To Kill, and Draft Day, an action thriller and a sports film. Both films flopped, but that’s almost besides the point. The fact is, so many years after his star faded and approaching 60 years old, movie studios gave him a shot again at headlining a couple of films. That’s a second chance few actors ever get, so that’s an accomplishment in and of itself. I would say that second chance is directly due to the big ratings success of Hatfields and McCoys. I would be tempted to say his supporting role in the Superman movie helped, but since those two films opened eariler this year then they had to be in production/filming before the Superman movie opened last summer. Maybe hearing that Costner will have a supporting role in a big summer tentpole like Superman gave the studios extra confidence to go ahead with his headlining films, since that film would give Costner extra visibility before his headlining films open, that’s always a possibility. But again both films failed to earn their money back so his time headlining films again should prove short lived. I expect Costner will continue to get supporting roles in Jack Ryan-type films for the next few years, so he’ll be ok.

          Like

        • You have it exactly right.

          Costner’s career is in what I consider a “bonus round”. It no longer matters if his movies are hits or not. I mean, I’m sure it does to him because if he was starring in hits he could get more money and power. But at this point, he should just be happy to be in the public eye again. His resurgence is impressive. I never thought we’d see as much of him as we have in the last few years.

          It’s hard to say how much of that has to do with Man of Steel. I don’t mean to suggest Man of Steel didn’t help his career. I’m sure it did. The fact that he gives the most memorable performance in the movie benefits him. Like I said before, I think MoS reminded people that the like him. But the resurgence started with Hatfields and McCoys. That was the project that brought him back.

          Like

        • 12 Dumbest Comic Book Movie Characters:
          http://whatculture.com/film/12-dumbest-comic-book-movie-characters.php/9

          Jonathan Kent

          There are plenty of reasons to hate on Man Of Steel, but one of the film’s biggest flaws is its handling of Jonathan Kent, played here by Kevin Costner. When Clark first displays signs of heroism, his adoptive father tells him that there’s more at stake her than ‘the lives of those around us.’ He shouldn’t jump in and save people, because the world isn’t ready for him yet.

          This piece of awful advice becomes a driving force for the film, serving to make Kal El somewhat hesitant about embracing his incredible powers. It also results in one hugely questionable scene, though.

          Stupidest moment: Pa Kent runs into a tornado to rescue a dog. Clark knows he could easily save him. But to stop Clark revealing his powers to mankind, Jonathan signals for him to stay put. Arguably, he dies as a result of his own dumbness.

          Like

        • Okay, I just finished blasting Whatculture for calling Might Aphrodite and awful movie, but they are right on this one. Jonathan Kent was massively mishandled in Man of Steel. That character is the heart of the Superman origin. By getting him so completely wrong, it set the tone for the entire movie. So, good call on this one WC.com.

          Like

  65. but it didnt build his career hes a movie actor not tv actor.it cam up a little short but was still the 3rd highest grossing movie in 2013 your right he wasnt the reason people saw it however it reminded movie producers given the right material he could pull it off he did get credit for it because you ask anyone and they will agree he was the best part. But lets see how black and white does cause i dont want affleck to get costners oscar nom slot costners deserves a comeback before ben its no fair costners had to wait longer hes more talented

    Like

  66. i barely hear anyone talking about Hatfield man of steel was the first time since bodyguard he appeared in a movie that gained a lot of publicity

    Like

    • Here’s the difference. He STARRED in The Bodygaurd. He APPEARED in Man of Steel. Appearing in a popular movie beats the alternative. But it’s not going to put you on the A-list.

      With Hatfields and Mc Coys, Costner wasn’t just the star. He was a producer. It was directed by his pal Kevin Reynolds. It was like he put the old band back together. And this time, they had a smash hit. Much money was made. Expectations were exceeded. And Costner gets most of the credit. That’s a career boost.

      Man of Steel made a lot of money. It also cost a lot of money. Don’t be fooled by its bigness. It did not perform up to Warner Brothers’ expectations. What success it had owes little to Costner and everything to Superman. The movie was going to be a hit whether Costner was in it or not. The success of Man of Steel isn’t going to make Costner more powerful in Hollywood. It just gave him a bit of buzz that should help him get a few more parts. Probably supporting roles similar to the one in Man of Steel.

      You have to understand that A-list has nothing to do with what you’re friends are talking about. It’s about what the studio movers and shakers think. Trust me, H&M did a lot more for Costner’s career than his extended cameo in Man of Steel.

      Like

      • It is not an extended cameo there quit a bit flashbacks and what money hatfield had a lot of ratings but not money appearing in an a List movie may not be perfect but appearing in a hit is still a start and open Alit of doors hatfield proved nothing it did not hit theatres just cause it’s a hit on tv don’t mean it’s a hot in theatres

        Like

        • Nah, I have to agree with Le Beau’s comment; Kevin Costner’s presence in “Man of Steel” didn’t move the needle at all (Diane Lane is in that film too, and she’s my favorite actress of all time, but I think her presence was perfunctory). However, television film and television in general has grown in stature (some say it has surpassed theater films in quality), and “Hatfield’s & McCoys” is a well-received miniseries. Also, let’s not forget “Draft Day” (I say go Ravens!); it didn’t do great at the box office, but should make a decent profit from disc sales.

          Like

  67. i think it did and his small role wasn’t that small it was almost as big as crowes. costners role helped a bit.http://whatculture.com/film/man-of-steel-kevin-costners-magnum-opus.php read the article it mentioned that man of steel is sort of his comeback all of articles when they talk about costner coming back they sight man of steel as one of the movies to do it. so man of steel help his career more then u think rather u like to admit it or not https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRaTFu1kmqM watch this youtube video after they mention postman they mention sometimes superman can resurrect movie careers and they show his role in man of steel even if it dont count maybe black and white can do it

    Like

  68. he got cast in man of steel 2010 draft day three days to kill came out in 2014 but u know what craig hanson u might be right iam guessing hearing that he will be in man of steel gave producers the idea that he might be on his way to be box office gold and they want to capitlize on it but watch the youtube video link on post before this one they mention it resuract his career 3 days to kill but draft day may have flopped but if black and white give him oscar nom it could lead producers to want to cast an oscar nom actor for publicity

    Like

  69. it was sad when you say bonus round hes my 2nd fav actor and i want him to get a comeback i was hoping black and white will do that but we will have to wait and see. he dservers a comeback he was dumb for turning down django and kill bill i guess afflecks career not considered bonus round i hope he dont get a nom for gone girl hes not as talented as costner he dont deserve nod

    Like

    • Here’s the good news. He had a comeback. This is it. He’s enjoying a really impressive comeback right now. There’s nothing to be sad about. A few years ago, Costner was over. He was done. Byt he has come back big time and he’s going to continue working. Odds are, he’ll never be A-list again. Actors don’t tend to make the A-list after a certain age. Sean Connery pulled it off, but he’s the exception. Still, Costner’s likely to continue working for as long as he chooses to do so. He fought his way back from limbo against steep odds. That’s terrific news for his fans.

      Like

  70. michael caine was box office poison then cider house brought him back his best work was when he was older if he can do it so can costner Plus lebeau i know you think oscar noms dont do much but if he does get nom for black and white wont that mean wonders for his career and do u think if he didnt turn down kill bill he would be a lsit again

    Like

  71. black and white reviews are looking great he could get a nom

    Like

  72. http://blogs.indiewire.com/shadowandact/octavia-spencer-kevin-costner-are-caught-in-custody-battle-in-first-black-and-white-trailer-20140904 here is the trailer for black and white reviews are in he might give keaton and affleck a run for there money

    Like

  73. Costner nailed it in Draft Day. That was so HIS role! No phoning anything in. See Daffy’s review for more detail. I will be watching it again for sure.

    Like

  74. have seen reviews for black and white there amazing

    Like

  75. his movie got a standing ovation at tiff got reviews saying his performance got oscar buzz lets pray he gets a nom his oscar worthy performance was mr brooks

    Like

  76. the movies reviews were not the best but i smell oscar nom if promoted right draft day 3 days to kill jack ryan flopped his last hit man of steel he needs this nom the reviews said he gave the best performance in his career said it was oscar worthy he needs this nom cause his next projects dont look promising mcfarland looks bad criminal looks stupid .he neds this nom its no fair affleck is getting hits and costner had to wait longer the competition is tough the academy is stupid if a movie gets bad reviews they overlook the performance i know costner dosent always make the best decisions mr brooks bad bad reviews but critics said his performance was oscar worthy .

    Like

  77. here is my predication for 2014 best oscar noms bendic imation game costner black and white ( if movie marketed well his role is said to be oscar worthy) keaton birdman carell fox catcher phoniex

    Like

  78. for those who said 3 days to kill it budgeted at 28 million made 58 million a little more then twice its budget its not a huge hit but from a business stand point not a huge flop it opened number 2 against lego movies too i think it did ok

    Like

  79. black and white lets pray it gives him a nod because man of steel was probably closet time he will have to having his name on a movie that made money in theaters that dosent count i guess . he needs this nom but iam afraid since costner screwed over alot it wont happen hes was dumb to turn down kill bill and django

    Like

  80. lebeau u think if costner didnt turn down bill in kill he his career would do better he turned it down for open range which didnt hurt his career but didnt help either also maybe if he didnt turn down supporting role in django he would doing good he turned it down because he was busy filming hatfields and man of steel

    Like

  81. lebeau u say message in bottle did so so it made 140 million that is more then okay i would say its his last leading role that grossed that much

    Like

  82. I have to say Lebeau, adding the Seinfeld “Magic Loogie” clip really brings this whole Kostner article together nicely! It really elevates the whole article to the next level! And I’m not the least bit biased in saying that! Ha ha

    You know what’s funny is, Wayne Knight appears in both the film JFK and as Newman in the Seinfeld parody of the film! Some wonderful synergy going on there….

    Like

    • I wonder if that was part of what inspired the idea in the first place.

      The Costner article is actually on my short list for getting an update. But adding the clip is a nice short term improvement. Thanks for the suggestion!

      Like

      • No, thank you for adding it! It’s interesting because Seinfeld was one of the most successful and iconic tv shows of the 90’s, but yet the JFK parody is quite unusual for the show; just off the top of my head I can’t think of any other outright movie parodies the show did in it’s decade on the air. Pop culture references, sure, but not outright film parodies. You are probably right, Wayne Knights’ participation probably did spark the whole idea in the first place. Besides getting a good laugh, again the clip also shows how JFK went beyond being a hit movie and entered the pop culture. Not many movies accomplish that.

        On a side note, speaking of Wayne Knight….. have you ever looked up his career? He’s had an amazing career as a supporting actor: he’s appeared in JFK, Jurassic Park, Seinfeld, Basic Instinct, Dirty Dancing, Born On The Forth of July, 3rd Rock From The Sun, Toy Story 2, Curb Your Enthusiasm….. with a resume like that I would love to buy the guy a beer and hear some stories, because you know he must have some good ones! He’s always been one of those utility players I really like.

        Like

  83. lebeau u forgot company men

    Like

  84. he should direct again open range did ok dances with wolves smash not a western like a gritty human drama

    Like

  85. when r u gonna add company that role kind of made him relzie being supporting actor is not bad

    Like

  86. The top 25 Kevin Costner films:
    http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/kevin-costner/32987/the-top-25-kevin-costner-films

    Did any movie star make braver choices than Kevin Costner, at the peak of his powers? We count down his 25 best films…

    Like

  87. 10 Actors Who Must Regret Turning Down Major Film Roles:
    http://whatculture.com/film/10-actors-who-must-regret-turning-down-major-film-roles.php/8

    1. Kevin Costner – Andy Dufresne (The Shawshank Redemption)

    Kevin Costner was one of the world’s most famous, sought-after actors during the late 80s and early 90s. He starred in the likes of Dances With Wolves, Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves, JFK and The Bodyguard, and was invariably excellent in every role he played. When talk arose of him playing Andy Dufresne in the 1994 classic The Shawshank Redemption, he seemed perfect for the part. His star quality would make it hugely successful money-wise, and he had the talent to nail the white-collar banker wrongly accused of murder.

    Costner inexcusably decided to reject the role, however, because of his commitments to Waterworld; comfortably one of the worst films of the last 20 years. Despite making a fair amount of money, the film was panned, and Costner’s career never continued its meteoric rise from that point on. Shawshank, meanwhile, is now widely considered as one of the best films of all time, and Tim Robbins’ performance as Dufresne was absolutely brilliant. It earned him an Oscar nomination, but he lost out to Tom Hanks, who had also declined the role.

    If Costner had just said yes, rather than making the woeful decision to star in Waterworld, the likelihood is that he would have nailed the part, and continued to enhance his reputation as one of Hollywood’s most consistent leading men.

    Like

    • Yeah, but wasn’t “Waterworld” one of Costner’s movie babies. Besides, he was going through that “everything has to be a sweeping epic” phase of his career. I think “The Shawshank Redemption” was just too small of a picture for him at the time.

      Like

      • You are 100% correct.

        This is one of those “What Culture” articles. That site is nothing but clickbait. Obviously, Costner couldn’t abandon Water World which was indeed one of his vanity projects to go off an star in Shawshank. Also remember, Shawshank wasn’t a home run at the box office either. It didn’t become popular until it started running non-stop on basic cable. Passing on Shawshank was hardly a career-breaking move. It didn’t exactly make Tim Robbins an A-list star, did it?

        Like

  88. Shawshank did get a lot of Oscar attention made up for lack of money plus he was a huge draw in 90s it might have made money Tim Robbins wasn’t a box office draw Morgan freeman was but that’s it turning down kill bill and Django was dumb

    Like

    • Kevin Costner already had an Oscar for sweeping epic #1 (“Dances With Wolves”), so if he was to earn another at that point of his career, it would have to be a project that he was heavily invested in. At that time, “The Shawshank Redemption” just wan’t in his league (or his “Field of Dreams”), as it was more or less a a “sleeper”.

      Like

      • 10 Awful Movies That Somehow Stole An Oscar:
        http://whatculture.com/film/10-awful-movies-that-somehow-stole-an-oscar.php/5

        Dances With Wolves

        At the time of its release, Dances With Wolves was widely considered to be one of the best films Hollywood had ever made about Native Americans. Not only did it win seven Academy Awards, but it was even selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry. That Kevin Costner sure knows how to direct a popular (and sympathetic) portrayal of the Native American plight, doesn’t he?

        …Doesn’t he?

        It turns out that no, he does not. One of the most overlooked aspects of Dances With Wolves is how distinctly Costner posits his character as the white savior, becoming the outsider who steps in to save the day because evidently the “savages” aren’t capable of doing things on their own.

        Dances With Wolves is the dangerous kind of Native American film, allowing white audiences to “learn” something about the goodness of Native American culture without being forced to confront a lot of the harsher consequences of Manifest Destiny. Also, it only looks like an authentic portrayal because other representations up to that point were over-the-top ridiculous by comparison.

        Like

        • Overrated? Sure. Awful? STFU WC.com

          Like

        • I don’t take anything seriously WC says. Like I said before: they’re proof that there’s a thin line between being a hipster and being an asshole.

          Like

        • Lol. That’s for sure.

          I did look into the website. They have contributors which is why the content is all over the map in terms of quality. For the most part, it’s clickbait. The most important aspect of clickbait is the title. You want a catchy title with strong words like “awful” in it. I am guessing even the author of that piece knows that none of those movies are actually awful and it’s highly debatable whether or not any Oscars were actually “stolen”. But such is the nature of clickbait.

          Like

    • Looks like he got snubbed for black and white no golden globe nothing Duvall got nom for judge it got bad reviews so did ansiton for cake costner deemed oscar worthy in it by critics despite the movie getting bad reviews his oscar chances are done man of steel was closet he will come to having theatrical movie make money even i he wasn’t the star it was his last high profile role

      Like

      • FYI Tim Robbins was oscar snubbed in that movie Morgan got a nom but not Tim it did get a best picture nom so being lead in that movie did help his career

        Like

  89. snubbed for black or white his career is done

    Like

  90. snubbed his career done criminal looks like crap

    Like

  91. Did Kevin Costner Really Almost Cost Cal Ripken, Jr. The Streak After Sleeping With His Wife?

    http://uproxx.com/movies/2015/01/did-kevin-costner-really-almost-cost-cal-ripken-jr-the-streak-after-sleeping-with-his-wife/

    Mention Cal Ripken, Jr. in a post on the Internet, and if you look deep enough into the comments, you’ll invariably see someone repeat a story about the time that Kevin Costner allegedly banged the wife of Cal Ripken, Jr., and nearly cost Ripken his record-breaking consecutive games streak. It’s a rumor that’s been going around for nearly 20 years now, and like many urban legends, it’s been repeated so many times in the bowels of the Internet that a lot of people have come to believe it.

    But is it true? With Kevin Costner’s new movie Black or White coming out today (SPOILER: It’s terrible), I thought we’d quickly look back at a story that has dogged Kevin Costner almost as much as the gerbil story has followed Richard Gere around for the last two decades.

    The story, according to Internet lore, goes something like this: Kevin Costner and Cal Ripken, Jr. had become close friends after meeting at the premiere of Dances with Wolves in 1990. In 1997, after Kevin Costner had finished filming The Postman, Cal Ripken allegedly let Costner stay in his home.

    One day while Costner was there, Ripken left for Camden Yards to go to a game. However, before he got to the park, he apparently forgot something, returned home, and found Costner in bed with his wife, Kelly, with whom Ripken had reportedly been going through a bad stretch of their marriage.

    Ripken allegedly then beat the crap out of Kevin Costner so badly that he couldn’t make public appearances for several weeks. Ripken, however, was so overcome with the grief of catching his wife in the act with one of his best friends that he called the Orioles organization to let them know what happened and tell them that he couldn’t come to the game that night, thus finally ending his streak (he had, by this time, already surpassed Lou Gehrig’s consecutive games stretch).

    However, because that streak was such a huge selling point for Orioles games, the Orioles owner reportedly told Ripken not to worry about it. The game was cancelled that night due to an “electrical failure” that resulted in the lights not working. However, the rumor also asserts that the electrical crew at Camden Yards said that there was absolutely no problem with the lights whatsoever.

    In either respect, the game was cancelled, and Ripken returned the next day to continue the streak.

    That’s how the rumor goes. But is any of it true?

    Yes. One part. There was an electrical failure at Camden Yards in August 1997 that resulted in a game being cancelled. But everything else about that story is completely concocted. In fact, Ripken was there for the game, as he told Scott Simon in an NPR interview in 2008:

    It’s easy to check the facts of that one. I remember it very well. The bank of lights went off and Randy Johnson was pitching for the Seattle Mariners. And we were deciding what to do about that. Was there enough visible light out there to actually see a guy throwing over 100 miles per hour? The bank was just over our dugout. And I physically went out and tested it for the umpire. I was in discussion with the umpires. I was definitely there, I was ready to play. And the funny part about it was we all decided it was better that we play that night, because the next day would have been a Sunday day game, and Randy Johnson would have been throwing out of the stands, and in day games he’s much harder to see. So we all decided that we were going to go. Evidently [Mariners manager] Lou Piniella told Seattle a little different story that the game wasn’t going to go, and they started leaving the ballpark, so we didn’t have that option after all. We scheduled it for the next day, and we played. But I definitely was there. And I’m sure I was on camera a number of times being out on the field.

    Moreover, in 2001, Fox’s radio hosts, Kevin Kiley and Chuck Booms, discussed the rumor on their Los Angeles radio show, according to the LA Times. The next day, Costner called into the show and said, “I thought at first you guys were saying this was true, and if you were, I was going to take your heads off.”

    “If there is something alleged, I’d love to see someone come forward,” Costner said. “No one will, because they don’t have the story to do it. There would be big money for a story like this, but it simply is not true.

    “Look, I’m Crash Davis. If you want a rainout, I can get you a rainout. If you saw [Bull Durham] I just go break the sprinklers. . . . I don’t know if Kelly or Cal–the night in question–had to go to the emergency hospital for something. I don’t know–but what has been strung together is some kind of story.”

    Ripken, by the way, will celebrate his 28th anniversary with his wife, Kelly, this year.

    Like

  92. he got great reviews for black or white it said to be his best performance.it was a good movie. lebeu i always saw him in a alexender payne film currently that guy is oscar darling since about schmit. payne excells in dramdy . upside of anger was a dramady can u see costner in alex payne flick

    Like

  93. Kevin Costner’s new film Black or White underperformed at the box office in its first week coming in a distant 4th. That follows his last few movies such as Draft Day and 3 Days To kill which both disappeared quickly. I’ll say that the most impressive thing about his comeback is……that he has had a comeback. His days as a leading man came and went some years ago, but the success of Hatfields and McCoys got Hollywood interested again. He’s had some shots at headlining films again recently, which regardless of the fact that they’ve all been box office disappointments is impressive in and of itself. With so many underperformers I think he won’t be headlining films for too much longer however.

    Like

    • The fact that he came back at all is impressive. I think he can probably count on getting more TV miniseries like Hatfield and McCoys if he wants. I think that’s a good place for him to be.

      Like

      • Funny thing about Draft Day. I really liked Costner in it, and the film itself. I kind of had the impression he was underplaying the role somewhat, and as a result the other performers had that much more of a chance to make their impressions on the viewer. We have it around here somewhere in the quagmire that is my son’s room and I’d like to rewatch it soon.

        Like

  94. he didnt underplay it mr brooks perect world upside of anger

    Like

  95. he turned down qutien twice which was dumb but maybe the q man can throw him another bone

    Like

  96. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/mcfarland_usa/ mcfarland has 80 percent rotton tomaotes suck on it lebeau

    Like

  97. just kidding your stuff rules

    Like

  98. he got great reviews for mcfarland he didnt as u describe underplay it

    Like

  99. i know you are not but i tend to think you trash costner acting too much no offensive your stuff is good. But costner has more range and charisma think you think. his next movie criminal could be a hit sounds dumb but gary oldman is currently on a roll with his hit movies so it can be a hit

    Like

  100. 10 Most Polarizing Actors Of All-Time:
    http://whatculture.com/film/10-most-polarising-actors-of-all-time.php/3

    Kevin Costner

    Kevin Costner was actually considered to be something of a sex symbol in his day; sort of. He appeared alongside Whitney Houston in The Bodyguard, after all, and so for a generation of female admirers said role ensured him a place as something of a Prince Charming. Not quite so much for that scene in Waterworld in which he p*sses into a bottle.

    Nowadays, it’s weird to think that anybody might have ever thought of Costner as being particularly sexy; there’s an inarguable, all-American ordinariness about him. What’s worse, the world still never seemed to reach a definitive conclusion on whether or not the man could act, which has – in turn – relegated him to the pantheons of polarizing.

    There is evidence that he can “act,” albeit in a rather emotionless way. Dances With Wolves, perhaps his greatest achievement as an actor, director and writer, offers up Costner at his on-screen best. But there are a good number of performances that feel like proof of the opposite: Robin Hood, The Postman… like watching a wooden plank painted with a face.

    Like

  101. forrestbracket

    emotionless he display wide range of emotions in upside of anger so leave costner alone.

    Like

  102. 10 Incredibly Lazy Actors Who Keep Getting Work:
    http://whatculture.com/film/10-incredibly-lazy-actors-who-keep-getting-work.php/7

    Kevin Costner

    Of all the actors featured on this list, Kevin Costner is one who started out with the most promising career. No Way Out and Bull Durham were just the beginning of a string of hugely popular movies which peaked with Dances With Wolves and JFK.

    Following on from 1993’s A Perfect World the dud movies starring Kevin Costner started coming in thick and fast – Waterworld might not have been the commercial failure some have suggested (the theme park attraction based on the film actually made a sizeable chunk of the budget back alone). but it marked the period of his career where vanity started to go out of control.

    Yet while Kevin Costner has never returned to being the huge star he once was, nevertheless he’s worked steadily for the last twenty years despite having appeared in literally nothing worth writing home about.

    Like

  103. forrestbracket

    costner is not lazy even in bad reviews films like black or white he got great reviews . He was amazing in man of steel he was one of the few things in it that got good reviews . won emmy for hatefield. he tired taking risks after dances with wolves sometimes like jfk they pay off sometimes they dont but at least he tried. h even got golden globe nom for itn cup hes amazing actor.

    Like

    • The CineFiles Podcast: Episode 16:
      http://thisisinfamous.com/cinefiles-podcast-episode-16/

      The CineFiles return with episode 16 of their ongoing podcast. Or, if you rather, THE CINEFILES: EPISODE 16 – SOUNDTRACKS. That’s right, we get into our favorite film score composers and soundtracks made up of our favorite music compilations. But first, we review the films we’ve recently seen (or re seen) ala THE DEPARTED, BROADWAY IDIOT, FLATLINERS, MOONRAKER, the Asian horror thriller SELFIE, I MADMAN, STRIPPERS VS. WEREWOLVES among others. We also give our thoughts on the latest Hollywood news. In terms of soundtracks, well, what more needs to be said? From Bernard Hermann to Elmer Bernstein. And John Williams to Hans Zimmer. You might prefer the eclectic punk mixed tape of REPO MAN to something like THE BIG CHILL. But you will agree it is a very broad topic and we attempt to cover as much as possible in episode 16 of The CineFiles podcast.

      Like

  104. forrestbracket

    I am putting this link to start arguments. Here is a link that talks about lists of movies that ruined actors career if you skip ahead to four minutes 8 seconds you will see they mention briefly ironically sometimes superman movie helps some career. Then they show clip of Costner in Man of steel.

    Like

  105. forrestbracket

    Leabu he turned down django and kill i think u should include that in the article it could resuracted his career

    Like

  106. forrestbracket


    here is video of top movies hurt actors career if u skip to 4 minutes 25 seconds u will they say superman is capable of resuracting some actors career they show clips of costner inman of steel

    Like

    • 10 Box Office Flops Much Better Than Their Reputations

      http://whatculture.com/film/10-box-office-flops-much-better-than-their-reputations.php/11

      The Postman

      Budget: $80 million

      Worldwide Gross: $17.6 million

      The words “post-apocalyptic adventure” and “Kevin Costner” might not get many people excited nowadays, but they kept people away like a highly-publicized, violent case of herpes in 1997. Just two years after Waterworld threatened to permanently drown Costner’s career (along with anyone else who was involved in the mammoth disaster), he decided to involve himself in an eerily familiar story-line.

      Granted, the specifics of these two movies couldn’t be further apart, but the vague outline was enough to rightfully scare audiences away in droves.

      The Postman takes a much more sentimental approach to living in a post-apocalyptic wasteland however, as Costner’s character acts as the living embodiment of hope, an anti-hero that slowly becomes an actual hero as the film progresses. See, Costner finds a long-dead postman’s old mailbag and uniform, and quickly takes to using the relics as part of a con scheme. But as he delivers the old letters, he becomes genuinely affected by people’s reactions to these links to the past.

      Sound a bit cheesy? It may be, but that’s what Costner is best at. Still, the bad guys are delightfully over-the-top, the cinematography is top-notch, and the story only appears too grandiose because of its run-time. Really, it’s a simple allegory about restoring hope to a once great nation. But… ya know… using the postal service.

      Also, Tom Petty is so incredibly cool in this movie that his few scenes more than make up for any other shortcomings the film might have to offer.

      Like

  107. Kevin Costner Would Like You To Know ‘Waterworld’ Is Very ‘Beloved’ Worldwide:
    http://uproxx.com/movies/2015/08/kevin-costner-waterworld/

    Poor Kevin Costner is still steaming over 1995’s critical and financial disaster, Waterworld. The movie stands as a seminal example of an ego-driven nightmare with a bloated budget and few returns. Back in the day, the movie cost $175 million to make, which is nothing compared to today’s blockbusters, but it was one of the biggest gambles at the time. The film brought in only $88 million in North America, and its international take brought it close to breaking even, if one didn’t account for promotional costs.

    Most people agree Waterworld was an unnecessary and overwrought apocalyptic nightmare, but Costner disagrees. After all, The Postman fared much worse in theaters. Costner recently had a text conversation with critic Jeffrey Wells, who dutifully trashed the movie upon its release. Costner insists his movie is a treasure around the world:

    “I’m not sure you know how hard people work [on films]. I’m not sure you know how beloved the movie is around the world. Being hard [on a film] is really easy if you don’t know the underbelly of what [went into it]. When you do know the forensics of a movie — the participation and decisions of others that one has to stand in front of — you can’t help but see it differently.”

    Yeah, Costner is still very sore over the movie’s reception and ongoing joke status. It’s hard to blame him for being upset, but 20 years later, it’s time to let go, man. Let Waterworld take its rightful place amongst guilty pleasures for a select few moviegoers. Costner has a point, though, that critics and audiences rarely appreciate the work that goes into “the forensics” of filmmaking. Yet the job of a contemporary critic is to review a film for its audience appeal, especially in the case of a popcorn cruncher, which is likely what Costner was aiming for with Waterworld.

    Like

  108. costner is great actor always will be. Dont care how many flops he has.

    Like

  109. sorry about that. Like costner work too much. As you have seen from video i posted Man Of Steel helped his career more then people gave realize. It was first time in a while costner had his name next to box office hit.

    Like

  110. It wasn’t a pulp fiction type comeback but it gave him back from flop. He did turn down kill bill and django I think those films would helped more.

    Like

  111. I think having Draft Day taking place in Cleveland makes a lot of sense. Have you seen the Browns?

    Like

    • I’ve seen them, and they are ugly, as are their new uniforms, Boy, it must have been something to be a Browns fan in the 1950’s though; they were such a powerhouse.

      Like

  112. perfect wolrd made over 130 mill world wide it made up for mareting budget

    Like

  113. 30 mill isnt a huge budget isnt it possible a perfect world made enough worldwide to cover its lose in usa.

    Like

    • It’s possible. Even likely. But also irrelevant. Most movies will eventually break even. Breaking even is failing. You don’t hire Kevin Costner and Clint Eastwood in the 90’s expecting to break even.

      Like

  114. yes it had high expectation . But i guess we can call it disappointment. not every movies breaks even there are lot of movies that do ok workdwide or flop

    Like

  115. He turned down kill Bill and Django. It was a dumb decision to turn down director known for resurrecting careers. Had he accepted those roles maybe his career would have improved.

    Like

    • Kevin Costner is a director too, so maybe he didn’t feel like he needed that type of assistance.
      Speaking of Quentin Tarantino, did anyone view the episode of “Iconoclasts” with him and Fiona Apple (I love Fiona Apple:-)? I think those two were a perfect match for that show.

      Like

  116. Wow, it’s like a walk down memory lane. I watched most of his older movies, and enjoyed quite a few of them.
    I was surprised to see that “A Perfect World” damaged Costner’s career a little. It was somewhat of a hit in my country at the time (unofficially, of course). I remember crying buckets when his character got kiled off.

    Same with “Revenge”. I don’t get it why people didn’t like it – I really enjoyed it and cared about the characters.
    “War” was a weirder kind of movie, but I still remember it, so it must have made an impression (not because of his character, though). And of course I still love “Robin Hood”. In fact it’s the first Costner movie I’ve ever seen, and my favourite ‘R.H.’ adaptation ever.

    O man, I had no idea that I liked so many of Costner’s movies, I sound like a fan (and I have the weirdest desire to watch “Postman” now… phew… I think it’s passed).

    Overall, I think Costner is a decent actor. Maybe he’s not great, but he’s likable and has a quiet charisma that I find very appealing. I hope for a mini-comeback.

    Like

    • Glad you enjoyed the article. It was never my intent when I started the site, but we traffic in nostalgia here. An awful lot of the content amounts to walks down memory lane. I should really buy some real estate there. A lot of times, it’s hard to remember how we saw stars and movies way back when. There was a time when Costner seemed like he could do no wrong. Of course that time is long since passed.

      I think he is experiencing a mini-comeback. Prior to the Hatfields and McCoys, Costner seemed to be completely forgotten. Now he’s getting some more high profile work. If anything, I think his career is cooling off again. But maybe another hit will come along. He has a very easy onscreen presence which should serve him well in supporting roles in his golden years.

      Like

  117. I grew up on his movies. He is my 2nd fav actor. He is a great not decent actor. A perfect world was not a flop it did more then ok worldwide. It just did not perform to studios expectations. Clint and kevin came off big hits and it was expected to do much better.It however contains some of kevin best work. Dances with wolves in a strange way kind of a disaster in disguse. Costner had to take money form his own pocket to fund it. There were reports movie was over budget and people expected to flop before it came out. They could not been further from the truth.The success of that film have Kevin an ego thinking he could do no wrong. Hes humble now.Longrun if you want see a mini comeback by him watch man of steel. Its closet thing to a comeback . Many article say he bounced back a bit after it. Speaking of a perfect world I find his costar clint bland . Kevin has much more range then clint .

    Like

    • Thank you, bodwaya, I’ll watch it. I got nostalgic after that article, so I guess I need more Costner in my life, lol.

      Of his later works I’ve seen only Mr. Brooks (bland and uninspiring) and, accidentally, “3 days to kill’. Unexpectedly, I liked the latter, even if it was a bit of mish mash of genres. The way Costner’s character keeled over every time he needed to off someone was (intentionally?) comical, as was the cartoonish villain girl, but I genuinelly enjoyed Costner’s performance either way. He did well, and the part of the movie about father-daughter relationship resonated with me – both for personal reasons and because of his acting.

      Like

  118. I found Mr Brooks interesting and though prov acting. Costner takes what could been one dimensional killer like he did a perfect world made it his own. Not a fan of 3 days to kill. I like action movie but i tend to think costner do sent always fit action movie mold. His strength lies in drama and comedy. 3 days to kill was cartoonish not meant to be taken seriously. I do wish in future kevin actually says yes to quinten HE would have owned kill bill. Kevin current popularity lies in nostalgic value. Hes the actor that the older generation remember as the guy who use to be huge. i don’t get how someone can say i use to like costner but he makes bad movies now? If you really like an actor u be with him through his good or bad movies. To me costner will always be a list . His movies where apart of my childhood. Much like hanks denzel and cruise where

    Like

  119. I think costner thought postman would end up like dances with wolves. It gave him over bloated confidence that he would be great director. He is good director though. He turned down air force one to do postman. Harrison ford who career was still had hot did not need that comeback. Costner stumbled upon his ego alot in 90s. Man of steel step in right direction. He took smaller role but was still apart of a successful film. Costner turned down alot of big hits. Like traffic(which i thought was sloppy) for 13 days shawshank platoon and apollo 13

    Like

  120. Mr brooks one of his best performances. Not every actor can stay on top forever. Look at Michael caine once a huge a lsit star now supporting actor in hits. If costner goes that route its no shame. Now caine respect from both generations. Hopefully q man throws him a bone.

    Like

  121. Dances with wolves gave him huge ego. Man of steel did give him chance to put his name on huge hit so things cant be bad for him now

    Like

  122. 9 Actors Who Became Huge Sellouts

    http://www.fame10.com/entertainment/9-actors-who-became-huge-sellouts/3/

    Kevin Costner

    In fairness to Kevin, he is making a comeback of sorts. The projects he has done over the last few years have pulled him from the top of this list, but there is still some restitution he needs to pay for projects like Water World. In truth, Kevin’s biggest issues, and the sellout factor stems from the fact that at the height of his popularity, he literally did every role as himself. Robin Hood? Why would Robin Hood need anything other than a nondescript American accent? Dances With Wolves? A beautiful film, and the perfect vehicle for Kevin, but that’s who we got in Field of Dreams, Tin Cup, For Love of The Game…The Postman. Geez, Louise. What was he thinking with the Postman? We tip the cap for Hatfields & McCoys, and Black or White, but this other stuff, we can live without.

    Like

  123. Good Bad Flicks: Waterworld (1995)

    Cinefix: Waterworld Deserves a Second Chance!

    Like

  124. Waterworld was no Dances with Wolves but its not as bad as its reputation makes it out to be. I wish costner has a michael keaton type current carer. cause i watched spotlight and birdman costner would have owned those roles.

    Like

  125. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipIhJOkIGao here trailer to costner movie criminal. I thought with success of man of steel it would allow him better scripts but that did not happen . Ironically cage turned it down even though it looks better then his recent straight to dvd action flicks its smartest decisions he made. It is one less bad movie for him to be in.

    Like

  126. Turns out he has minor scene in batman vs superman

    Like

  127. sorry . It is not that big of a spoiler not like my giving out ending. lol But i guess his scene in batman vs superman will be another huge comeback lol

    Like

  128. Hey Lebeau, sorry to get off topic again, but I’m trying to split my blog into pages but nothing I try to do works. How do you split pages for this site?

    Like

    • You don’t have to do page breaks. I’ll do those. Same with pictures. Include them if you want, but I may very well change them anyway. I saw you’re working on a WTHH. The main things I would say would be to concentrated on:

      1. Research. Research is the key to a WTHH article. Do not limit yourself to Wikipedia. Do not rely on your memory. Get multiple sources on everything. Find quotes from people who were there. If you can’t find a real source, that’s a red flag you’re dealing with an internet rumor.

      2. Research. Yes, it’s that important.

      3. Concentrate on facts. You can give your opinion here and there. But the article should be 95% factual. Opinions are for the comments section.

      4. Research. Seriously. Dig deep.

      5. Humor. Readers probably don’t care what you think about some movie from the mid-eighties. But they will appreciate a joke.

      6. And guess what? More research.

      Like

  129. Lebeau i think maybe costner can go for supporitng roles in top notch films. Michael caine used to be huge leading man back in the dya but he started getting greedy and picking films based on salary not plot(which he admitted he even knew the script sucked) which in turn cause his leading man career to spiral. Howver his oscar winning performance in ciderhouse resurrected his career and led to more juicy supporting roles. His career has been more consistent since 1999 he has not appeared in that many flops.

    Like

  130. https://www.facebook.com/groups/thecinefiles/permalink/10153875014825795/?comment_id=10153875324445795&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22%7D

    The greatest mistake Costner ever did.it destroyed his career, his 90s leading man reputation,..this was just not a part for him is like casting Gary Cooper in Hercules… this part would had been perfect for Arnold having James Cameron direction ..! it was a sad thing.. after this film the 90s generation was going slower and slower down….

    Like

    • 13 Horrifying Hollywood Production Stories

      http://screenrant.com/worst-hollywood-movie-production-stories/?view=all

      Waterworld

      Kevin Costner was riding the success of crazy string of hit films such as JFK, Wyatt Earp and The Bodyguard when he began production on the dystopian action movie Waterworld. Costner plays “The Mariner,” a gilled human that helps a little girl and her mother survive the evil Smokers and find dry land. It’s basically Mad Max on water.

      The biggest problem was it was entirely on water, which caused costs to skyrocket from $100 million to $175 million, earning it the title of the most expensive movie ever made at the time. Working on the water proved to be a production nightmare. While tied to a mast for a scene, Costner nearly died when a hurricane completely wiped out a multimillion-dollar set. The star, who was also a producer on the film, was reportedly miserable to work for. He completely rejected the initial musical score, because he thought it was too bleak. Joss Whedon flew in for script rewrites and called his experience “seven weeks of hell.”

      There was no happy ending to bookend the troubled production, as the film is now considered one of the most spectacular box office bombs in history.

      Like

  131. 15 Movie Stars Who Peaked in the ’90s

    http://screenrant.com/best-movie-stars-peaked-in-the-90s/?view=all

    KEVIN COSTNER

    Another actor falling victim to a mammoth flop, Kevin Costner’s career also came to a screeching halt in 1995. The film was Waterworld, and Costner pulled double duty as actor/director with the biggest budget of all time (up to that point). As a result, the onslaught of domestic loss and critical pillaging that the film fell victim to almost single-handedly ruined the star’s bulletproof reputation. Now, Costner can be spotted in a jumble of different projects (Draft Day, Black or White), each as underwhelming as the next.

    The thing that makes this descent even more impressive is considering where Costner was prior to ‘95. He had jump-started the decade through Dances with Wolves (1990), raking in financial success, universal acclaim, and a Best Picture Oscar to boot. Soon after, the actor set forth with a flurry of high profile hits, ascending in the order of JFK (1991), Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991), A Perfect World (1993), and most iconically: The Bodyguard (1992). Paired opposite Whitney Houston, Costner arguably became the biggest actor on the planet. And then boom, Waterworld. Sadly, Mad Max on water was as dumb as it sounded.

    Maybe he’ll turn it all around this weekend with Criminal, though early reviews aren’t promising. Like Davis before him, he would have been better off strapping on a pair of superhero tights while he was in his prime.

    Like

  132. I meant “hot streak” not “hot steak”, but I’ll take a hot steak. Anyone else want a hot steak?

    Like

  133. Should help to offset all those cheeseburgers you owe

    Like

  134. Like i said costner could be became a successful character actor like michael caine

    Like

  135. Kevin Costner wants to make one more baseball movie — here’s why Hollywood should let him http://go.zap2.it/wIzfS

    Like

  136. Costner is making same films he did when he was younger. Part of cosnter problem is he is not hip with it. He does not realize that although his classics are still enjoyable ( in my opinion) the movie audience taste have change over years and might find his movies cheesy. Today movie audience want cgi affects ,superhero related flicks and plenty of violence. His films fit for their time period but it seems he can not get without and trying to make a film that appeals to younger generation. they are the demographic that spend more to going to movies. Accepting a role django would step in right direction. Tarenteno films cater to the teenage hipster even contains slang terms teens use. He has to realize to get ahead in hollywood you have to make movies they want to see not you want to see. Costner says he picks flicks he saw as a kid,

    Like

  137. Just clarify just liek the famous notion of waterworld flopping is not true a perfect world did not really flop. It is not a hit but more under performer. It more then made up its budget worldwide however given the teaming of clint and kevin it had high expectations. Studios must see some profits worldwide because somes get greenlight for sequels when they do better wolrdwide. the movie heat is dubbed a box office hit but if a person looks closley it bomebd domestically only making 67 million of 60 mill budget. Iy made 187 worldwide. Yet no one labels that a flop. Not saying a perfect world was a flop just did not become the hit people thought it would be . If you want get technical Wyyat Earp was his first real flop. followed by the war

    Like

  138. Hearing jk simmons cast jim gordon got me thinking costner would have owned that role. JIm gordon is similar to ellilot ness a by the book cop. costenr should go for more high profile supporting roles like that one that would keep him in the game. especially supporting roles written for older actors like him. Its strange after man of steel i though he would be offered more strong supporting roles. there are so many roles I watch I think costner would have fit perfect in. Jk simmons blue collar dad in juno would have fit costner well. Being a charactor actor in top roles fit him well. its obvious as talented as he is oyunger demographic who mostly go out to see films do not want see a movie based on his name alone anymore. He can play second fiddle to younger stars play mentor type

    Like

  139. The Zack Snyder Superman movies at least did not hurt Costner. If anything, maybe he can get similar roles in better movies. If anything his performance added to Man of Steel and BvS.

    He’s coming out in Hidden Figures as the 4th billed credit, set for January 2017 release,. The trailer looks promising and has an up and coming director. It will also put Costner back in his Cold War Era schtick which served him pretty well before.

    Waterworld could have been survived but that and The Postman couldn’t. What a pair.

    Open Range was good but somehow that success couldn’t be repeated. I doubt we’ll see Costner headline a movie again it maybe he can get into better supporting roles in better movies rather than starring roles in b, failure amovies.

    Its a fine line between cultural phenomenon and cliché. Tom Cruise pulled off the former without descending into the latter, keeping himself on the A list. Costner couldn’t do it.

    Like

  140. like i mentioned befre cruise is hip with it. Cruise fits with this era. Cruise knows what movies are popular in this era and he goes with it., Costner just want to cater the older genration people who watched his movie in hie heyday when they where younger. Unfortunately that aged group does not go to movies as much younger minority.With exception of man of steel costner refuses to He can no longer be a top leading man. At a ceartin age its unluckly. But he cat at least get juicy supporting roles in high profile pics if he tries to pick roles he did not in his younger days like a villain in a quieten flick or even more mentor to a list stars like leo. As mentioned before He could pull a late michael caine like ressuraction. Michael caine was in costner spot before cider house the success of that film lead to more juicky supporting roles,. Which caine huge to both gernations. the younger genration knows him as alfred from batman the older knows his in his leading man days at his prime like itlain job and harry palmer seris. Michael caine was huge at one point to like costner was but bad flicks diminshed his bankability

    Like

  141. As zach snyder superman movies man of steel was still a hit . Especially in comparison to superman returns. It did not give the same effect to kevin as pulp fiction did ot john but it would be unfair to say it did completely nothing for his career. It gave him something that eluded him for a while a chance to attach his name to a hit. Not it wont him bankable again but man of steel helped his career a lot more then postman. Its better to have supporting role in a hit then lead in a bomb.

    Like

  142. Speaking og Hidden Figures it might be released in December to qualify for oscar consideration. If it gets best picture nom it would do wonder for kevin career . It seems like eh has more screen time in this then man of steel. I heard the trailer got positive reactions Given kevin unfair bad luck I do not see it getting best picture nom but could be wrong. As a kevin fan i would like it being a hit. Lets hope it does not turn out like company men

    Like

  143. What do you think lebeau. Do you think Hidden figure will best picture nom. It could be is getting oscar qualifying run early in December. Plus it did get a lot of positive reaction when they showed the trailer in Olympics even in social media it good reactions. PLUS LET NOT forget academy could feel guilty over oscar are so white controversy and nominate it and other black themed movie coming out. Its toss up. It would be nice if it did get oscar best picture nom. It would mean kevin would attach his name to another successful film since man of steel.

    Like

  144. but they giving it limited relase date on december for oscar qualifying run depneding on how it does in tiff here is link http://deadline.com/2016/08/hidden-figures-pharrell-williams-toronto-film-festival-academy-awards-nasa-1201804998/

    Like

  145. But it could get get positive buzz at tiff . You do not think there is a still a chance to it could get a nom. It did gets lot positive buzz on social media after its trailer at Olympics. plus Oscars love feel good movie and they want to get rid of that oscar is so white backlash. what about box office wise iam sure you tihnk it will do decent

    Like

  146. but box office wise u tihnk it will do ok

    Like

  147. Ok iam jsut hoping costner gets a comeback. Its so frustarting seeing every actor get their comeback like keaton stallone rourke and matthew mccounghay yet costner misses the boat. He is more talented then any of those guys i mentioned

    Like

  148. footage for hidden figures is being shown at tiff so if it gets good applause it could get osca rbuzz

    Like

  149. hidden figures of a good applaud in tiff. its building some positive buzz . If this film is a hit it could lead to more juicy supporting role for kevin

    Like

  150. i only did it when black or white and hidden figures came out. Hidden figures is one of the most anticapted movie coming out

    Like

    • In 2014, it was Black and White. Last year, it was McFarland, USA. I went back and looked at some comments from that time and found this little gem:

      mcfarland has 80 percent rotton tomaotes suck on it lebeau

      I’m not even sure where that came from, but okay. Whatever.

      This year, you’re getting your hopes up over a movie in which Costner has 4th billing directed by the guy whose last feature was also his directorial debut, St. Vincent. Let’s wait and see what happens before we start discussing its Oscar prospects.

      Like

  151. Its just frustrating see actors like keaton travolt and rourke all get comeback while costner can not seem to find one. He is more talented then those 3

    Like

    • ummm….maybe Travolta, but not those other two. Costner so often has a flat delivery. It can default to sounding natural, but too often it just sounds like he’s reading his lines rather than having a human experience in the moment. I don’t dislike Costner. He has some natural charm. But pure acting talent? Not high on his list of attributes.

      Like

  152. His acting is subtle he is far from boring Keaton i find bland. Keaton just says his line does not add anything to his roles. keaton was very wooden in my life.

    Like

    • Keaton is know for energetic sometimes manic performances. Costner is perfect for stoic characters but he could never play a character like Beetlejuice. He’s never approached a performance like the one Keaton gave in Birdman. He doesn’t have that in him. Nothing against Costner but his range is tiny.

      Like

    • I like Costner just fine, but I disagree on Michael Keaton being wooden, as I’ve always considered him to be a pretty live performer. I’d say the only issue with Mickey Rourke was his seeming desire to be perceived as more of a tough guy than an actor, and disappearing from screen for a long time. There isn’t much argument that John Travolta has had an extremely uneven career though (far from perfect), and he had the fortune to be in such a culturally transcendent film like “Pulp Fiction”, and unfortunately for Costner (or maybe not: he’s probably pretty happy anyway), I think it’s tough nowadays to be part of a culturally transcendent film, since even films that are considered as such are only so temporarily (like “Avatar”).

      Like

  153. He was great in mr brooks. That was similar to birdman. Both character had mental illness . To me keaton uses same voice never adds emotion. costner was full of energy in silverado . keaton could never play a normal every man average joe like kevin did

    Like

    • Keaton has played those parts as well. Gung Ho and Mr Mom come to mind. But he brought an energy to those parts that Costner lacks. Even playing a psycho in Mr Brooks, Costner remained understated. William Hurt had the showy part in that movie.

      Like

      • Let that sink in. In a movie alongside William Hurt Costner came off as understated.

        Like

        • Hysterical. I don’t know if you have seen the movie or not, but Hurt chews a lot of scenery essentially playing Costner’s murderous impulses. He’s by far the best thing about the movie. Without him, it would be fairly dull. But his performance submerges a B movie on ooey gooey cheese.

          Like

        • Wow, I never thought of it that way; holy crow!

          Like

    • I liked “Mr. Brooks” too (serial killers are kind of my jam), but the film wasn’t much of a public comeback vehicle for either Costner or Demi Moore (I think Dane Cook intended the film to further launch his acting career as well).

      Like

  154. Silverado he had energy/ A perfect was a far cry from the calm character he played. To each their own but I just never got the appeal of Keaton.To me hes flat I dislike him in a good cop , pacific heights , my life the paper and speechless.

    Like

  155. There are actors worse then costner. I think kevin is more talented then kutcher ,arnold and will smith

    Like

    • Of that group, I will give you Kutcher (an actor I would never think to bring up because who thinks about Ashton Kutcher) and maybe Arnold. Maybe. Not Will Smith. Not by a long shot.

      Like

      • For sure, those are distinctly different performers with each having a completely different approach on how they go about things: Will Smith has always attached himself to numerous blockbusters (his roadmap to success), Arnold will always be known as an action hero, and Aston Kutcher has probably had the career that some believe Keanu Reeves has had.

        Like

  156. Will has given some good performance but overall he has showed less range then kevin. Kevin is stronger actor. Costner is no where near as bad as people make him out to be. He just happened to pick some of flops people mistake it for bad acting. He held his own weight in jfk with some top notch actors. He was funny in tin cup; He stole the show in upside of anger which critics loved him in

    Like

  157. I am sure you can think of actors worse then kevin lol. He was amazing in a perfect world. He may not always pick a list flicks but he puts on good performance. Every actor has been accused of playing same character. JAck nicholson is viewed as great actor but he has been accused of playing his real life persona on screen several times. Pacino is always loud characters

    Like

  158. Its ok if you disagree . Kevin costner has admitted films are subjective and he is aware there are people that dislike his films but things would be boring if we all liked same flicks

    Like

    • Acting is definitely an artistic expression that is subjective, like drawing/painting (I doubt anyone is 100% on Leonardo Da Vinci or Frida Kahlo) or writing (I’m sure some people think that Ernest Hemingway is a hack). Those industries aren’t like business or sports, where comebacks and certain merits are more clearly defined.

      Like

  159. my personal favorites are hanks costner hackman denzel deniro cruise and jack nicholson

    Like

  160. That’s a fine list; as for Gene Hackman, it seems he’s settled in nicely as an author nowadays.

    Like

  161. lol lets not compare keanu to kutcher keanu is capable of heavy draamtic roles. Keanu can express emotion through facial expressions kutcher is blank . Kenau has gotten good reviews before kutcher rarely does

    Like

    • The Ashton Kutcher curse

      http://www.grunge.com/26479/ashton-kutcher-curse/s/kevin-costner-the-guardian/

      Kevin Costner (The Guardian)

      Kevin Costner is an undeniably talented actor with a notoriously mixed record when it comes to critical success, something that has largely evaded him since the golden period in the late ’80s and early ’90s when he forced his way onto the A-list with his portrayal of Elliot Ness in The Untouchables and directed/starred in multiple Academy Award winner Dances With Wolves.

      In recent years, Costner’s career has seen many ups and downs, though his biggest slump arguably came after he appeared in 2006’s The Guardian as a decorated member of the Coast Guard tasked with showing a young upstart (Kutcher) the ropes. It’s a film packed with every worn-out cinematic cliché you can think of, and it started Costner off on a losing streak he’s still struggling to turn around—as evidenced by the reviews of his latest ill-fated effort, 2016’s Criminal.

      Like

  162. Aside from the fact they both played idiots before I can not really much in common with them. Kutcher was a typically actor who was former model keanu was a classically trained actor who has done Hamlet on stage.Before Bill and Ted keanu got rave reviews for rivers edge and permanat midnight. Kenau has taken more risks then kutcher. Kutcher did make me laugh as Kelso but he cannot really portray a character with depth his best strenghts are playing bumbling fools with spaced out expressions.

    Like

    • I was just saying that the perceptions of supposed doofus roles that Keanu Reeves played is the reality of Ashton Kutcher’s career (besides, “Dude, Where’s My Car?” is infinitely more dumb than “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure”)., but I’m not comparing their performances at all, (because that wouldn’t even be funny), just a perception.

      Like

  163. i feel keanu resume has been more diverse he done more different things yes people might still view keanu resume as mostly playing doofuses but hes done more variety of things then kutcher

    Like

  164. Captain Logan makes Eric watch one of his favorite movies from childhood, Field of Dreams.

    Like

  165. I also think costner is more talented then ben affleck

    Like

  166. its not random we where mentioing actors early costner is better then i named another one affleck

    Like

  167. you agree with me kevin is more talented then ben

    Like

    • Ha ha…no, I agree that your Kevin Costner reference wasn’t random, as it was part of a larger discussion along with Michael Keaton, Keanu Reeves, and Ben Affleck being thrown into the mix. I honestly don’t like going with the “Who’s better?” theme, because I feel all those actors have something to offer. Heck, those “Who’s better?” arguments aren’t even definitive when it comes to sports, where there are raw performance numbers & titles of all kinds (or lack thereof) to work with. Who would’ve been better in a role, or something of that type could be more my speed and less touch and go, since I see no way out if I started thinking like a daredevil in the questioning of who’s better.

      Like

  168. but do prefer ben to kevin. yes every actor bring something different in role. Even if there playing same role. batman for example bale played batman with confidence and charm ben tried showing his vulnerable weak side.

    Like

  169. As i mneitoned kevin was not lucky to have a john travolta like comeback but kevin had his chance twice with kill bill and django. But i guess kevin wants to make films he enjoy not audeince will see. the films he likes are films people would loved in his heyday but the current younger demogrpahic that mostly sees movies do not find the current films interesting there taste mostly lies in cgi effect films comic book films .

    Like

  170. Costner has oscar buzz for hidden figures its to early to tell but we will have to see.It owuld be neat if kevin got his first nom in 26 years

    Like

  171. I would not say costner is hated currently as he way he when his career first started to dip. However he is not as loved as he was in his heyday . He is more forgotten now. No gives him flack for making a flop anymore cause he is not expected to star in a hit film. Razzies do not even bother nominating him when he makes a flop. He has not had a razzie nom in 15 years

    Like

  172. When he makes a flop it is forgotten and not talked about. Therefore razzie tend to forget about because it does not generate as much negative hype as other flops such all about steve

    Like

  173. kevin is doing a good thing. taking supporting role in interesting work. He is doing what kevin bacon did in 90s when his leading career fizzled

    Like

  174. Hidden figures has oscar buzz so it could be good for kevin career. It is still too early to tell though

    Like

  175. Make America mediocre again case file #73: Swing Vote

    http://www.avclub.com/article/make-america-mediocre-again-case-file-73-swing-vot-245199

    It’s not easy for a man who is rich, famous, handsome, and a bona fide movie star to also be a giant dork, but somehow Kevin Costner manages it. The onscreen Costner has a number of defining moments, perhaps none bigger than his epic attention-demanding monologue in Bull Durham. But the defining moment of the offscreen Costner is probably that wonderful moment in Madonna: Truth Or Dare when he comes backstage after one of her orgiastic performances and opines that it was “neat.”

    This was Costner in miniature: When confronted with one of the preeminent sex goddesses of her era at her prime, he doled out a wholesome compliment more appropriate for a 6-year-old boy geeking out about the bike he found under the Christmas tree. While the rest of show-business spent the 1980s f***ing their brains out while doing mountains of blow, it’s easy to imagine Costner staying at home at night attending to his stamp collection or reading up on advances in renewable energy. Costner is sincere and earnest and dad-like in ways that are both endearing and embarrassing.

    In a cynical, pragmatic Hollywood, Costner is a true believer, an old-school liberal who has never been afraid to buck Hollywood tradition, and conventional wisdom, and invest his own personal fortune in movies that he believes in. He was so invested in Dances With Wolves that when the budget went over, he added millions of his own dollars to cover it.

    And when he wasn’t able to secure funding for Swing Vote to get it into theaters in time for the 2008 presidential election, he helped fund it himself. That represented an enormous gamble, and while he made a small fortune off Dances With Wolves, Costner lost a small fortune on Swing Vote, which garnered mediocre reviews and meager box office. It was less a comeback vehicle than further evidence of a steep, perhaps permanent, professional decline.

    Swing Vote takes place in what politicians like to condescendingly refer to as the “real America.” This is a wonderland where real Americans wear denim ensembles and have unflattering soul patches and drive pickup trucks to real bars where they get drunk on cheap domestic beer: Budweiser, specifically. There is so much Budweiser in the movie that it’s surprising Costner couldn’t fund the film entirely through product placement of just that one product.

    So it doesn’t seem at all coincidental that Costner’s character is nicknamed “Bud” Johnson, a theoretically lovable loser content to drift drunkenly through life, oblivious and indifferent to the pain and hurt his addiction and selfishness are causing his daughter Molly (Madeline Carroll). Like many children who grow up in chaos, Molly has coped with her father’s self-absorption and drunkenness by becoming a smart, hyper-driven, freakishly precocious overachiever.

    She’s essentially a parent to her man-child of a dad, and seemingly the only thing keeping him from sliding into the gutter permanently. If that seems harsh, it’s because we know far too much about addiction, particularly the way addiction affects children, for the amiable drunk to be palatable anymore. Where the film wants us to see Bud as a fundamentally good-hearted if shiftless ne’er-do-well—all rough edges, beer binges, and inappropriate cussing—he instead comes off as a thoughtless alcoholic rapidly approaching his bottom.

    Bud represents an archetype in the Frank Capra movies Swing Vote borrows from extensively: the eccentric everyman elevated to great, unearned heights (Meet John Doe, Mr. Deeds Goes To Town) who then must wrestle with the complications of life among the cultural elites. Costner is an idealized American everyman like Gary Cooper and James Stewart. Kevin Costner isn’t the most talented or popular American actor, but he may be our most American. Costner bleeds red, white, and blue. He’s westerns. He’s baseball. He’s blue skies. He’s Superman’s dad. Yet Costner never quite pulls off drunken and dissolute here. The cans of Budweiser Bud he’s forever clutching feel like props to be held, not alcohol to be consumed. But if Bud’s drunkenness never feels convincing or real, the harm he’s causing his daughter registers far too strongly for Bud to be as likable as he’s meant to be.

    Bud begins the movie just barely getting by. He works at an egg factory where he and his similarly soul-patched co-workers (most notably Judge Reinhold, going full-on Southern working-class gentleman) seem to spend their days cos-playing Blue Collar Comedy Tour. But after coming in late and hungover every day, missing 31 sick days (due to his life- and family-destroying addiction to alcohol), and some slapstick shenanigans that result in the destruction of countless eggs, Bud is finally laid off.

    Our shiftless antihero responds the way he responds to everything: getting drunk and ignoring his responsibilities as a father. Bud has assured his civic-minded daughter that he would vote but in this, as in all things, he fails. Molly ends up attempting to vote on her father’s behalf in what can only be deemed an adorable act of clear-cut voter fraud.

    The electricity in the polling place where Molly is furtively voting shuts off before she’s able to complete her vote on her old man’s behalf. When it is determined that the presidential race is in a dead heat, Bud, an unrepentant goober who’s never been able to handle any responsibility, suddenly finds himself with the most important responsibility in the world: It falls upon him to cast the deciding vote in the presidential race. Bud’s vote alone will determine whether Republican incumbent President Andrew “Andy” Boone (Kelsey Grammer) or Democratic challenger Donald “Don” Greenleaf (Dennis Hopper) will be elected president.

    Bud is given 10 days to make the decision. Overnight, a sleepy little small town in New Mexico becomes the unlikely epicenter of the American political universe. Both candidates, their campaigns, and their supporters descend upon Bud’s hometown to try to convince him to vote for their candidate. An unassuming fuck-up comfortable with possessing no power at all suddenly finds himself with a surreal excess of power.

    Costner is famously a liberal and Hopper and Grammer are equally notable conservative Republicans; they’ve come together to make a film as toothlessly bipartisan as a Jay Leno monologue. Swing Vote mildly, genially razzes both parties as being full of desperate political opportunists willing to sell out their ideals and beliefs for the sake of assuming power before asserting that these guys are fundamentally good dudes after all. Politics might be crazy, but isn’t American democracy great?

    In their desperation to win the only vote that matters, the president and his challenger cynically reverse their policies. When Bud stumblingly answers a reporter’s question on whether he’s pro-life or pro-choice by asserting that he’s “pro-life” in the sense that he is in favor of life as a concept (unrelated to terminating pregnancies, because Bud apparently doesn’t know what “pro-life” means), the pro-choice party/politician cynically cuts an anti-abortion ad with children disappearing from a playground.

    Similarly, Bud answers a question about gay marriage by asserting that it’s everybody’s right to do whatever the hell they want in the privacy of their own bedroom. The party of protecting traditional marriage suddenly becomes the party of gay marriage, complete with a commercial where the president is joined by a collection of all-American archetypes lispingly vowing, “I do.”

    The notion that both of these candidates would dramatically go against their party’s core beliefs for the sake of winning Bud’s vote is reasonably clever even if it never rises to the level of satire, but that’s as edgy as Swing Vote gets. The film is so intent on not offending anyone that it eschews social commentary altogether. It would be nice if the movie ultimately said anything, really, beyond encouraging audiences to vote and be invested and involved in the political process, whatever their leanings.

    Both parties shamelessly bribe and flatter Bud to win his vote. The president invites Bud onboard Air Force One for a beer, while the challenger ropes Bud’s personal hero Willie Nelson into his campaign to win Bud’s vote. Bud is ecstatic at being feted like a big shot after a lifetime of being an exceedingly modest failure, but Molly watches the whole ridiculous parade with a look of stern, tight-lipped judgment. Bud’s genuine love for his daughter may be his sole redeeming facet, but the look of disappointment in her eyes whenever she contemplates her worthless old man somehow isn’t enough to get him to put down the bottle and grow up.

    Initially, everyone is tickled silly by Bud’s everyman brashness and foul mouth. He’s like Ken Bone, who instantly won everyone’s heart with the unexpected role he ended up playing in a presidential campaign. Then, because the third act needs tension and drama, everyone turns on Bud and decides he’s actually a creep they don’t like, as was similarly the case with Ken Bone.

    One minute NASCAR driver Richard Petty is taking an overjoyed Bud for a joyride. The next, Bill Maher is calling Bud a dumbass on TV to the cheers of a populace that has suddenly turned on Bud. He’s now seen as a dope who’s wasting everyone’s time attending to his 15 minutes of fame, instead of focusing on his job determining the leader of the free world.

    Bud’s redemptive arc calls for him to finally stop fucking around and take his responsibilities seriously. So Costner-as-Bud finally listens to his daughter and asks for a final presidential debate solely for him. Bud begins his private debate the way moderators generally do: with a lengthy, heartfelt monologue, full of actor-friendly moments and overflowing with emotion, in which a suddenly chastened everyman reflects upon a lifetime of poor choices and squandered potential as well as his determination to be a better man for both his daughter and his country.

    It’s not a bad speech, for what it is, but it makes no sense within the context of the film. This debate is not about him. Furthermore, Bud is a man of few words and even less thought, but when the film demands it, he suddenly turns self-reflective and even wise, blessed with the wisdom of the common man.

    The closing monologue exists for Costner’s ego, to give him one last huge opportunity to flamboyantly act out his character’s redemption. If Swing Vote is a hit, it goes alongside his big monologue in Bull Durham as one of his iconic, definitive moments. Instead, it just rings hollow as a big, swing-for-the-fences moment the film does little to earn or work toward.

    Although on an emotional and storytelling level, Swing Vote does not work, there is still much to recommend it. Cinematographer Shane Hurlbut gives the film a sun-dappled, political-ad radiance that makes the film’s cornball Americana easy on the eyes at the very least. Director Joshua Michael Stern is adept at giving the film a real sense of scope, conveying that this is a story that is happening throughout the nation, not just to one overwhelmed man. It’s easy to see how people might read the script or look at the beautiful dailies and think they had something special on their hands, but Swing Vote ultimately realizes very little of its extraordinary potential. It wants to be great but settles for being inoffensive.

    As producer, star, and financier, Costner lovingly sought to make a big-hearted comedy-drama about the madness and majesty of presidential politics and American life in the vein of alternately cynical and achingly sincere Capra comedy-dramas. Instead, he made a gorgeous, vaguely epic but fundamentally empty and toothless mediocrity: essentially a “Get Out The Vote!” bumper sticker in cinematic form.

    Failure, Fiasco, or Secret Success: Fiasco

    Like

  176. if hidden figures get snubbed there is still molly game could be a hit

    Like

  177. Dennis Quaid admits he has an “unspoken rivalry” with Kevin Costner http://buff.ly/2fUTHhl

    Like

  178. He just admitted they kind of competed for same roles . I thought he would admit they had conflict in wyaat earp but he did not have much say aobut kevin

    Like

  179. This website says costner has oscar buzz for hidden figure he along the movie has oscar buzz here is link http://www.awardscircuit.com/oscar-predictions/oscar-predictions-best-supporting-actor/

    Like

  180. you where right lebeau not to get too excited over hidden figures now buzz is dying down for hidden figures . The golden globe get announcment are on 19th of this month if hidden figures does not get best picture nom or even best supporting for kevin chances for it getting oscar noms will look slim to none

    Like

  181. Hidden has gotten great reviews so far

    Like

  182. Rotton tomatoes just gave hidden figures 100 percent https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hidden_figures/

    Like

  183. it does but given it get best picture snub for critics award and golden globe i feel the only award nom it will get is for actress. Kevin has not gotten a single award nom for the role so far so his chances are gone. I think this will be a modest hit box office wise at best. So I do not think this movie will benefit kevin career

    Like

    • I think the subject matter is a fresh take into the origins of American space travel, but I don’t know how long of a reach that would have for a wide audience. Also, the last trailer I saw of it was about 8 seconds, and that’s kind of a shortchange to me, something that should be done with a film which is already in theaters, not being released on January 6th.

      Like

  184. limited release is december 25 wide is jan . It giane sag noms

    Like

  185. Hidden figures did not interest me. I have heard it is getting amazing reviews . Its gianing some oscar buzz but who know what will happened. Lebeau what do u think of its oscar chances

    Like

  186. But lebeau do u think it will be box office hit. Space is not exactly a box office friendly thing.

    Like

    • My crystal ball broke years ago. I don’t make predictions that far out. All I’ll say is that I thought the trailer looked good. It’s getting solid reviews. These are promising signs. We’ll see what happens.

      Like

  187. SOlid is understatement. Its getting amazing reviews 95 percent on rotton tomatoes.

    Like

    • Last I looked, there were only two reviews from “top critics”. Not that I expect the RT score to change all that much, but it could. If it ends up at 95%, that would be very good.

      You may have noticed, I’m a wait and see kind of guy. Most of what I write about here happened 20 years ago! 😉

      Like

  188. Its probably the most critically acclaimed movie kevin has been in a while. Its a great followup to kevin last flop criminal. Ironcally turned down by another member of lebeau blog cage.

    Like

  189. looks like it is dropping to 90 percent right now u might be right lebeau it could end up dropping 90 percent. it opend up limited release on december 25 what if it ends up getting bad reviewsz

    Like

  190. GOOD CAuse Costner needs this film to be a hit especially after his last film criminal was a flop. It seems kevin cannot catch a break . Every time he gets a movie that gets some oscar buzz like upside of anger ,13 days ,company men and black or white it leads to nothing. Plus with exception of man of steel he has not been able to really put his name on a box office hit. sometimes it feels like every actor can catch a break but him. Even Ben affleck is haivng a huge career again his last film accountABTR was a hit

    Like

    • Costner is in the bonus phase of his career. Hits and flops don’t really matter all that much. He’s not the star, he’s a supporting player. He’s going to keep getting mentor-type and father-figure roles for as long as he wants to do them.

      I wouldn’t say The Accountant was huge. It’s also in base hit territory.

      Like

  191. accountant i meant

    Like

  192. Kevin Costner Wants a ‘Bull Durham’ Sequel

    View story at Medium.com

    Like

  193. Its funny he want to do a sequel to bull durham he usually turns them down. the closet time he came to a cameo in sequel was batman vs superman. I think that is part of reason his career stalled when his new projects flop he did not have sequel of other flicks to fall back on. Like say stallone who when his other flick flopped he went back to rocky,rambo or even expendables. Costner career may made comeback had he done a sequel to some of his flicks . Robin hood could have had a sequel.

    Like

    • Kevin Costner really hasn’t done many films that could be sequel friendly (I think a “Bull Durham” sequel would be terrible, and I’m not sure about Robin Hood sequels, as that concept seems to scream of seriously diminishing returns), but it’s true, the man has never had a franchise to fall back on. The closest he’s come to that is doing films that have something to do with baseball (like “For Love of the Game” and “The Upside of Anger”).

      Like

      • I agree. A Bull Durham sequel sounds like an awful idea. Tin Cup was kind of a spiritual successor to Bull Durham. That’s all we need.

        The only Kevin Costner movie I can think that would be a natural fit for sequels would have been Waterworld. Yeah, you could do more than one Robin Hood, but why would you?

        Like

  194. A robin hood seqeul would been good . there is so much more they could do with them. I heard waterworld and postman where meant to be franchises but box office returns stopped that. A bull druham sequel would be interesting idea. Not sure if it would be a hit since a lot of time has passed since first film He had a cameo in batman vs superman which is a sequel to man of steel so i guess he did do sequels before. I know kevin is in the bonus round but it would be god if he at least added some hits to his resume even if its a supporting role.

    Like

  195. hidden just came out in theatre today limited release is already getting some high reviews i cannot say if it will get best pictru enom

    Like

  196. The movie has 25 mill budget so it does not have to make a ton of money to break even it should do ok

    Like

  197. Lebeau i have a feeling hidden figures will be snubbed for best picture. Plus i think it will bomb wide release

    Like

  198. Its oscar buzz is dying down plus it is not exactly a box office friendly film. Do you really think audience will flock to see a movie about three women doing math for nasa. I know you like to wait and see but do you honestly think it will do good box office wise

    Like

  199. when is oscar season

    Like

  200. Hidden wide release is jan. Iam sure u have at least some predictions on its box office.

    Like

  201. it has star wars to compete with when it opens wide plus it has live by night to compete with and ben is still a huge draw so its going to be tough

    Like

  202. since the town hes had a lot of hits like argo gone girl.

    Like

  203. iam sure u can agree ben is more bankable then kevin right now

    Like

  204. lebeau would you say hidden is doing ok in its limited release right now.

    Like

  205. Part of me think costner career downfall had to do with his affairs. Audiences expected him to be the hero offscreen but when word of his affair got out people felt betrayed. He was sold as the nice guy family man and could not live up to the hype

    Like

    • Maybe I’m misdirected, but I just thought that the blockbusters that Costner was counted on didn’t pan out, so the perception of him changed. I mean, if he was bringing in the green and audiences were still on his side I think even if he strutted around like Hugh Hefner all would’ve been forgiven.

      Like

      • Yeah, I don’t think all that many people cared what Costner did in his private life or what he was like off camera. The problem is, he kept making movies like Waterworld and The Postman instead of Dances With Wolves and Robin Hood. His hot streak was followed by flops and disappointments.

        Like

    • Kevin Costner

      https://www.datalounge.com/thread/19085631-kevin-costner

      I think it’s Karma. He dumped his wife Cindy at the height of his fame bc his ego was too big. Once he dumped his wife, his career tanked.

      —Anonymous

      reply 32 18 hours ago

      I came here to say what a great film ‘A Perfect World’ is. But it was never one of his many blockbusters. He’s been in quite a few quasi classics:

      ‘The Bodyguard’ with Whitney

      ‘Bull Durham’ with Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins

      ‘Tin Cup’ with Rene Russo

      ‘Dances with Wolves’

      ‘Field of Dreams’

      ‘No Way Out’

      But it was ‘Waterworld’ that sunk his career. He was the biggest movie star at the time of its release and all the bad publicity surrounding its budget and failure at the box office put an end to his streak.

      —Anonymous

      reply 42 9 hours ago

      And then “The Postman”, back to back, and people started to feel like they had been bamboozled. He got kind of a weird arrogant reputation around that time too, dumping the wife, all the cliches. The audience giveth, the audience taketh away. But no huge scandals (probably only because it was a pre-TMZ time) so he could be welcomed back into the fold easily. As an Older Character Actor especially.

      —Anonymous

      reply 43 9 hours ago

      Don’t forget Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. That movie should have never been greenlighted. Wyatt Earp wasn’t too bad but was overshadowed by the much superior Tombstone.

      But yeah, Waterworld and The Postman was the turning point.

      —Anonymous

      reply 45 8 hours ago

      Like

  206. Dances with wolves game him a huge ego and he thought he could do no wrong. Which is why he made long bloated mess like postman and waterworld. He seemed to settle into charactor career

    Like

  207. An affair ruined meg career i assumed it did same to kevin. Since like meg kevin played the boy next door type.

    Like

    • Very different situations. Ryan was America’s sweetheart. Her affair was tabloid news and she was portrayed as the bad guy. Crowe was viewed as a scoundrel and Quaid was seen as a spurned victim. That wasn’t reality, but it was the perception. Also, the public is more forgiving of men who cheat. Plenty of actors were behaving much worse than Ryan with no consequences to their career.

      Liked by 1 person

  208. Quaid had his fair share of affairs too. Quaid was known as a womizner he cheated on his last wife. The public never attacked him the way they did meg. Of course dennis was never a big star like meg so people did not care about him or his career. It did not affect crowe career . In fact i noticed around the time of affair quaid and crowe career have gotten bigger.

    Like

  209. hidden had a wide release today lets hope it does good. If this film is a hit it could do wonders for both dunst and costner

    Like

  210. Surprised u are not familiar with hidden figures it gotten a lot of buzz getting lots of hype. dunst never really had a downfall just went the indie route. While costner picked wrong films

    Like

  211. It upsets me how people trash kevin acting saying he has no range but praise clint eastwood. Kevin had played more variety of different characters and has more personality in his acting then clint. the only reason people do not trash clint is he picked more hit films then kevin. However that does not make clint a better actor Kevin has great comic timing evident by tin cup played a menacing villain in a perfect world. When has clint played a bad guy

    Like

  212. hidden already made 10 million so far given its 25 mill budget its off to good start

    Like

  213. hidden has beaten star wars for the top spot. People are predicting hidden will do well

    Like

  214. i know this is premature but hidden has already made 24 mill which given its budget is great. its number 2 behind star wars its predicted to do well

    Like

  215. lebeau I know you think its too early to say but you can at least admit its off to good start 24 miill in its 3rd day and its number 2 at box office plus it has 25 mill budget I think things are looking good

    Like

  216. not sure if it will be a hit but it should at least break even . Plus this will be great counter balance to kevin last dud criminal

    Like

    • At this stage of Costner’s career, he’s a supporting actor and not a lead. Box office is nice, but not essential. If the movie is a hit, it won’t give his career much of a boost. If it hac flopped, it wouldn’t have hurt him. This is kind of the bonus round of his career.

      Like

  217. supporting roles do not help as much as lead but a supporting role in a hit still does help actors career especially one like kevin who leading career dried up.kevin is long overdue for hits it would be good to attach his name to hits Michael caine had a string if supporting hits after ciderhouse rules are you saying all those supporting hits he was one did nothing for his career would same go for morgan freeman who mostly in supporting hits.

    Like

    • I’m saying those hits didn’t make Caine a leading man. It looks like Hidden Figures will do well. It may even get some awards. Those are all good things. But at the end of the day, it probably won’t change much for Kevin Costner.

      Like

  218. it might lead to more supporting roles in top film . |Not sure if anyone follows Michael caine career like I do since I am huge fan but before cider house his career was dead. then after he won Oscar for it it lead to a lot of supporting roles in hit same might happened to kevin. in fact Michael caine used to a leading man then flops hurt his career which turned him into character actorl. in fact if you made this blog in 90s caine would be a great candate lebeau cause his career was derailed at one point. caine career is similar to cage one year he wins Oscar then one year he makes an silly flop and like cage caine was assocated with flops

    Like

    • It could lead to more supporting roles. But I don’t think he’s having trouble getting those. If you are looking for an All American mentor figure, Costner is at the top of the list.

      There’s just not much at stake for him at this point in his career. He’s going to keep working as long as he wants to. He’ll never be a box office draw again, but he’ll probably give some memorable performances in some good movies.

      Like

  219. i meant supporting roles in high profile films like Michael caine

    Like

  220. connery had a supporting role in untouchables and it lead to big box office hits. if connery can become a box office draw again in late age so can anyone. in fact him and jack Nicholson are only actors I can think of that where drawing huge lead hits in their 70s

    Like

    • Connery’s comeback was a rarity. You can’t expect something like that to happen. Even if Costner won Best Supporting Actor, it probably wouldn’t come anywhere close to the career boost Connery’s win gave him.

      You have to remember that during his 007 days, Connery was a massive movie star. Then in the 70s and much of the 80s, he was written off. Untouchables did two things. One, it reminded people that they liked Sean Connerya dn two it showed them that he wasn’t just James Bond. They started taking him seriously. People already take Kevin Costner seriously. He’s won his Oscars. A late career Oscar for Best Supporting will look nice on his mantle, but it won’t make him a leading man again. Those days are past.

      Like

  221. connery had gotten race review for his acting before untouchable like in the name of the rose and man who would be king maybe a better example liam nesson who became a huge draw over 50 after success of taken it is rarity but actors at older age can still become draws theres hope for all. lets not forget Keaton had his huge leading comeback over 60 with birdman and thanks to that he will gain more leads . Costner just needs his birdman

    Like

  222. hidden is number 1 second week . I know this wont make keivn more powerful but it will add another hit on kevin resume which is good. Have supporting role in hit beats lead in postman. I think this will gain best picture . so even thought it wont make dunst and Costner huge stars it looks good on both their resume

    Like

  223. lebeau do u think hidden will reach the 100 dollar mark

    Like

  224. it has plenty of time to be hit been out for 2 weeks

    Like

    • It’s a hit already. It beat Star Wars last weekend and exceeded expectations this week. It has a very high Cinemascore and great reviews. It’s a hit, you can relax. 😉

      Like

  225. its only been out for 2 weeks it cant be a hit it only made 40 mill off 25 mill budget how can it be considered a hit already we have to wait if it make more. what do u think of it best picture chance best supporting actress chance and chance for Costner to snag best supporting actor

    Like

    • You have to know by now that I don’t have any thoughts on Oscars at this point. It’s going to a success. People like it. We’ll see about awards when they give them out.

      Like

  226. but xxx sequel is coming out it could end up dropping big lots of movie do good first weeks then drop big time

    Like

  227. patriot day scored a good cinemascore rating and it not doing do well now

    Like

    • I don’t know how it stacks up but Patriot’s Day didn’t catch on. Hidden Figures did. Audiences will keep coming. I promise, it will do fine. It may get some nominations and may even win. We’ll see what happens when it happens.

      Like

  228. I assume given mark bankability and the fact hes pretty consistent the movie would be a huge hit, I also assumed live by night which is also not doing well so would do well because ben last movie he directed and acted in argo and town where hits

    Like

  229. looks like your right hidden is a hit not an official comeback but ill call it a win since he attached his name to a hit. for a while I thought he would end up like nic cage lol

    Like

  230. karl is obviously ben Affleck fan boy lol cant admit his movie is bombing

    Like

  231. lol its hard to tell on the internet.variety has kevin as front runner for best supporting actor but I think he will get snubbed. the movie has better chance for getting best picture nom even best supporting act but not nod for kevin

    Like

  232. Why Hollywood won’t cast Dane Cook anymore

    http://www.looper.com/37880/hollywood-wont-cast-dane-cook-anymore/

    His turn to drama didn’t pan out

    While Dan in Real Life was a modest success, critics singled out Steve Carell’s lead role over Cook’s supporting turn. And his role opposite Kevin Costner in the serial killer flick Mr. Brooks didn’t exactly wow critics either, with Stereogum saying that Cook’s performance as an unhinged photographer was “admittedly funnier than any of his comedic performances.”

    Like

  233. hidden is set to make over 80 mill this sunday it is set to reach 100 mill mark next month

    Like

  234. lol I guess me getting excited early for hidden figures was not a waste since it t turned out to be a box office hit anyways

    Like

    • If you liked the movie, that’s all that matters. Anything else is gravy.

      Like

    • No it wasn’t; I wasn’t sure how it would do, but I never thought it would be #1 at the Box Office for two weeks. It’s clear Kevin Costner’s decision to be a part of this film was a good one, and sometimes this is all that it comes down to.

      Like

  235. I never saw hidden and have intention to does not interest me. you make good point but sometimes its annoying how great movies go under the radar while crap like transformers make millions. BUt if a person likes a movie they wont care if a movie does well. there are lots of flicks I liked that flopped like wonder boys ,big Lebowski ,glengarry glass rose and regarding henry. the fact that those flops do not make me like them less. I Basically just keep track of Costner career cause he could use the hits more then any actor i know u mentioned before hits are not important to him cause its bonus round but lol it would be nice if Costner could at least put his name on films that people watch. it seems after bodyguard he only had 2 hits man of steel and hidden figures 2 of which where over 20 years after bodyguard

    Like

  236. i might watch it if its on tv but i wont drag myself to theatre to watch . i love a lot of kevin movies even some of his that flopped like 13 days . I just kept track of this because it had a lot of potential to be a hit and the idea of kevin being in a hit meant a lot to me.

    Like

  237. the other movies of his i did think would be a hit i did want to see though like black and white. i think black and white was good not great but Costner was defiantly Oscar worthy

    Like

  238. sounds like a good rules lol lebeau. i do want to see Costner molly game .

    Like

  239. I never thought it would be a hit until I found out it was given limited release to qualify for Oscar. I had no idea it would be number 1 for 2 weeks I thought it would be a modest like McFarland.it had a McFarland type vibe to it. its the smartest move kevin made since doing man of steel . I use to think turning down quienten twice was dumb move but he was able to land supporting hit in a big movie so I guess he did not need quienten. with the success of man of steel and hidden figures I guess he wiped away the failure of postman and waterworld he is my 2nd favourite actor I grew up on his movies. its good he is at least appearing in movies people care about .

    Like

    • More than anything, “Waterworld” (which I actually think is alright) and “The Postman” (don’t think it’s alright) were public relations disasters for Costner, but this phase of his career is looking awful good.

      Like

  240. I think those 2 films where decent, not bad or good but alright. that not nearly as bad as their reputation but I would not go out my to see those flicks in theatre . they would be ok for viewing on tv if bored. Michael caine went the character actor phase in his 60s like Costner and he started appearing in a lot of hits did some of his best work too Costner can go that route which is good,

    Like

  241. he never got the john Travolta /ben Affleck/Michael Keaton or even the mickey Rourke type comeback but he might be doing more high profile work then he did in the the 2000s. hidden figures is probably a bigger comeback then man of steel because it was both critical and commercial success

    Like

    • “Man of Steel” ended up being disliked by quite a few people, so yeah, there isn’t that type of derision or divisiveness for “Hidden Figures”; it’s a better spot for him.

      Like

  242. yes but man of steel was first time he had his name attached to a film that made money since the body guard which despite its box office success was not well loved by critics

    Like

  243. hidden got best picture nom looks like a win for kevin

    Like

  244. leebau any chance hanks and Costner will ever make a movie together lol . it would be my dream come I actually wrote a script involving both of them about a guy who has affair with his therapist wife. Costner plays patient hanks therapist

    Like

  245. this flick is first time Costner been in a movie that is both critically acclaimed box office hit since jfk. his last 2 box office hits bodyguard and man of steel both got bad reviews

    Like

    • “JFK”? That was when the 1990’s was still acting like the 1980’s and I was in 8th grade at Hoover Middle School (Hoover sucked). Costner was HOT HOT HOT back then career-wise. It is tough to simultaneously please critics and audiences while making money, while at the same time being pleased with the project you worked on. Scoring all four of those is quite a coup.

      Like

  246. yes its sad how fall Costner fell but I must he is doing much better now then he was doing from mid 90s to the 2000s. it is hard to please critics and audiences . its tough to stay on top forever. look at deniro and pacino there not as bankable as they used to be. iam guess since u where 14 in 1991 when jfk came out iam guessing u r 39 now. people are sheep Costner makes hits they kiss ass then he makes 2 flops all of sudden he was never a good actor. Costner is just talented now as he was in heyday . the way I see it Costner felt after dances with wolves he accomplished all he could and did movies he wanted to do. not cared if he was on top or not

    Like

    • Your guess is right with my age, and yeah, it shouldn’t be expected that performers will continue have the same type of success that they had at their peak. In Costner’s case, he was in control of the projects in which critics and audiences went sour on, but still, it isn’t like when those films were shot he thought, “Audiences will hate this”. It’s like what the one football coach names John McKay said about certain plays that didn’t work: “It isn’t like you draw up a play a say, ‘Now, this will NOT work”.

      Like

  247. some movies look better on paper then screen. with Costner he tried straying away from family territory by doing dark stuff like a perfect word while critics loved it audience turned away. by the time he went back to the genre that made him popular audience grew tired of him .the success of dances must gave him an ego made him think he could do anything which what made him do things like postman. he tripped over his own ego. hidden figures is in my opnino is the kind of film he should made after postman.

    Like

    • In hindsight, yeah, a film like that would’ve been better, but I guess how it all played out was inevitable, and not at all uncommon.

      Like

  248. like I said dances was a curse in disguise for him he started thinking he could do no wrong. dances was predicted to flop before it started . there where reports about going over budget Costner had to put in his own money for the rest. newspaper started duddibg it kevin gate. but when it came out Costner put those naysayers to shame. he is humble now . I can tell you Costner is in his heyday would never dare to take supporting roles like hidden figures. Costner is not first guy to let fame get to his head its common thing in Hollywood. I remember when I was 11 there was early hype 13 days would be his comeback it got great review like hidden it was given limited realease dec and wide jane to qualify for Oscars. however not only did it tank in box office it was Oscar snubbed. I truly think it was Oscar worthy

    Like

    • A curse in disguise, I think that’s an accurate way to put it. It’s like how sometimes are strengths are our weaknesses, and for performers sometimes they think what has been successful before (heck, that common in Hollywood overall) will continue the work. Sometime it’s tough to gauge if that’s what the audience wants to see, because sometimes they want more of the same, or want to move on. I guess it’s pretty difficult pleasing a bunch of strangers:-)

      Like

  249. i think after the failure of waterworld it should strayed Costner away post apoylipse films. he turned down air forces one which was bad move. I heard he even turned down Apollo 13 which was bad move but he did hidden figures so made up for it. iam actualy surprised Costner never appeared in ron howard flick like hanks he makes a lot of feel good inspirational type just like hanks .. their career are similar I could picture them in eachother roles. hanks was even considered for field of dreams and jfk. Costner was considered for private ryan. they both play everyman type films. hanks and Costner tend to make similar films to each other.

    Like