Why did he ever have a "career"? He is a stiff, uncharismatic and flat-out wooden actor with absolutely no screen presence. Why was he so successful for a while and what took people so long to catch on to the fact that he sucks? What were people thinking of? The ONLY role he shows ANY life at all in is in "Silverado". He LITERALLY played a corpse in "The Big Chill"--perhaps his most fitting role. And his "Louisiana drawl for the role of Jim Garrison in "JFK" was an embarrassment (never mind the fact that Jim Garrison HAD no such drawl and was, in fact, from CHICAGO). So what's the deal? Anyone want to defend Costner? I really don't get it.
I've quite enjoyed Costner on many occasions. I sometimes find him charming and interesting. I've loved 13 Days, Open Range, For Love Of The Game, Dances With Wolves and The Untouchables and really liked Tin Cup, JFK and Bull Durham. That's not a bad string of flicks. Sure, he's had at least an equal amount of things I didn't like or just don't care about and haven't seen, but he's made enough decent movies that I'd say I like him.
I loved "The Untouchables" but I thought Costner was a weak link. Even so, his earnest "stiffness" seemed to suit the character so his performance didn't derail the film. I mentioned this because I was visiting my parents yesterday and my mother was watching "The Bodyguard" and so I was forced to endure a large chunk of it. While watching it though, I noticed that, strangely enough, in a number of scenes Whitney (Hand Me the Crack Pipe) Houston was, frankly, acting Costner off the screen. Now, she sucked (or blew, depending on your perspective) in a number of other scenes so I couldn't resolve that she's just some unheralded brilliant actor. I suddenly realized that Costner, well, pretty much SUCKS in almost everything he's ever done. Same stiffness, same grinding earnestness, same boring, expressionless face. Even in stuff like "The Untouchables" or "No Way Out" (another GOOD Costner film) you really could argue the movie works in SPITE of him and not because of him. One in a while he does do something, like say, "Field of Dreams" wherein the character suits his performance style but that really almost suggests more that he's a character actor masquerading as a lead performer.
I generally don't like Costner, especially when he trying to play really masculine roles. He didn't ruin "The Untouchables", assuming Elliot Ness was a whiney simpering bitch. Whatever damage Kevin did inflict on this movie was offset by the greatness of Sean Connery's "Jimmy Malone". I must say, I actually liked Costner's performance in "Open Range". This was particularly shocking since the part required him to be seen as somewhat of a tough guy. He also wasn't bad in Bull Durham. His best movie was Field Of Dreams, IMO. He is best playing sensitive, caring, nice guys.
I like him in Bull Durham, Field of Dreams and No Way Out. I tolerate him in Untouchables (Connery carried the movie) and Robin Hood (Freeman carried that one). The rest? Bleah.
Yes it was, but I did like Costner as the righteous young cop who is learning from the 'master.' (Andy Garcia and Charles Martin Smith weren't too bad either)... On the other hand: 'Waterworld' was weak (although, Jeanne Tripplehorn was sexy)....'The Postman' was corny--although, I think I had a crush on an actress, which is why I watched it--and I still want to see 'Open Range.' I don't care for The Bodyguard; didn't care for the Whitney Houston song....(And IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII will always love YOOUUUUU aaaaa....) Oh, my head... *rubs temples* With all that said, I'm not a big Costner fan...
I don't have a problem with him. He's not the all end all of American actors, but he's certainly capable. Plus he did Open Range which was the best western in a long time.
He's a good looking guy with some screen presence. That's enough to get you something of an acting career.
It looks like most of you here have not seen 'Mr. Brooks', which I consider Costner's best acting so far. His work was on par with Kevin Spacey. Course, then again, Costner usually does not take those kinds of roles. Costner is an actor that fits well in some roles, but not others. He does have a danger of becoming stiff and a little didactic. He performs really well in baseball/sports movies and westerns, although I had a problem liking his character in the film, 'Wyatt Earp'. And films like 'The Untouchables', 'No Way Out', 'Bull Durham', and 'JFK' were pretty good. And to be fair about his failures, true he could not do a British accent, but 'Robin Hood Prince of Thieves' was entertaining enough. And although he get's slammed for 'The Postman', it actually was a decent film with a good message and ending. It just needed about 20 or so minutes trimmed form the film to pick up the pace.
To me Costner is just fairly bland. I neither like nor dislike him; he's just sort of.....there. He is what the the material is--nothing more, nothing less. He definitely has the All-American look and voice, which makes him completely wrong for Robin Hood or fantasy/Sci Fi films like The Postman & Waterworld, but perfect for Bull Durham, Dances with Wolves and Field of Dreams. He really doesn't have the gravitas, the dramatic weight to really play exotic or powerful characters. He's best playing the Everyman parts, the role of the typical man struggling to get by.
I'm feeling sleepy right now, just thinking about it.... But truthfully, though, if was a concept that appealed to me, I might give it a chance... Too, it depends on who else is in the film.... Keanu Reeves was surrounded by Fishbourne, Hugo Weaving and Carrie-Ann Moss looking sexy in tight leather one-piece(I don't like the way she looked in the sequels; I didn't even like the sequels come to think of it)and a cool concept, in the first Matrix film. As aforementioned, Costner had Connery in 'The Untouchables'...as well as DeNiro...
I'd have to say DeNiro was the most underwhelming part of The Untouchables. The role was so broadly written that anyone could've played it, including original choice Bob Hoskins. Fun fact: They wanted Don Johnson to play Ness, but he wanted to play Capone, so no deal was ever made. Anyone watch the short-lived TV series The Untouchables with Tom Amandes, John Rhys-Davies and three glorified extras (including David James Elliott) going after a Capone (William Forsythe) who got more screen time and development than the non-Ness Untouchables put together?
I suggest that you all see Dragonfly if you haven't before. I don't really care much about Costner otherwise but I thought that he did really well in that film. You can really sense his desperation as the movie goes along and by the end you're feeling just as anxious as he is to get some answers. Besides his role it's just a great film anyway.
I did watch that Forsythe Untouchables show and I liked it back in the day. I don't think Costner was all that bad in his heyday, but I think he got a bit ahead of himself and started making bloated movies that spent much of the goodwill he had built up with moviegoers. My favorites: Untouchables Robin Hood Thirteen Days
Have you guys actually gone back and watched Robin Hood? I used to think it was great, too, but then I watched it again for the first time in, like, a decade or something...terrible film. Alan Rickman is still great, but overall it's a horrible, dated, cheap looking film.