Hacker Cinema
Dances with Wolves
1990 · Film · 181 min
Directed by Kevin Costner
Wounded Civil War soldier John Dunbar tries to commit suicide—and becomes a hero instead. As a reward, he's assigned to his dream post, a remote junction on the Western frontier, and soon makes unlikely friends with the local Sioux tribe.
4 positive1 negative9 neutralfrom 14 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
14 comments on Hacker News
great read, thanks!
> No, the Prairie is a brutal Mad Max patriarchy
this is the hard truth about tribal societies - a peaceful tribe is rare because they're at risk of being wiped out in a single day by an experienced warfaring tribe. I wish our schools taught the truth, rather than dancing around it and showing those optimistic "Dances with wolves" type films that glorify the tribal lifestyle.
I can't believe I'm not seeing any Guy Ritchie anywhere. Particularly Snatch, but Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels too.
And almost anything with Brad Pitt. Lots of votes for Fight Club, but what about Legends of the Fall, A River Runs Through It, 12 Monkeys, or Cool World?
And now that I'm thinking about it, Dances With Wolves. Lonesome Dove TV miniseries. Braveheart. The Departed. Lots more, I'm sure.
As if the 'plot' of Avatar wasn't already entirely derivative of earlier films like Dances with Wolves and Fern Gully, it turns out they ripped off their visual aesthetic from Roger Dean as well. James Cameron should be ashamed of not giving credit to the earlier works who so heavily inspired his.
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with your list, even though some of those are mediocre at best, but yeah I did mean per year, and limited to Hollywood (Parasite for instance not counting). And no, ok, I will also straight up disagree with the second Knives out Movie which I thought was absolute trash. A perfect example of poor storytelling and the form over substance of modern cinema.
But just taking say 1992 you have Last of the Mohicans, The Unforgiven, My Cousin Vinny, Malcolm X, Bad Lieutenant, Scent of a Woman, Reservoir Dogs, Dracula, Chaplin.
And then a bunch of fun schlomp like Arizona Dream, Basic Instinct, Sister Act, Army of Darkness, Home Alone 2, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, The Mighty Ducks, Wayne’s World.
These are all undoubtedly great movies.
And then another huge bunch of watchable stuff easily comparable to some of your mentions like Watcher or High Life.
And 1992 is not an outlier.
In 1993 you have Jurrasic Park, Groundhog Day, Whats Eating Gilbert Grape, Scindlers List, Meanace 2 Society, Alive, Dazed and Confused, Falling Down, In The Name of The Father, True Romance, Demolition Man, Carlitos Way, The Secret Garden, Philadelphia, A Perfect Workd, Cool Runnings, Short Cuts.
In 1991 Silence of The Lambs, Ternimator 2, JFK, Point Break, Thelma and Louise, Boyz in the Hood, The Doors, My Own Private Idaho, Barton Fink, The Fisher King, Naked Lunch.
In 1990 Goodfellas, Hunt for Red October, Total Recall, Edward Scissorhands, Home Alone, Godfather 3, Dances with Wolves, Tremors, Back to the Future 3, Awakenings, The Witches, Wild at Heart, Jacobs Ladder, Nikita, Slacker, Millers Crossing.
And the quality difference is massive too, not just somewhat better. Like just Millers Crossing is miles better than anything that has been made in the last 5 years, and I’m picking at random.
In 1994 Shawshank Redemption, Pulp Fiction, Forrest Gump, The Lion King, Speed, Ace Ventura, Dumb and Dumber, Stargate, Natural Born Killers, The Crow, Clercs, Maverick, Ed Wood, In the Mouth of Madness, Interview With The Vampire.
I could go on.
And this is not even talking about how the 80s is a better decade for cinema, or how the 70s is the peak of the power of the author with far more experimental, artistic, and substantial productions.
Has quality declined? Yes. Massively. Humongously. Stupendously.
> concept of American Indians who wouldn't fit into a John Wayne movie doesn't cross Americans' minds
“Dances With Wolves”, nominated for 12 Academy awards and won 7. Guess you missed that one.
The Oscars often don't agree with critics, either. I don't think anyone had Ordinary People, Dances with Wolves, Titanic, Shakespeare in Love, Crash, Green Book, even CODA at #1 on their year-end best of list. Best Picture is usually going to favor something that is at least serious enough that the voters don't feel like children for loving it, i.e. they're never going to award a tentpole or franchise entry, sci-fi, fantasy, horror genre-type stuff will only very rarely even be considered, but they're also going to favor relatively inoffensive, unchallenging, often feel good work that isn't particularly novel or ground-breaking, which is more what critics will lean toward. They also have a tendency to reward message movies and films about filmmaking and Hollywood itself, even if no one likes them.
Having seen both, Ordinary People is definitely the better movie.
Goodfellas vs Dances With Wolves: A tie. Sorry, there really are people who really liked Dances With Wolves. I myself saw it again after over 20 years recently, and it's still great in my older age. Most of the criticism I've seen of it is flawed. From an artistic standpoint, it beats Goodfellas hands down - but Goodfellas is much more entertaining.
Does anybody else remember McDonalds selling inexpensive VHS copies of popular movies like "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" with an additional food purchase, back when movies still cost a fortune?
>McDonald's Corp. will... sell Dances With Wolves for a bargain price.
As part of a special holiday promotion, McDonald's will sell the Oscar-winning movie for $7.99 with the purchase of a sandwich - at a time when video stores are selling it for its original list price, $99.98.
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-xpm-1992-11-29-9211261312-story.html
They sold several movies before "priced to own" movies became mainstream.
https://letterboxd.com/travissmcclain/list/mcdonalds-vhs-promotions/detail/
I thought of Dances with Wolves as a Film where I enjoyed its length. But then again, watched it at home over the course of three evenings...
> Then there's "it's all remakes now"—but 1) it's not,
It really is, if by "remake" you mean all ways of leveraging existing IP. Here are the top ten box office films of 2020:
* Bad Boys for Life (sequel) * Sonic the Hedgehog (videogame) * Birds of Prey (comic book) * Dolittle (book) * The Invisible Man (book) * The Call of the Wild (book) * Onward (original) * The Croods: A New Age (sequel) * Tenet (original) * Wonder Woman 1984 (sequal, comic book)
Two originals. Now go back 20 years:
* Mission: Impossible 2 (sequel) * Gladiator (book) * Cast Away (original) * What Women Want (original) * Dinosaur (original) * How the Grinch Stole Christmas (book) * Meet the Parents (remake) * The Perfect Storm (book) * X-Men (comic book) * What Lies Beneath (original)
Four originals. Go back another 10 years:
* Ghost (original) * Home Alone (original) * Pretty Woman (original) * Dances with Wolves (book) * Total Recall (short story) * Back to the Future Part III (sequel) * Die Hard 2 (sequel) * Presumed Innocent (book) * Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (comic book) * Kindergarten Cop (original)
Five originals. Another ten years to 1980:
* The Empire Strikes Back (sequel) * 9 to 5 (original) * Stir Crazy (original) * Airplane! (original) * Any Which Way You Can (sequel) * Private Benjamin (original) * Coal Miner's Daughter (original) * Smokey and the Bandit II (sequel) * The Blue Lagoon (book) * The Blues Brothers (SNL sketch)
Five originals again. I'm going by top box-office gross here because I think that's a good proxy for what is successful. You can look at other years, but there is a very clear (but not overwhelming) trend towards movies based on familiar content. It's not clear whether studios are leading audiences or vice versa. Probably some iterative process of both.
There's also a clear trend away from dramas. I think that's because drama (and non-slapstick comedies) tend to rely heavily on specific cultural norms for their effect which makes them translate poorly. There is a very clear trend especially in the last decade or so of Hollywood focusing on movies that will also do well in China in particular.
Not OP, but I just recently watched Dances with Wolves a week or so ago and had almost an identical thought to what OP posted. I have some modern favorites of course, but it seems like I enjoy my modern favorites because it is a "mental tease". They don't really illicit emotional connections though. However, it is totally possible I'm just watching the wrong movies. Some modern favorites are the new Blade Runner, Ex Machina.... there is a big list.
There are of course exceptions. I also recently watched 1917 and I thought that was one of the best films I'd ever seen. In addition to being an action film it definitely felt emotional.
I don't see the public interest angle here. This is merely entertainment. If even entertainment is something the government should be butting into because of unspecified "public interest" considerations, then what is outside the government's role?
Goodfellas, Dances with Wolves, Edward Scissorhands, Total Recall, Ghost, the Hunt for Red October, Back to the Future III, Pretty Woman, and the Godfather Part III were all released in 1990, 29 years ago. These were all created by a group of individuals, and studios spent millions of dollars paying those people to make those movies. The government had nothing to do with creating any of those movies. Why should the government be able to take those movies and release them for free?
The Forbes author explained it well on page 2:
"To use an analogy I’ve drawn on before, the gap between Tiny Tower and Sim Tower might be the difference between James Cameron‘s sci-fi Avatar and the similarly themed Dances with Wolves. However, the space between Tiny Tower and Zynga’s Dream Heights would be the difference between Dances with Wolves and another film set in the 1800s about Native Americans with the exact same plot, lookalike actors and titled 'Cavorting with Bears.'"
5. Saw it in 3D on a non-IMAX screen. I know enough to know that I'm supposed to be impressed by the CGI in the skin/eyes of the Na'vi and other creatures. And given that I'm supposed to know that, they (generally) succeeded. The 3D wasn't really any different than any other Real 3D movie, and I really didn't see any difference in the quality of the CGI landscapes versus LoTR or even Jurassic Park (which were just arial shots). The story, of course, is Dances with Wolves in Space.
I wish I went to Up in the Air instead.
As to the ZOMG: Glengarry Glen Ross could have been filmed in the 1930s, but it's one of the best films in my lifetime. To say that Avatar changes movies forever is insane.