Change Your Image
scottross
Reviews
Horizon: An American Saga - Chapter 1 (2024)
Good, But Not Great (So Far)
I'm a massive fan of the Western genre, so when I heard that Costner was making this, I couldn't have been more excited. I pre-purchased tickets the day they went on sale. I knew this was going to be Part 1 of a four-part epic, so I fully expected that the story's development would be different than a typical film. Considering that, I was relatively disappointed in this first installment. Without giving any spoilers, here's the context for the whole review: The movie sets up multiple storylines that I expect will converge over the course of the remaining three installments. Each storyline focuses on a different aspect of Western expansion. That said, here's what I liked and was disappointed by.
Let's start with the good.
The subtitle of this film is "An American Saga." It is clear that Costner intends this to be precisely that. The storylines created in this first episode touch on virtually every aspect of Western expansion and the birth of America as we know it today. You have both sides of the conflict between the settlers moving west and the native population already occupying those territories. You have the military and the civil war. You have the "Wild West" component where a specific type of man was drawn to the lawless environs that would allow him to pursue his vices virtually unrestrained. And you have the appetite to take more and profit more, which is such a factor in history.
The story does an excellent job of showing just how difficult life was for virtually everyone in that ecosystem. It adeptly demonstrates the brutality, vulnerability to the elements and conditions, and the sheer amount of work required to live in the West. There are also quite a few subtle examples of very accurate aspects of history and life in the West that show a great deal of attention to detail.
The costumes, sets, and visuals are all what you would expect out of a great western.
Most importantly, the story is interesting. I am interested in what happens moving forward. And the story is unique, which is saying a lot given the current state of Hollywood, where 90% of films being released are just reboots of existing brands and stories we've already seen.
Having said all that, here's why I was disappointed.
To start, the writing could be better. Much of the dialogue is contrived, and several conflicts don't make much sense. In addition, the acting could be better too. Maybe it's the scripts they had to work with, but many actors seem like actors. That might sound weird. What I mean is that you look at them as an actor playing a part in a western rather than buy into them as the character they are playing.
In addition, some of the plot points are hard to follow. It's unclear why characters are making the decisions or why the story took the turn it did. Some characters appear out of nowhere and cause a significant turn of events that don't have rhyme or reason. There are also substantial jumps in time, which by themselves don't bother me. Still, in these cases, it's not obvious that significant time has passed or why the character you just saw in a previous scene is now making the choices they are making with some considerable time that's happened between scenes. (With all of this, I must be purposefully nebulous to avoid spoilers.)
The third aspect that disappointed me was the look of the film. Westerns are known for their epic, cinematic quality. They have a color grading that screams, "Big Feature Film." This movie does not. It looks more like an episode of Yellowstone than a feature film. Also, for fans of the Western genre, those quintessential beautiful landscape shots that make the land a character unto itself are half of the enjoyment. This film doesn't do that. You have a few brief wide shots. But this takes place in Arizona, Wyoming, Montana, and Kansas, giving ample opportunity for gorgeous panoramas. But we don't.
I am reserving judgment until I see the remaining three installments. I was so excited to see a 10 out of 10. Instead, I got a solid 6.8. So I'm rounding up and giving this a 7. Let's hope the remaining three bring up the average and this becomes the film for the ages that I know Costner wanted it to be.
The Old Way (2023)
Which is worse? The writing or the acting?
This movie is like a train wreck in slow motion. The writing? Total disaster. It's like a kid scribbled down some Western clichés and called it a day. Zero originality, zero depth - just a mishmash of tired ideas.
The movie straight-up steals plot elements from classic Westerns without even trying to put a fresh spin on them. It's the laziest remix ever, leaving you more bored than entertained.
Now, Nicolas Cage... bless his heart, but his performance is cringe central. It's like he's sleepwalking through the role, with all the nuance of a cardboard cutout. Such a shame to see a talent like Cage wasted on this mess.
In a nutshell, "The Old Way" is a forgettable flick that misses the mark big time. If you're looking for quality entertainment, steer clear of this one.
Joe Pickett (2021)
Season 2 Jumps the Shark
Season 1 was pretty good. Season 2 completely insults your intelligence. It relies on the old trope of making everyone an idiot in order to create drama. Joe Picket is nearly killed looking for a hunter that was killed on the mountain. And when he tells the police he was attacked by brothers living on the mountain they decide he made it up even though they're standing underneath the hanging dead body that Pickett found. Everything from there just grows more frustrating. Keep in mind the same sheriff who blew it in season one and led to the deaths of several people is still the sheriff and the deputy who's one of the dumbest characters in the history of TV is still the deputy but with somehow more influence.
The writers are just insulting their viewers. Don't waste your time.
Il processo (2019)
Ultra Slow Plot Where Every Character Is An Idiot
I don't get the 9 & 10 star reviews. This isn't CLOSE to a brilliant show. Both the prosecutor and defense lawyer are bumbling idiots who overlook evidence, fail to examine key aspects of the case, and generally bungle their way through the trial.
The whole show moves slow as molasses.
The courtroom scenes are primarily spent with the defense lawyer monologuing instead of asking questions of witnesses which would never be allowed in a court room and the prosecutor and judge just sit there.
There are massive plot holes. Here's just a few...
- The prosecution doesn't take into evidence the clothing worn by the defendant on the night of the murder. (Would never happen)
- The homicide investigators don't interview the neighbor of the victim who was known to stalk her. (All neighbors would have been interviewed.)
- The prosecution "loses" a box of evidence until the end of the show. (All evidence is catalogued. There's no need to know what's in a particular box)
- Speaking of that missing box... this gets even more outlandish. They supposedly have the defendants coin purse with a receipt in it but they don't have her clothing. ??? What? And they never opened the coin purse to see what was inside? It just went in a box?
- the moment the prosecutor learned a PI was following and photographing her and her ex she didn't do anything to ensure the secret about her being the mother was protected. She didn't change her behavior at all. (Is she that dumb?)
- even though the defense showed that the police officer had touched the cigarette butt, it doesn't change the fact that it was her DNA and her brand. The prosecution didn't counter or call back the forensics expert to validate that the touching by the cop wouldn't invalidate the results of the DNA test.
The biggest problem is that when you get all the way to the end you have to rely on some weird quirk of the Italian legal system that allows someone to be tried again for the same crime which isn't possible in America. And we're left without a conclusion.
Pressure Cooker (2023)
This Series is a Joke Where The Cooking Means Nothing!
This is like an MTV "reality" show where the drama and ability to manipulate other people is what matters. The food is almost always judged by other contestants and even when it's not, the worst food doesn't mean someone goes home. Instead, there's still a vote by contestants for who leaves.
SPOILER ALERT!!!
The last episode made me furious. The guy that was clearly the best chef through the entire series loses because the finale was judged by all the contestant who had been eliminated. They voted for the opponent who was a clearly inferior chef. It was about pity and popularity rather than the execution of the food.
Don't waste your time with this trash.