Horizon

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.

It's not bad. It's just disjointed. It fails on a lot of levels. I think many people will enjoy it. I personally felt disappointment as I was hoping for a cinematic epic western. It felt like it belonged on tv as a miniseries in the late 90's. As much as people say there were cinematic shots, I didn't see anything that gave me that vibe. Medium shot after medium shot. This will be just as enjoyable on your home tv and you won't miss the big screen as much as say Dune or Oppenheimer. The characters. So. Many. Characters. We get barely any character development. Lots of great actors yes, but they are thrown at you left and right. It is also clear that there is probably 3 hours of deleted scenes. So many things happen with zero context. Characters fall in love out of nowhere. They wind up together out of nowhere. They cry for other characters out of nowhere. Characters show up out of nowhere. Who's a protagonist? Who's an antagonist? Some of the characters are over the top and fun, reminding me of classic western characters, but they feel silly here. The music is...fine....nothing really moving though, it's just there. It also feels too clean. Like either everyone is in very new costumes and clean and air conditioned or they are really really dirty, but nowhere in between. Remember when everyone was shiny from sweat and real flies flew around on screen? Early on I just kept thinking...something is off. Then there's the end. It's Part 1, but instead of a cliffhanger and a "to be continued" we cut straight into the longest montage of cut scenes from the next movie(s) showing way too much...for a movie we barely have to wait for. It comes out in 2 months. All that said, I'm invested in the story and I want to see how it unfolds. There is a good story and good characters here, but this would have been much better as a series on streaming where they could take time with everything. 6/10. (Like Dune, maybe Part 2 will change my rating)

The good: -Great cinematography and use of scenery.

-Good suspense and action in the first half- hour.

-Good film score to compliment the scenes.

-Not sugar coating or politicizing the conflict with the Native Americans.

The bad: -Juggling different storylines doesn't see to be Kevin Costner's strong point. The script was all over the place. I wasn't sure what the montage at the end of the movie was trying to accomplish. It seemed to appear all of a sudden and, just like the script, jumped all over the place. Was I being shown a flash forward? A preview of the upcoming movies? It just seemed really pasted together.

-Kevin Costner seems to have jumped ship from Yellowstone to work on the epic set of films and in doing so, seems to be trying to "one up" Taylor Sheridan's series 1883 and 1923. Not sure what Kevin Costner needs to prove, but it seems like with this set of films, he's trying to prove himself to be the better story teller. In my opinion he's no better or worse than T. S. but leaving a T. V. series where you're a major character with major loose ends to tie up just to create a similar project smells a tad bit petty. This film almost seems like K. C. has bit off more than he can chew. This is not the way to engage theatre goers to invest in a four set of three hour films.

Visually its amazing, as you would expect from A western movie.

It has some great themes and plot lines but even though its part one and 3 hours long it feels rushed and crammed in. Pacing was all over the place, characters teleport between places and times and feels like chunks were left out.

There are parts of the story when in one scene people are doing something, then the next scene seems like a year later with no explanations.

As a story telling vehicle its all over the place.

The cast is great,

The end montage to preview the next movie was just ridiculous.

Still looking forward to seeing where it goes but it really feels like a TV series joined together, with the odd part of an episode left out.

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

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

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

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