Good for you,Lokutus. This website we love is called Filmscoremonthly.com. It is not called Televisionscorererunmonthly. Take our advise… leave the boobtube behind and GO TO THE MOVIES.
Interesting movie. Can't say I loved it but I found a lot of the events in the frames of the primary stories to be much more compelling than the primary cast we follow in these disparate elements. I heard in the score that Debney is still beholden to his temp tracks overlords. I think a lot here will quite like the score for what it is and it works to the picture though I found it predictable.
Good for you,Lokutus. This website we love is called Filmscoremonthly.com. It is not called Televisionscorererunmonthly. Take our advise… leave the boobtube behind and GO TO THE MOVIES.
The name of his now defunct label, which also released … television scores. It's a catch-all name. A little wordy for Film and Television Scores Monthly (and lacks the memorable short hand "FSM").
Good for you,Lokutus. This website we love is called Filmscoremonthly.com. It is not called Televisionscorererunmonthly. Take our advise… leave the boobtube behind and GO TO THE MOVIES.
The name of his now defunct label, which also released … television scores. It's a catch-all name. A little wordy for Film and Television Scores Monthly (and lacks the memorable short hand "FSM").
Yes. And I find many of today's prestige television series far superior to most of today's movies.
And this movie particularly would've greatly benefitted from the television format. The pacing is all over the place, between glacial and awkwardly abrupt. For the first 45 minutes I had no idea what was going on and not in a particular "in media res" approach but mostly in an apparent way which the filmmakers had no clue how to structure all of the disparate elements in any cohesive momentum. Sitting there for those three hours made me have a complete revelation of what makes pacing on TV and for film completely different things that really do differentiate the mediums more than we think on first glance.
Still on a positive note this looks like a very cinematic thing. In a world rampant with Disney's reliance on the Volume for their "prestige" Marvel and Star Wars TV projects the wonderful sights of beautiful real American landscapes reign supreme. Unfortunately digital cinematography can miss some of the mark due to the loss of a sharp definition and living feeling. But it still remained a striking film and Costner knows what he is doing behind the lens.
And this movie particularly would've greatly benefitted from the television format.
That's what my friend, who texted me this morning, told me. "I saw it for [mutual friend who was involved in production]. Its like the first episode of a limited series that doesn't do much but set everything up, except the next episode where I pray something more interesting happens isn't on Up Next button and I have to pay for it, which isn't happening."
The film is not a bad film. It has its flaws. If you would like a physical soundtrack CD which this score certainly deserves, you might be helping that wish come true by putting your money down at the theater box office. See if it was better than expected as I had or just as bad as others predicted.You might love the music better than the film and that might give you a CD to enjoy.
Unfortunately in the year 2024, I don't think box office ticket sales lead towards the path of a CD being pressed. You can access the digital version of the album in different ways currently. And the way the cookie crumbles is that might be al you get. Or maybe you get the CD. It's too unpredictable these days.
Excellent in every way but one: it has absolutely zero story structure. It moves between characters and locations, all of which are very interesting, but there are no real character or story arcs. No Act structure at all. Then about3 minutes before the credits start, it abruptly jumps to a slickly cut montage teaser for the next movie. This makes for a very dissatisfying experience.
It is interesting that audiences are so conditioned to enjoy movies with a structure they are familiar with - and when it’s not Joseph Campbell‘s umpteenth repetition it is considered „bad“ or „zero“ structure.
It is interesting that audiences are so conditioned to enjoy movies with a structure they are familiar with - and when it’s not Joseph Campbell‘s umpteenth repetition it is considered „bad“ or „zero“ structure.
This isn't the problem, whatsoever. The issue herein lies that these disparate stories are very plot heavy. Characters have vendettas, tasks, objectives, etc. Most of them would make good movies (or an episode of a TV series) on their own. But unfortunately here, all together, they lack the substance of setup and going back and forth between all of them interrupts the momentum found within individual scenes of those stories. It's not anything to do with familiarity but everything to do with pacing.
I liked the movie very much but I agree that the pacing/editing could have been better. Mostly in the first 20 minutes until the indian attack. I couldn't get the short scene with the indians killing another lonely indian, and the priest(?) who raised the crosses just disappeared from the movie. But after the indian attack the stories gained momentum and each one was interesting and exciting with great acting and a stunning Debney score.
The Apache attack is indeed a dynamic sequence and certainly when the movie picks up. The follow-up scene of the US Calvary arriving to investigate, search for survivors, and explain the land grabs issue to the settlers was even better. I felt like I was watching a Western I had not yet seen and still feel like that overarching story is the most accomplished and thought-out in the movie as a whole. We shall see what part 2 brings. The sizzle reel was quite good though also set at such an awkward moment and execution. My wife thought it was the end of this movie and questioned why they would end on such a montage, feeling she would forget all the events of the montage by time we see part 2 in August. Using an intertitle like, perhaps, "To be continued..." before the montage sizzle would do wonders methinks.
I couldn't get the short scene with the indians killing another lonely indian, and the priest(?) who raised the crosses just disappeared from the movie.
That "Ape killing an ape" sequence was discussed a bit later. Clarified everything perfectly.
The Apache attack is indeed a dynamic sequence and certainly when the movie picks up. The follow-up scene of the US Calvary arriving to investigate, search for survivors, and explain the land grabs issue to the settlers was even better. I felt like I was watching a Western I had not yet seen and still feel like that overarching story is the most accomplished and thought-out in the movie as a whole. We shall see what part 2 brings. The sizzle reel was quite good though also set at such an awkward moment and execution. My wife thought it was the end of this movie and questioned why they would end on such a montage, feeling she would forget all the events of the montage by time we see part 2 in August. Using an intertitle like, perhaps, "To be continued..." before the montage sizzle would do wonders methinks.
„Back to the future 2“ also had a montage with scenes of part 3 at its end, and that third movie was released about 8 months later.
„Back to the future 2“ also had a montage with scenes of part 3 at its end, and that third movie was released about 8 months later.
You are right. But also that film has a specific character scene which sets stakes for the third film and has an intertitle which states, "To be concluded..."
Horizon: An American Saga - Part 1 has neither element.
This movie will find it's audience in time. Costner knew the risk he was taking and he was in an advantageous position financially and industry-wise to get this passion project made. Only the Tarantino Westerns have managed to strike a box office chord in this modern era. This film doesn't have the same sense of mainstream appeal.
