User Reviews

Look I'll be the first to admit I groaned and rolled my eyes at everyone in the theaters at the end of The Fellowship of the Rings when a few morons said out loud "wait that's it?!?" At the end of the 1st of 3 movies.... But, in the case of this movie (which I understand is just Chapter 1 with Chapter 2 in the eves) wait that's it?

I just watched a 3 hour movie, with 15 main characters, and 30 subplots. Each of which got 25 minutes? It just felt incredibly disjointed. The weird spoiler-y preview at the end was spoiler-y as hell. I feel like this would have been a great mini-series, but in this convoluted fashion it fell flat for me.

It was beautifully shot. And was fun to watch visually, but I have no idea about any of the characters, they history, reason for being. It just drops you in the middle of each journey and it genuinely feels like I missed and entire movie before this. Maybe Chapter 2 will solidify some stuff, but that is a stupid way to do things.

Landscape scenery is amazing! High expectations for Horizon and it starts out disjointed. Trying sew the stories together made it hard to follow.

Storylines are many making it even harder to follow. In time I believe they will come together.

Some time wasted on dialogue and the initial native raid scene.

The clash of two worlds and the splitting of the native world (apache) was very well written. Use of native american actors (speaking native tongue)is awesome.

The US Army parts felt a little too modern. The use of the word "indigenous" just did not sound right for that time. Also we have never been shown US Army compassion from that time period before.

The playful addition of African Americans seems very modern as well. No doubt they were there but living harmoniously with whites is hard to believe.

I will check out the next chapter and I hope the story continues to develop.

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.

Nice cinematography with Utah standing in for Arizona. But seems loosely based on no plot. Many many characters are introduced right off the bat. And the story line jumps to and fro. I had trouble figuring out who was who and related to what. I realize it's a mini-series of sorts. But after one hour in the viewer should be quiet clear as to direction. This thing is a meandering disjointed mess of a screenplay. I'm very disappointed with Costner considering he has been involved with some of the most highly rated westerns known to modern audiences. (Silverado, Dances With Wolves, Open Range etc). Can't recommend.

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)

I was really looking forward to this movie with a great cast. Finally some real Costner cinema and some good old western action.

Well, I was dissapointed. Yes the filming is great. Beautiful locations. Casting is spot on and the characters look amazing. Real nice.

But. This movie was all over the place. The characters skipped years in one scene and were back in another. The editting is done so terribly that I didnt understand any of the timeline at some point. There are so many flaws like that in this movie that it gets annoying.

Also there are about 4 or 5 different stories n the movie and that doesnt help. The one time you are looking at a hooker with some kid, and the next screne you are in a whole different place where some guys hunt indians.

Costner obviously plays the silent string type who has a sixth sense for danger as he always does. But thats ok. I just hope part 2 will be more coherent.

I haven't seen a good western like this in ages.

It may seem slow at times but I think it really works for what they are trying to do with the film series. Cinematically it's good with some great aerial shots.

I don't feel overly invested in any of the characters yet but at the same time I'm already looking forward to Horizon:Chapter 2.

There are a lot of dynamics at play; showing historical accuracy, when possible, whilst trying to be sensitive to the real impact that colonisation and civil war brought. So far I think they seem to be getting it right, although I am no expert.

Hopefully the film gets out there to more people, especially fans of westerns.

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.

If there were any weaknesses in this film they were few and far between. To me, it's not bad it's just different. A lot is thrown into this film with characters and plot lines but the portrayal of savagery on both sides (settlers and Indians fighting to protect their land) is well depicted. I really hope all 4 parts get a chance to see the light of day because I think Kevin has a great story or series of stories to tell here. The cinematic elements were spot on and Kevin certainly knows how to use the cameras to full affect. The belief that the American west was just easy pickings was not true. Easy come easy go could be any given day and that sense of perspective was well shown here. I will say ( no fault of movie itself) that watch this movie non drowsy too. This is one of those films that if you're tired like I was from an overnight shift parts can be made difficult but overall this film does a great job of a great overall perspective. I do hope that Kevin Costner can fine tune the story in the following parts just a little and it'll be epic! But yeah this film wins my approval.

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.

I can't believe how weak of an effort this seems to have been. Costner is absolutely one of my all time favorites, but here i sit 24 hours later and i'm still shaking my head , wondering what the heck i just tried to watch. The entire 3 hours is an incoherent mess to put it simply. I can't recall a single character by name , nor can i even say i loved any of them. Honest, I tried to love it, but i cant even say i liked it. Trust me when i say, save your money and stay home watching old proven flicks. I think I'll now go re watch Open Range and remind myself there is always hope for a better western from Hollywood in the future. .

I see a lot of people rating Kevin Costner's new western "Horizon" with some pretty low numbers. I don't think it deserves to be rated at 1 or 2 - but I also don't think it deserves to be a 9 or 10. First of all, you have to applaud Mr. Costner's extraordinary efforts - the cinematography is superb, the acting is good, and the movie itself almost works the way it was intended to, but - there's an overflow of long and boring subplots , I don't think it was necessary to make this first chapter of the saga 3 HOURS long ... some stuff should have been edited out, or at least edited down - there's just too much to take in.

I think there will always be a devoted fanbase for Horizon - there will always be people who love it just the way it is, and that's fantastic - you can tell from some of its reviews that it's well loved by fans. Overall, the movie is not a complete failure, it's just not the masterpiece that Mr. Costner was trying to make. At least, that's my opinion ... I found the movie slow and a bit dull in certain parts - not very interesting to watch. Keep in mind, I'm not a huge fan of westerns , I like "Unforgiven" with Clint Eastwood, and the Coen Brothers' remake of "True Grit" is pretty good - but I don't watch a lot of westerns.

"Horizon: An American Saga - Chapter 1" deserves a rating of somewhere between 6.0 and 6.5 - and that's just my opinion - I think it could have been so much better , but it missed its mark ... the movie is boring.

.

This is an epic story that doesn't pulls punches, It has a incredibly strong cast. The acting performances were quite good throughout. The story felt authentic, but it jumps around quite a lot, and character building is surprisingly weak. Overall, it just does not have the polish that I expected of a movie of this caliber. I was particularly irritated by the inappropriate loud glorious/triumphant music played during the Indian village massacre and several more minute at the end. It really upset me they would play such music over the top of the horrific depictions of violence against innocent women and children. It was like they were celebrating it. The music director is really awful. Perhaps the director is also to blame for many of its faults. I really wanted to love this, but instead, went away disappointed that it wasn't better.

Watched the film at cannes one of the best westerns. The direction the charaters the script the cinematography all of it. I loved this more than coppola megalopolis. Going to see it for a second time when it comes out .So good .I missed seeing costner in big movie roles even though he's in yellowstone .The acting is really good. The set design and the effects made it look like it is real. Like we're living in that world. Recommend to everyone to see this masterpiece. I was kinda scared at first but when i watched it i was blown out .Really one of the best films of the 2020s. Masterpiece from start to finish.

Costner is back where he belongs, in a epic Western. A passion project he's had for years. It has a slow pace and it's ok, it works. The cinematography was great, you can see his passion for the West. The score was fantastic, and I'm looking forward to hearing more. Interesting characters and stories, eager to see the paths they eventually go down. This has a very impressive cast so far and I'm curious how much this will expand in the next three parts. Looking forward to seeing where it takes us. We only have to wait until August for part two. Parts three and four are filming now and expected next year.

Horizon states its intentions in its very title: An American Saga. A saga is a broad story, involving many characters, typically linked by a common destiny, context, family or idea. People have criticized Horizon for having too many characters, too many plot lines, clearly not understanding that that is its point. I have heard people say that it should have been a show instead of a movie, apparently not grasping that it's in the juxtaposition of these stories and characters over a longer period of time that the meaning of the film emerges: the making of America.

In that sense, the distant models of Horizon could be Once Upon a Time in the West, Once Upon a Time in America or Gangs of New York.

Is Kevin Costner a talented enough filmmaker to create this broad saga on the American West? Probably not. His style is academic, unoriginal and at times a bit cheesy (the romance scenes being typically his worst). But at time when people predict the Death of Cinema, it is refreshing to see a director who believes fully in the resilient power of movies, even in its oldest of genres. And there are scenes in the movie that truly stand out, including an extraordinary first scene.

Overall, much better than expected, and I will be there in August to see the second Chapter.

Kevin Costner's Horizon project feels more like it should be a TV series than a film. About an hour and a half into the movie, I felt like I was watching the first three parts of a TV show. There are a lot of stories going on, and quite honestly, it's a little challenging to follow at times. Timelines are a little hard to follow, and Kevin Costner appears in the film very little, and what we see of him is not all that we would expect him.

I'm sure all of this is going to converge at some point, but for a three-hour film, it really needed to move along a lot faster than it did. I can see why they have put off the second part of this film project because what it ultimately needed was to grip the audience, and it just does not meet that expectation. I was expecting an action-filled western, and what I got was a slow-moving western melodrama.

I hope the project succeeds, but this should've been a project done at Paramount+ HBO Max or some other TV series production company.

People complained this was dated and I thought they just didn't like real movies, like the ones we used to get back when story and character where important. Sadly that's not it.

This movie started out really strong with a nice little bit of storytelling, seeing a surveyor map out what is going to be the town of Horizon. Then we see the natives watching and understand that "civilisation" isn't going to be greeted with open arms.

Then the movie starts jumping around all over the place and it's very jarring. There are too many plots, and none of them really get enough time to hook you.

The there's the music. God. The music. I'm a composer myself and I respect John Debneys work but there is WAY too much music. It feels like Costner is afraid to leave anything up to the audience own imagination.

Very few scenes are allowed to just play out, even mundane scenes are scored and it's always very surface level and kind of cliché.

I love westerns, and westerns often tell simple stories with a very clear direction, this movie is very ambitious but drawn out and unfocused. I really wished it was on par with Costners other movies like Open range or Dances with wolves, but it's not. There are some really good scenes but they are few and far between.

From the premiere in Cannes, it can be seen that director Kevin Costner loves some storytelling. In this film, a lot of subjective shots are used, KEVIN is a person who is very good at telling stories with camera and sound elements, as can be seen from the opening shot, giving me a strong visual experience.

It is worth mentioning that in the end of this movie, a lot of shots were used to create a tense atmosphere, making the conflict very strong. It was also a lot of perspective shooting, and even pivot shots, that made the chaotic atmosphere extremely attractive, which should be considered a long montage. Make this story exceptionally exciting, of course, this is just the first movie, just a small part. Many events and character motivations still need to be fully displayed in the next few (maybe 3 or 4), with several clues going hand in hand and not messy at all. Although it may seem too long for some young audiences, the viewing experience is simply not too good, it can completely capture my emotions, Kevin Costner is undoubtedly a genius and a master of this type of Western cinema.

I have a strong premonition that this movie is a rare masterpiece. I immediately want to watch the second part that follows. I heard it will be released in August this year, great!

This reminds me of an updated version of 'How The West Was Won': just not filmed in Cinerama.

Cinematically it's gorgeous, but thematically it would have been much better suited to a series. A series format would have also handled the storyline edits much better. In movie format, the story is very peripatetic. The other problem is that the individual storylines aren't all that compelling or interesting. It's not boring, but it doesn't draw you in the way 'Open Range' did; which I think is Kevin Costner's finest directorial effort. Yes, better than 'Dances With Wolves.'

Acting wise, no performance really stands out. Overall, because I had high hopes for a classic, it's disappointing.

Viewing the list of casting actors seemed promising at first, but the constant switch of scenes simply doesn't help the story to move forward, seems like someone been watching the serie "1883" and thought it would be a good Idea to base this story on this film.

I just wish the plot would be carried in similar format, at least I would have not fallen asleep. Too many characters and hardly any meat to the plot just makes this movie bland.

The only thing that saves this over loaded plot is the remarkable scenery of the Midwest that the cameramen did a great job in capturing so well, other than than - not so much.

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.

So sad that Costner spent so much money, time, and effort on this, and came out with such a jumble. Scenery, sets, and actors were all well done, but for nothing if we can't follow what's happening.

I found the film score disappointingly Western cliche. It didn't have to go Butch Cassidy, but some innovation would have been appreciated.

I'm sure the word indigenous was not used back then. Nor the phrase how's that working for ya. Tribal women didn't sculpt their eyebrows. No one had Hollywood straight, blinding white teeth.

I did appreciate that most of the characters and their clothing were coated with dirt.

I really dislike when the western expansion and tribal life are romanticized. At least this film didn't do that.

It's a coin toss as to whether I'll watch part two, I'm sorry to say.

I was very excited to see Kevin Costner new film Horizon Pt 1 as I'm a big fan and love Dances w Wolves and Yellowstone and this film brought the same majestic energy and western atmosphere that did not disappoint and you definitely get your monies worth as it's 3 hours long but goes by fast with a nice slow build up and ends with one wanting more.

The acting is top notch, the cinematography is phenomenal and even though it has 3 story lines they are all captivating with good pacing and have lots of interesting characters and plots that make the film gradually provides a strong sense of pace where you are really captivated but there is a lot to digest since this is Part 1 of 4.

It reminds me a little of the set up for Dune 1 being world setting/ character and plot development to Dune 2 but on an epic western level.

Yet I'll admit I personally would have preferred seeing Costner part start the film earlier because once he shows up it is more entertaining and the story starts to acquire a more cohesive story direction - and the only slight criticism is that the Sienna Miller/ Horizon town back story part has a fantastic battle scene yet maybe could have been cut down or used some footage as flashbacks later on to bring forth Costner part much sooner but that's a minor issue as the film is grandiose in its scope and it's impressive Costner is doing 4 parts.

I also was impressed by the music score and both Sam Worthington and Luke Wilson do a great job in their parts as do the female leads, and nice to see some depth in the Apache / Native Indians portions with stunning landscapes. It looks like this western was shot maybe in Monumental valley or Moab Utah as some of the scenes look simply breathtaking like a postcard.

I loved the film and hope it pushes Hollyweird to create more Westerns, and it's hard to imagine the silly critics are comparing this amazing film to a tv series.

I'm now excited to see Part 2 and thankfully it's not a full year out like Dune 2 that took forever as I read it's coming in August so that is a positive sign as I hate waiting for sequels yet this film definitely deserves a longer format.

Kudos to Costner and great job in making an epic film.

9 stars.