In a future where the polar ice-caps have melted and Earth is almost entirely submerged, a mutated mariner fights starvation and outlaw "smokers," and reluctantly helps a woman and a young girl try to find dry land.
Lt. John Dunbar is dubbed a hero after he accidentally leads Union troops to a victory during the Civil War. He requests a position on the western frontier, but finds it deserted. He soon finds out he is not alone, but meets a wolf he dubs "Two-socks" and a curious Indian tribe. Dunbar quickly makes friends with the tribe, and discovers a white woman who was raised by the Indians. He gradually earns the respect of these native people, and sheds his white-man's ways. Written by
Greg Bole <email@example.com>
Originally written as a spec script by Michael Blake, it went unsold in the mid-1980s. However, Kevin Costner had starred in Blake's only previous film, Stacy's Knights (1983), and encouraged Blake in early 1986 to turn the Western screenplay into a novel to improve its chances of being produced. The novel version of Dances with Wolves was rejected by numerous publishers but finally published in paperback in 1988. As a novel, the rights were purchased by Costner, with an eye on directing it. See more »
Three birds flying over are identified as geese. They are, in fact, cranes. See more »
[John Dunbar tries to wake him by hitting him with a stick]
Something poked me in the butt, was that you?
See more »
Spectacular epic and one of the greatest 90's movie classics
This is the type of a film that's never boring no matter how often you watch it. It deserved every single award it got. It's touching, it's timeless and it's downright beautiful. I'm not a huge friend of extended versions because there's usually a perfectly good reason to take something out of the film and none whatsoever to put it back again, if pleasing hardcore fans isn't a good reason - that's totally a matter of opinion. However, "Dances with wolves" is certainly an exception.
The nearly four hour version is the only one to be. Sure it sounds like it's too much but when you watch the movie it doesn't look a minute overlong and cutting even a second out of it would seem like a horrible crime. The original theater version was 52 minutes shorter which sound too cruel to be true. I mean really, what's there to cut? If you haven't seen "Dances with wolves" yet you have missed one of the greatest motion picture experiences of the 90's and you should do something about it instantly.
117 of 158 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?