Ted Kramer's wife leaves her husband, allowing for a lost bond to be rediscovered between Ted and his son, Billy. But a heated custody battle ensues over the divorced couple's son, deepening the wounds left by the separation.
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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
With the exception of the opening Civil War scenes (which were shot last), the film was shot in sequence because of the weather. They needed it to correspond with the time sequence in the film because of so much outdoor shooting. Most films are not shot in sequence. See more »
When Dunbar is dragging a dead deer out the pond at Ft. Sedgwick, there are tire tracks in the hillside in the background. See more »
[writing in his diary]
If it wasn't for my companion, I believe I'd be having the time of my life.
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.
122 of 163 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?