CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPORTS, GAMES & LEISURE › Television › Hatfields & McCoys - any good?????
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Hatfields & McCoys - any good?????

post #1 of 35
Thread Starter 

So the first episode of this should be screening across the US right about now, or has already aired. I'm kind of stunned I had no idea this was even happening considering its such a juicy story in American history and a bit of a killer cast. I also love how grizzled Costner looks.

 

So guys, who's excited about this? Whos seen episode one??? Spill!

 

hatfields_and_mccoys_ver3.jpg

post #2 of 35

The Rain Dog, The first night was great.  Kevin Costner is...Perfectly Cast.  I look forward to the next 2 nights.

post #3 of 35

Was surprised to see Kevin Reynolds directed this, his first Costner collaboration since Waterworld.

post #4 of 35

Trailer was great, so definitely keen to know if it delivered. Costner and Paxton are a combo I'd have never seen coming, but now that it has I like it.

post #5 of 35

And this is on History? I'm confused. How do aliens and the Illuminati factor into this?

post #6 of 35

What was more confusing to me was that they filmed in Transylvania.  Appalachia was too expensive, so we flew to Transylvania.

post #7 of 35

Contrary to what you would think the Appalachia is only surpassed by Monaco during Grand Prix season when it comes to expensive locales.

post #8 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post

Contrary to what you would think the Appalachia is only surpassed by Monaco during Grand Prix season when it comes to expensive locales.

 

Well, by the time you pay off the Bennetts, Noble's Holler, the Crowders, and the Givens, plus the multitude of public officals who seek to "make it easy for you", I doubt you have much money left to field a film production.

post #9 of 35
Reviews were bad. Random roles with Bill Paxton:

http://mobile.avclub.com/articles/bill-paxton,75626/?mobile=true
post #10 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTyres View Post

 

Well, by the time you pay off the Bennetts, Noble's Holler, the Crowders, and the Givens, plus the multitude of public officals who seek to "make it easy for you", I doubt you have much money left to field a film production.

 

Plus the insurance is through the roof with all the hill folk abducting and eating film crews and starlets.

post #11 of 35

Sad to hear this didn't ammount to anything worthwhile. Paxton, as much as I like the guy, is someone I was not particularly surprised to see turn to TV. It's a shock to see Costner there though. The guy is an Oscar winning director, he should be out there making his own films, not cooling his heels in Transylvanian westerns.

post #12 of 35

Well, where else is he going to get to star in a six-hour western? Also TV isn't nearly the stigma it used to be.

post #13 of 35

And I'm pretty sure Paxton has been living on TV for some time.

post #14 of 35

I saw the trailer.

 

Dudes with beards brandishing guns.

Reverse shot: beardless dude cowering in fear, Don't shoot me!

BANG on the soundtrack. Repeat.

 

Is this really a miniseries about a Jihad on beardless faces?

post #15 of 35

I watched the first two hours and it turned into a whole Romeo and Juliet thing and I got bored and deleted it from my DVR. It was ok though. 

post #16 of 35

Costner is so good in this, that it just emphasizes how cheap and sub-par everything else is. 

post #17 of 35

Watched the first 2 hours.  This thing is absolutely plodding.  I'm interested in the subject matter and love westerns as a general rule so I'll probably watch the rest of it but I can't say I'm looking forward to it.  Hopefully I'm pleasantly surprised.

post #18 of 35

I've almost made it through part 1 and have found it quite entertaining. Who doesn't like mountain men with guns?  Also most reviews I've seen have been really good, except for AV Club which is usually the worst in reviewing TV.. and music.

post #19 of 35

Save the 6 hours and watch this in 6 minutes.

 

post #20 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by neaux View Post

I've almost made it through part 1 and have found it quite entertaining. Who doesn't like mountain men with guns?  Also most reviews I've seen have been really good, except for AV Club which is usually the worst in reviewing TV.. and music.

 

I can't speak for their music reviews, but their television reviews are top notch.

post #21 of 35

The bit in the commercial where Costner grunts "Git the bodies off the road" intrigued me. So did a promo clip where Costner shoots a retreating McCoy in the back, someone comments "I thought you was gonna let him go" and Costner grunts "So did he." Kinda badass. But then I found out the fucking thing sprawls over three nights. As I've said elsewhere, I just don't have that kind of commitment to entertainment anymore. Tell your story in 90 to 120 minutes, get the fuck out of my face, and let me get on with my life.*

 

Not meant as a shot at those who dig longer entertainment. I used to. I just can't anymore.

 

*There are exceptions, obviously, as there are with most everything. I more or less agree with John Waters, though, when he says comedies have no business being much longer than 90 minutes.


Edited by Martin Blank - 5/30/12 at 2:48pm
post #22 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Blank View Post

Well, where else is he going to get to star in a six-hour western? Also TV isn't nearly the stigma it used to be.

No doubt this is a better gig than Costner might have been getting recently, but I consider HBO and Paxton's work there to be a big step up from the History Channel. It seems the reviews are proving my fears are well founded. It's a shame Costner can't do an epic western on a worthwhile channel, or get it released into theaters, is all I was saying. See Open Range if you have not already. Between that film and Dances With Wolves, it's a shame the man has only ever directed three films. He's seriously talented.

post #23 of 35

Generally I agree. He tended to have a problem with bloat in 2/3 of his directorial forays, though. Dances with Wolves probably needed to be three hours. I don't know that The Postman did. Open Range was relatively lean and mean for him, at two hours nineteen.

post #24 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Blank View Post

Generally I agree. He tended to have a problem with bloat in 2/3 of his directorial forays, though. Dances with Wolves probably needed to be three hours. I don't know that The Postman did. Open Range was relatively lean and mean for him, at two hours nineteen.

Postman was a definite misstep. A little too much cheese, not enough plot. There are a few genuinely gripping sequences though in that movie (and I love Olivia Williams, who had some eye catching scenes). He just should have hewn more closely to the original novel, I almost think that the ending he tacked on with the silly looking post man statue did more to hurt his career than did the fallout from Waterworld. I'm a huge fan of Dances, and I actually prefer his directors cut (which is 1/3rd longer than what he released to theaters!), but you're right that Open Range was lean by his standards. I think it's expertly crafted, and it never feels like it's overstayed it's welcome. Just a wonderful movie all around. I'm hoping he gets the chance to try his hand at more movies on that scale.

 

I can appreciate what you're saying about a preference for shorter films, but I've always liked movies that are not in a hurry to finish up the story, that give you a chance to live in the world they've created.

post #25 of 35

I have no problem with investing time in my entertainment.  That's not my issue with the miniseries.  My issue, and I'll use the same word as before, is that this is plodding.  There are some legitimate reasons for this (there are a LOT of people involved) and some less legitimate.

 

They spend a lot of time introducing characters who are either Hatfields or McCoys are tangentially related to one clan or the other.  They give the absolute briefest of time to what could be interesting drama with interesting characters (McCoy's return from the war stands out here, with the interesting dynamic between the man who lived only to come home and the wife who had given up on him before he got there that they try to make emotional even though they've really not provided the appropriate background).  Then they opt to focus on the Romeo and Juliet sub plot which involves 2 of the least interesting characters that they've provided.

 

The thing is, they have a lot of room for dramatic license.  Nobody knows what started the feud historically.  There are theories but that's all they are.  It's a sad statement when the pig theft would have been a more appealing starting point to the feud instead of the romance they're pushing on us.  I guess I just feel like they're rushing through some pieces and some characters that the viewer is interested in to get to the dull romance subplot.  After 2 hours I should feel like this thing has momentum though, and I can't help but feel like everything is just scattershot at that point.

 

Given my druthers, I'd have preferred they spend more time with the war establishing the relationship between Hatfield & McCoy prior to Hatfield running off.  Shift from that to McCoy's capture with footage of his family mourning him as a lost man which you counterpoint with Hatfield beginning to become a successful businessman.

 

This leads to McCoy's eventual return at the end of the war as well as Hatfield forcing the lumber rights from McCoy's cousin.  All of this actually played pretty well if they'd taken enough time to set up the background a bit more.  I liked the lawyer cousin getting caught in his scam, and I liked the church scene.  I liked McCoy and Hatfield talking in the bar, McCoy letting him know that he feels like Hatfields are underhanded with no need for God.

 

Honestly, if they moved into the pig theft from there and never had the romance I'd have been satisfied.  The pig theft leads to court, the court case leads to an eventual murder of a Hatfield, this murder leads to 2 McCoys in jail who are eventually released.  Why was this not enough dramatically speaking?  Are we so dumb as a viewing audience that we need to know this gigantic feud obviously came about from romance rather than a stolen pig and stupid machismo?

post #26 of 35

A very well-reasoned argument for me continuing to not be interested in this. There was actually a Romeo/Juliet thing, but it's such a cheesy thing to focus on.

 

I enjoyed the American Pickers and Pawn Stars episodes dealing with various Hatfield-McCoy artifacts (the episodes were obviously sat on for a while to tie in with the miniseries) more than I'd probably enjoy the miniseries.

post #27 of 35

If you call getting the girl pregnant and then dumping her for her cousin Romeo and Juliet, I guess it was a thing.

post #28 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post

If you call getting the girl pregnant and then dumping her for her cousin Romeo and Juliet, I guess it was a thing.

 

Beyond that, it really wasn't the catalyst that escalated the feud.  It was just something that was happening in the midst of it all.

 

Anyway, the first part was indeed incredibly plodding, but I found the second two parts to be considerably better, and the last part even seemed a bit rushed (particularly at the very end).  Though I'd also note that a fair bit of the pacing issues seem to stem from a desire to hit the "historical" beats.

post #29 of 35

This looks like more fun. Jeff Fahey! Perry King! Fred Olen Ray!

post #30 of 35

Didnt amount to anything? It was bad ass.. I guess you dont know what good TV is

post #31 of 35
That kind of first post ain't gonna make you any friends. Either way this series was passable but hardly outstanding. Maybe it being a hit will give us some more, better serieseses.
post #32 of 35

Costner and Berenger were great.  Paxton kinda embarrassed himself.  It's OK to watch once but it's nothing to go out of your way to see.

post #33 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by neaux View Post
 Who doesn't like mountain men with guns?  

 

 

Ned Beatty!

post #34 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chavez View Post

 

 

Ned Beatty!


Quoted for truth.

 

Anyway, I liked it.  Mostly good performances.  Paxton got a little cartoonish, but I don't know how much of that acting and how much was directing.

post #35 of 35

I honestly started to wonder if Paxton has every been drunk in his life.  I love the guy, but that was not good drunk acting.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Television
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPORTS, GAMES & LEISURE › Television › Hatfields & McCoys - any good?????