August 30, 2002

Comments

I liked Field of Dreams a lot, and along with Dances of Wolves they're the only watchable flicks in Costner's resume. Of course, I'm not a baseball fan - so your mileage may vary.

Posted by: Oliver at August 30, 2002 06:07 PM

Bull Durham is far superior. It has a sense of humor. Field of Dreams is nonsensical fantasy. Playing catch with his dad was a tear jerker, though. The rest of the stuff about the old stars and the fans coming to watch is neither here nor there.

Posted by: Tokyo Taro at September 1, 2002 07:36 PM

One of the few things I respected President Bush the Elder for was having the guts to say the he had seen "Field of Dreams", and had no idea what it was about. Can you imagine any other politician questioning a popular, homily-filled piece of crap taken to heart by a greatful nation? It may say more about his lack of political acumen than his surefit of integrity, but, on this, at least, I'll give the former baseball player the benefit of the doubt.

Posted by: Problem Drinker at September 3, 2002 10:50 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






time, but one night about seven years ago, when I was about six hours into a 14-hour Prague pub session with my great pal Pat Whalen, we started debating the pressing topic of "when, exactly, everything Went Wrong." My suggestion: When "Field of Dreams" came out, and people bought into its insidious, cynical bullshit.

Anyways, it appears my obsession has good company. Roger Angell, the great New Yorker baseball writer, had this to say to the L.A. Times' Tim Rutten today:

My least favorite baseball film is "Field of Dreams," which is such baloney, sweet and gooey. Ballplayers loved it, though. It left them in tears. But they weren't the only ones. I remember coming out of a screening of that awful film and running into my friend and neighbor Mike Wallace. "Wasn't that awful?" I said, and then noticed he was weeping.

Posted by at August 30, 2002 11:49 AM
Comments

I liked Field of Dreams a lot, and along with Dances of Wolves they're the only watchable flicks in Costner's resume. Of course, I'm not a baseball fan - so your mileage may vary.

Posted by: Oliver at August 30, 2002 06:07 PM

Bull Durham is far superior. It has a sense of humor. Field of Dreams is nonsensical fantasy. Playing catch with his dad was a tear jerker, though. The rest of the stuff about the old stars and the fans coming to watch is neither here nor there.

Posted by: Tokyo Taro at September 1, 2002 07:36 PM

One of the few things I respected President Bush the Elder for was having the guts to say the he had seen "Field of Dreams", and had no idea what it was about. Can you imagine any other politician questioning a popular, homily-filled piece of crap taken to heart by a greatful nation? It may say more about his lack of political acumen than his surefit of integrity, but, on this, at least, I'll give the former baseball player the benefit of the doubt.

Posted by: Problem Drinker at September 3, 2002 10:50 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






= true; } else { document.comments_form.bakecookie[1].checked = true; } //--> ; } else { document.comments_form.bakecookie[1].checked = true; } //-->