Horizon: An American Saga - Chapter 1 (2024)

The critic finds it a stilted grand opus whose stories lack polish and dramatic momentum, with characters never developed beyond archetypes and editing that muddles the threads. It feels like a hacked-up TV season rather than a cohesive film, serving as a painful reminder of Costner's limits with sprawling epics.

The critic sees it as a film of solid filmmaking and pristine landscapes that stakes out themes for future chapters but is mostly exposition without completion or handholding. The verdict hinges on forthcoming installments to determine if it succeeds as an epic saga.

The review sees the first chapter of Costner’s self-financed epic as playing a little too much like prestige TV while still offering old-school charms. Costner’s personal earnestness and grit stand out as appealing elements.

Costner returns to the western with a leisurely three-hour drama that captures the era’s rhythms through strong ensemble character work and electrifying action set pieces. The portrayal of indigenous characters as villains is noted as a flaw, yet the film is praised for its handsome, evocative old-school style.

Costner’s ambitious western epic is watchable but convoluted and feels like the first episodes of a TV show. The handsome mounting, vast grandeur of the West, and tense extended action sequences are singled out for praise.

The critic finds the film a meandering three-hour epic that sometimes loses its way due to its vignette structure and lack of narrative purpose, but praises its handsome cinematography and strong performances as a throwback to classic Westerns.

The film is a chore to sit through as a standalone feature due to its slow start, disjointed storylines, and lack of memorable characters beyond a few. It succeeds better as setup for future chapters and in its sumptuous landscape photography.

The critic deems it the dullest cinematic vanity project of the century that flattens the American West. He portrays the sprawling epic as a jumbled, clichéd mess that makes one wish manifest destiny had never happened.

The sprawling epic is a massive boondoggle and excruciatingly tedious experience marked by haphazard storytelling and cartoonish characters. Costner’s self-funded passion project suffers from overindulgence and dated melodrama.

The first chapter is an over-stuffed western epic that offers beautiful shooting, period detail and a starry cast but suffers from an identity crisis with too many storylines that fail to engage. Costner’s late appearance as a taciturn loner and a promising gunslinger character are highlighted.

The critic finds the film an unashamedly old-fashioned western that lovingly excavates genre clichés, with its traditional approach forming part of its charm. A standout lengthy massacre and siege scene evokes classic John Ford westerns.

The film is an unapologetically old-school western epic with handsome visuals and a stirring score that builds satisfying momentum through its multiple storylines. It is involving but inauthentic in its portrayal of Native Americans and the Old West.

The critic calls it a clumsy slog in need of narrative streamlining, with messy plot threads, inessential scenes, and characters that go nowhere. He praises the handsomely photographed landscapes and Costner's reassuring presence in a fitting role but finds the multi-branched narrative beyond the director's best efforts.

Costner’s big, busy western honors old-fashioned genre touchstones while complicating the myth of the American West through violence-haunted characters. It is decentered and earnest in its approach to history and settlement.

Costner has invented earnest, stately 'granddad cinema' that is humane, hopeful and full of crisply drawn characters and golden landscapes. Its full grandeur may not be realised until part two, but the vibes are warmingly moreish.

This is a throwback to 1960s Cinerama blockbusters like How the West Was Won, with multiple interlinked stories and strong homages to classic westerns. Costner elevates his role as the gunslinger Hayes Ellison, making his scenes the film's strongest.

The first chapter feels like the setup for a TV miniseries rather than a cohesive standalone film, with shapeless storytelling and meandering anecdotes across multiple storylines. It has vivid moments and characters but jumps around too much without building impact.

The critic views it as a gorgeous, sprawling, at times moving blast of old-fashioned storytelling—like Dune: Part One for dads—but ultimately half a movie that sets up characters and stakes without delivering change or payoff on its own. Its stately pace never bores yet fails to work independently.

The critic views Costner's film as an impressive and ambitious start to an epic Western saga that delves into the complicated history of the American West and its Indigenous populations. He praises the depth in character studies and the promise shown for future chapters.

The critic views it as a traditional gunslinging adventure from the master of yee-haw Hollywood that rewards patience with handsome vistas, thrilling action sequences, and characters likely to grow in significance. They single out the restrained gunslinging and rare moments of beauty amid the harsh frontier setting for praise.

The critic admires Costner's patient, slow-building epic Western with brutal moments and beautiful visuals and score, but notes it feels mostly like setup for future chapters, with dominoes positioned but not yet pushed over.

The review describes the film as a corny yet rousing and proudly old-fashioned epic Western with majestic visuals and score. It notes the sprawling narrative setup for multiple chapters but acknowledges its televisual rhythms.

The film is a visually impressive endeavor that sets the stage for a larger epic, with strong performances in places, but is let down by schmaltzy and overly sentimental storylines, an episodic structure with some superfluous or cringe-worthy scenes.

Costner delivers traditional Western ingredients like stunning landscapes and colourful characters in this passion project, but the meandering narrative lacks strong story arcs to bind the ensemble, making it feel more suited to a TV mini-series.

The evocative filmmaking and throwback grandeur are highlights, but the film lacks emotional substance and feels like the most expensive trailer for a sequel ever made, stumbling as a standalone franchise-starter.

Despite some epic vistas, shootouts and strong ensemble performances, the sprawling three-hour film feels flat with no real end in sight, more like the first episode of a series than a self-contained movie.

The critic largely agrees with the negative consensus on the film's tedious length and lack of emotional impact but highlights nine positive aspects, including its brisk pacing despite the runtime and strong visuals in places.

The review finds the sprawling Western a technically efficient but unappealing series pilot that retreads old tropes without emotional investment or modern insight, feeling like a conservative relic glorifying manifest destiny.