4K - 8K Resolution and/or Dolby Atmos/DTSX Content Reviews

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I'm not sure why you'd say this. Horizon Chapter 1 was one of the better movies I've watched over the last while. It went by much quicker than I would have expected a 3 hour movie to, which is usually good sign that you're engrossed enough for the time to fly by. I didn't see any real mis-steps in the script. Defintely a slower burn western, but that's not a terrible thing, especially given that it's clearly just the first part of a much longer story.

The extended sizzle reel at the somewhat abrupt end of the movie was unexpected and unsual.

I'm sure some people didn't like it. That's the always case. But I though Horizon Chapter 1 was pretty well made.

That’s the interesting thing about ANY movie/TV series - for some reasons, some people just don’t like the way it is written/made. My wife loved “Horizon” also, but I thought it was poorly done. Sometimes hard to explain.

Maybe I expected “Horizon” to be like Yellowstone, Mayor of Kingstown, “1883”, “1923”, and “Wind River”.

 

[j_garcia]

The fact that they haven't released part 2 already if it is done means maybe they are thinking they can cut it up and push it back to a miniseries. They're trying to figure out how to salvage it since Horizon was a massive loss for them.

 

[Movie2099]

The fact that they haven't released part 2 already if it is done means maybe they are thinking they can cut it up and push it back to a miniseries. They're trying to figure out how to salvage it since Horizon was a massive loss for them.

I'd have to disagree. Horizon wasn't a "massive" loss. It just didn't earn what they had hoped it would earn. It has or will soon make back it's budget. You're not factoring in digital and physical media sales, plus selling the rights to other networks over the years to show on their channels. Hollywood wants immediate results, Horizon didn't give them that. But it's not "massive" loss. When I think of massive losses for studios, I'm thinking of movies that lost the company over $100 million. Which this movie did not.

If they throw Chapter 2 on Max as a movie or a mini-series, it will definitely meet their requirements for viewership. As long as at least 1 million people watch it, that should be enough to green light Chapters 3 and 4. Then, it would be up to WB to market the crap out of it. Which they didn't really do for the movie. I absolutely think this Horizon saga can be a success for the studio, if done right. They picked a crappy weekend to release the movie, now they've learned that going the theater route won't blow up the box office, but they could have a hit on their hands if they put it on their streaming service.

 

[j_garcia]

It made ~$33m against a more than $100m budget. That's approaching Borderlands as one of the biggest losers of 2024. Western epics generally don't do well in the box office. That doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it is good, there just isn't enough interest to see that sort of film in theaters. That could be why the shows did well and the film did not.

Dances with Wolves maybe hit at the right time that people were interested to see that at the time. The fact that it earned multiple Oscars likely helped it's box office as well.

 

[Movie2099]

It made ~$33m against a more than $100m budget. That's approaching Borderlands as one of the biggest losers of 2024. Western epics generally don't do well in the box office. That doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it is good, there just isn't enough interest to see that sort of film in theaters. That could be why the shows did well and the film did not.

Dances with Wolves maybe hit at the right time that people were interested to see that at the time. The fact that it earned multiple Oscars likely helped it's box office as well.

The $100 million was for both movies. Since they were shot back to back. By now, WB has made back at least $50 million from theater sales, digital and physical sales. Plus any uptick in streaming revenue for people that waited to watch it on the MAX app.

I agree that today's young audience just isn't into long westerns or Westerns in general. The numbers for westerns over the last decade are just not that great. We can say that streaming shows that have western themes seem to be doing great (Yellowstone and all of it's spin-offs). So I suppose maybe then WB should look at doing that with Costner's Horizon Saga.

Like I mentioned before, I'm glad Costner was able to get the first one in theaters. But now, I would be A-ok if they put the remaining chapters on streaming (for now) in the form of a series. So he can finish this story his way. Then release a nice 4k box set!

 

[j_garcia]

The $100 million was for both movies. Since they were shot back to back. By now, WB has made back at least $50 million from theater sales, digital and physical sales. Plus any uptick in streaming revenue for people that waited to watch it on the MAX app.

I agree that today's young audience just isn't into long westerns or Westerns in general. The numbers for westerns over the last decade are just not that great. We can say that streaming shows that have western themes seem to be doing great (Yellowstone and all of it's spin-offs). So I suppose maybe then WB should look at doing that with Costner's Horizon Saga.

Like I mentioned before, I'm glad Costner was able to get the first one in theaters. But now, I would be A-ok if they put the remaining chapters on streaming (for now) in the form of a series. So he can finish this story his way. Then release a nice 4k box set!

The first one was panned so hard the second one has no chance in the box office. I saw an article that mentioned Costner doesn't know why critics say his films won't do well, then some do and some don't. Critics said Field of Dreams would not do well...they were clearly wrong. They said Dances with Wolves wouldn't do well and 7 Oscars beg to differ. But then he has stuff like The Postman, which was good, but sort of just dragged on and went nowhere. Waterworld, which again, interesting but ultimately average (I liked it).

 

[Movie2099]

The first one was panned so hard the second one has no chance in the box office. I saw an article that mentioned Costner doesn't know why critics say his films won't do well, then some do and some don't. Critics said Field of Dreams would not do well...they were clearly wrong. They said Dances with Wolves wouldn't do well and 7 Oscars beg to differ. But then he has stuff like The Postman, which was good, but sort of just dragged on and went nowhere. Waterworld, which again, interesting but ultimately average (I liked it).

I like Waterworld as well. Which over time has now become a cult classic. Now that the original studio released a 4k and so did Arrow Videos (I own both versions). Both sold very well on 4k. I know Costner said that he plays the long game on some of these movies (Waterworld, the Postman etc..) he said those movies have gone on to make a lot of money over the decades because of the TV rights deals, streaming deals and in Waterworlds case multiple 4k releases. Dances with Wolves is being worked on (from what I've heard) and I can't wait for that to hit 4k. Will be a sought after 4k release (if done properly).

I didn't read any of the reviews from critics, on Horizon. Grand majority of them were hit pieces from Paramount studios because of how he left Yellowstone. Critics today are all paid shills of studios. I don't care what they say and they're mostly wrong all the time. The actual feedback from the fans of Costner, Westerns, etc... was actually pretty good. After I watched it Friday I would have to agree, I thought it was a great chapter 1.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

It made ~$33m against a more than $100m budget. That's approaching Borderlands as one of the biggest losers of 2024. Western epics generally don't do well in the box office. That doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it is good, there just isn't enough interest to see that sort of film in theaters. That could be why the shows did well and the film did not.

Dances with Wolves maybe hit at the right time that people were interested to see that at the time. The fact that it earned multiple Oscars likely helped it's box office as well.

It helps when “Dances with Wolves” had great reviews and word of mouth from friends.

I think a lot of people read reviews before spending time and money on movies. I am a huge fan of Costner. But after reading a lot of negative reviews, the only way I would watch “Horizon” was on streaming.

And when my friends and family asked what I thought of “Horizon”, I told them I didn't like it. So no way they would even stream the movie much less pay money to watch at theaters.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

The $100 million was for both movies. Since they were shot back to back. By now, WB has made back at least $50 million from theater sales, digital and physical sales. Plus any uptick in streaming revenue for people that waited to watch it on the MAX app.

I agree that today's young audience just isn't into long westerns or Westerns in general. The numbers for westerns over the last decade are just not that great. We can say that streaming shows that have western themes seem to be doing great (Yellowstone and all of it's spin-offs). So I suppose maybe then WB should look at doing that with Costner's Horizon Saga.

Like I mentioned before, I'm glad Costner was able to get the first one in theaters. But now, I would be A-ok if they put the remaining chapters on streaming (for now) in the form of a series. So he can finish this story his way. Then release a nice 4k box set!

I am a huge fan of Costner. So I hope he doesn’t lose money. But yeah TV series would be a good idea. It might actually be a lot better as a series.

 

[j_garcia]

$38M out of pocket was Costner's money.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I like Waterworld as well. Which over time has now become a cult classic. Now that the original studio released a 4k and so did Arrow Videos (I own both versions). Both sold very well on 4k. I know Costner said that he plays the long game on some of these movies (Waterworld, the Postman etc..) he said those movies have gone on to make a lot of money over the decades because of the TV rights deals, streaming deals and in Waterworlds case multiple 4k releases. Dances with Wolves is being worked on (from what I've heard) and I can't wait for that to hit 4k. Will be a sought after 4k release (if done properly).

I didn't read any of the reviews from critics, on Horizon. Grand majority of them were hit pieces from Paramount studios because of how he left Yellowstone. Critics today are all paid shills of studios. I don't care what they say and they're mostly wrong all the time. The actual feedback from the fans of Costner, Westerns, etc... was actually pretty good. After I watched it Friday I would have to agree, I thought it was a great chapter 1.

I think the only 2 Costner movies I didn’t like were “Horizon” and “Wyatt Earp”.

I love “Waterworld” also.

 

[Trebdp83]

Regardless of critical acclaim or panning, a movie needs to make money. Costner has not been a box office draw in decades and most movie goers were not even alive when he was a bankable star. Those production budgets do not include the cost of promotion and the studios get about fifty percent of the gross box office. Streaming and physical media have their own costs. So, if you are all in on a movie for about one hundred fifty million dollars to about two hundred million dollars, you've got to bring in about three hundred million dollars to about four hundred million dollars to break even and then go on from there. Huge flops can and have closed studios.

Studios also haven't learned their lesson about attaching "Part One" or "Chapter One" to an already overlong movie. Many will avoid an already long movie if it isn't even a complete story. The last Mission Impossible movie's box office was hurt by it and the movie and its second part have been retitled.

Horizon should have always been a mini series. They gambled and lost at the box office and the release date was a big mistake. Oh, and the "Waterworld" stunt show at Universal Studios Hollywood is better than the f#%kin' "Waterworld" movie. Costner's brand is low energy and low key. An action star he is not. "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" also sucked. But, I still love "American Flyers."

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Uglies 2024 4K ATMOS Streaming.

PQ: Looks great, beautiful looking picture. I think it was shot using the 8K RED Weapon Dragon by the Wonderland Sound and Vision company. Very colorful and vibrant.

SQ: I think REFERENCE quality ATMOS sound effects. Has many cool overhead sound effects. Bass is fantastic.

Story: Screenplay written by people who wrote TV series Game of Thrones, Daredevil, Ozark, Alias, Lawmen Bass Reeves, and movies Shape of Water, Divergent. The plot reminds me of the "Divergent" movie series. So nothing earth-shattering. But a lot of good screenwriting credits there. I liked this movie. Kind of short and cool. Beautiful to look at. Great ATMOS. I enjoyed it.

 

[Movie2099]

I think the only 2 Costner movies I didn’t like were “Horizon” and “Wyatt Earp”.

I love “Waterworld” also.

I still need to see Wyatt Earp. I hope to watch it sometime soon.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I still need to see Wyatt Earp. I hope to watch it sometime soon.

Since you love "Horizon", you will probably like "Wyatt Earp" then.

 

[Movie2099]

Regardless of critical acclaim or panning, a movie needs to make money. Costner has not been a box office draw in decades and most movie goers were not even alive when he was a bankable star. Those production budgets do not include the cost of promotion and the studios get about fifty percent of the gross box office. Streaming and physical media have their own costs. So, if you are all in on a movie for about one hundred fifty million dollars to about two hundred million dollars, you've got to bring in about three hundred million dollars to about four hundred million dollars to break even and then go on from there. Huge flops can and have closed studios.

Studios also haven't learned their lesson about attaching "Part One" or "Chapter One" to an already overlong movie. Many will avoid an already long movie if it isn't even a complete story. The last Mission Impossible movie's box office was hurt by it and the movie and its second part have been retitled.

Horizon should have always been a mini series. They gambled and lost at the box office and the release date was a big mistake. Oh, and the "Waterworld" stunt show at Universal Studios Hollywood is better than the f#%kin' "Waterworld" movie. Costner's brand is low energy and low key. An action star he is not. "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" also sucked. But, I still love "American Flyers."

You watch your tongue! Robin Hood Prince of Thieves is a great movie! I saw that in theaters when I was a kid.

Regarding MI:7 pt1, I blame the studio for releasing it one weekend before Barbenheimer. It had ONE weekend in premium screens. Haha that will kill any big summer blockbuster. I'm not sure why Tom Cruise wanted to compete with that. MI movies tend to come out in August or early Sept. That would've been a better time to release it.

 

[Movie2099]

Since you love "Horizon", you will probably like "Wyatt Earp" then.

I'm guessing I will!

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

You watch your tongue! Robin Hood Prince of Thieves is a great movie!

I also liked "Robin Hood".

And don't forget "The Postman" and "The Bodyguard" !

 

[Trebdp83]

I'll never watch "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" again. I've watched "Robin Hood: Men In Tights" countless times.

 

[Movie2099]

I'll never watch "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" again. I've watched "Robin Hood: Men In Tights" countless times.

To be honest, I've only seen Robin Hood: Men in tights maybe a couple of times since it came out. It was very funny back in the day. I'd like to watch all those spoof movies again. Like Naked gun, airplane and such. Classic!