Kevin Costner’s ‘Horizon’ Box Office Ho-Hum: Movies Aren’t TV

©Warner Bros/Courtesy Everett Collection

There’s hubris in expecting viewers to come see a 10-hour miniseries

It’s an old Hollywood adage: You shouldn’t put your own money into a movie. But I’ve always had a deep respect for people who do. It’s a clear sign of commitment, that they care enough about what they’re doing to invest in it. I also think there’s a dice effect: If you put your own money into a movie, your investment can be a hit. (That’s what happened with Mel Gibson and “The Passion of the Christ” and George Lucas with “Star Wars.”) And of course, there’s the admirable idea that people who self-finance are trying to bring to market a movie that a private studio has turned down. It’s a way for cinema to remain bold.

So the reckless, committed bravado Kevin Costner displayed in investing $38 million of his own money into “Horizon: An American Saga” is something I can get behind. In fact, as Costner eventually admitted, it might be closer to $50 million; perhaps he initially felt a little shy about admitting to this fanciful level of personal investment, because (to repeat) you’re not supposed to do it.

But Costner can obviously afford it. Any actor who does this kind of thing can. They still have plenty of resources. (That’s one reason I’m surprised it doesn’t happen more often.) Costner has always been the definition of a star who cares about others, who acts and directs projects that are worthwhile, who has a deep respect for the art of cinema. There’s something pure about the fact that he invested his own money in a sprawling Western magnum opus.

That said, it would be hard to think of another example of a film that proved the old saw right as much as “Horizon” does.

The box office numbers for “Horizon: An American Saga – Chapter One” are now in, and taken as a whole, as an indicator of where the series is headed, the numbers aren’t great. I suspected as much when I saw the film at Cannes, where I was one of several critics who gave it a mixed, if not scathing, review. What makes this case special is that the three-hour film is only a quarter of the total project. “Chapter Two” is due out in August. “Chapter Three” is currently shooting. And “Chapter Four,” at this point, is a castle in limbo—a movie idea that’s been lingering on Kevin Costner’s balance sheet.

Which means that “Horizon,” with a budget of $100 million (not for the entire saga, but just for “Chapter 1”) and an opening weekend budget of $12 million, has the potential to be not only a financial disaster, but also the kind of disaster that unfolds in slow motion over several months. In the case of “Chapter 3”, it involves building the train while it is crashing. It’s a hell of a box office smash at $38 million.

Costner knew what he was doing when he took his bet, and everything will work out. Maybe the money will even come back to him as residuals. But when a great film opens with this kind of thud, it’s worth asking what happened and whether there are lessons to be learned. In this case, there is a major lesson. Here it is: Don’t turn movies into television.

Because that’s what Costner tried to do, and it was his folly. His star had faded in the 2010s, but he came back with a vengeance with “Yellowstone,” the Taylor Sheridan TV series that debuted in 2018. It’s clear that Costner was inspired by the show’s extraordinary success when he decided to make Horizon an episodic drama, one that will (theoretically) run for more than 10 hours. This is not a 10-hour series. movieexactly. It’s a series—or, as I described “Chapter 1” in my review, “the seedbed of a miniseries.” Because you feel, watching “Chapter 1,” that you’re introduced to all these characters, but you haven’t even gotten to the good stuff yet. That kind of thing can work on television. But in movies, it’s fatal. I would say that a movie has to hook you. in the first 40 minutes or it’s toast.

The problem with “Chapter 1” is that it’s not a better a mini-series? Maybe. But I still think the problem is a question of form. The discursive, anecdotal, pervasive drama of “Horizon” feels, at least for the first three hours, like homework, and I don’t think it’s because I’m not “red state public” enough. no one” to get it. This is because television writing is different from film writing. Episodes of television, especially in an ensemble piece, are often interminable. There’s an in/out quality to them. Whereas films require a sense of resolution. And there’s hubris in the four-chapter concept of “Horizon,” because if people don’t do it If the public shows up for “Chapter 1,” who in God’s name will care about “Chapter 2”? That audience, in August, is likely to be even smaller.

Of course, it’s always possible that you don’t need to have seen “Chapter One” to enjoy “Chapter Two,” or that “Chapter Two” will turn out to be better. Maybe this movie, in two months, will have a life of its own. But I don’t think that’s how Kevin Costner envisioned it. He wants his audience to be all in. And he’s always been a quiet dramatist. (The original cut of “Dances with Wolves” was five hours long.) Investing your own money in a movie is, in my opinion, an honorable and even courageous thing to do, but the problem with the level of investment Costner has put into “Horizon” is that he’s already made the movie bigger than any movie should ever pretend to be. The drama of whether the audience will show up now transcends the drama on the screen. Sure, “Horizon” is “big,” “sprawling,” and “epic,” but so far it’s been busy and fragmented rather than grand. I suspect that, one way or another, it will eventually end its journey on the small screen: the place it was always meant to be.