trrsb Before you go ballistic about this rotten review of what is otherwise a pretty good flick, I feel I needed to take a stand against the recent trends in the opening "credit reel" in films like this. There is NOTHING worse than credits that roll incessantly into 10 minutes or more of the film, rolling in the background over scenes meant to draw you in with the drama taking place - yet you are obliged to read another credit being splashed on the screen. I liken this to the inane "popups" we all get in the Internet world. Sorry, but when during the opening scenes in Part 2 showing Costner rescuing Matt Barr (Johnse Hatfield) from certain death, I don't give a damn who the Asst Asst Producer is. And this crap continued even deeper into the movie, so I hit the eject button. Where did these people learn how to make a movie? Do they understand the nature of continuity and how it is absolutely destroyed when credits continue unabated well into the dialogue, drama and action taking place? Awful. And, I fully blame the director here for allowing this sort of thing to ruin the most critical part of the film - the first 10 minutes – the time to either draws in the audience or put them to sleep with endless advertising for people that might have had some vicarious connection to the movie or maybe a relative of the Key Grip guy. So, there it is - 1 star. Maybe if enough of us complain, this grotesque filmmaking trend will go to the cutting room floor where it belongs!

kindtxgal Fantastic historical docudrama of an American family feud that began soon after the Civil War continuing for almost three decades. Excellent acting, and research EXCEPT for one fairly strange oversight on the part of the screenwriters -- A congregation is singing "Are You Washed In the Blood?" soon after the War as McCoy and his wife walk arm in arm into church --.. problem is -- this traditionally recognized tune to the lyrics were not set to music until 1888... two decades after McCoy returns from the War. Other than that glitch -- it's a pretty darn good movie and definitively intriguing tragic slice of Americana.Another interesting tidbit about the film is that this very "American" historical story is filmed in Romania. According to commentary about this point, it was because there are apparently no native, unmarked forest or mountain ranges comparable to West Virginia or Kentucky in which it could be filmed due to the extent of power lines, etc. I find it difficult to believe that with all the cinematographic advances enjoyed by movie goers, there wouldn't be a way to edit 'ink over' or erase any possible power lines IF they were to appear in a film sequence. Just a thought.

chaos-rampant Apparently, this set a viewing record for cable TV and was nominated for no less than 15 Emmies. On one hand, it is good to know there is a modern audience for westerns, a genre that has largely drowned in the Lucas-noise of the last 30 years. And I fully support the mini-series format, it may just be the right canvas for cinematic narrative these days—indeed, it seems that quality American narrative tradition has largely moved to TV.On the other hand, we get close to 5 hours of the following:1) repetitive bushwacking to the point of complete numbness, and the same dour, one-note mugging throughout by rival family patriarchs Costner and Paxton. (this Deadwood writer ought to have studied Lonesome Dove: you CAN show broken lives in the afterglow of dreams)2) trite soap opera on an emotional level, with a Romeo and Juliet subplot that entirely drags this down like the James subplot does Twin Peaks.3) the same bleached , dishwater look throughout, supposedly in the name of authenticity.4) The story here is of celebrities and all the American violence that fuels and prints the legend. This is so old and familiar by now, it neither exposes nor deconstructs anything. It feels as tacked-on now, as it was once fresh in Liberty Valance.I'd like to think Costner is to fault, who like other megastars Redford and Cruise always has to appear in a streamlined environment that doesn't challenge. But no, I think what really happened was TV executives who conceived this on the lowest common level possible. It worked.

LeonLouisRicci This long stretching out of the infamous feud is not bad just nothing special. There is nothing here cinematically, literary, or artistically that hasn't been seen before. It breaks no new ground and is an interesting piece of history but doesn't have enough diversity or depth to allow for such length. Therefore, the story and its machinations becomes repetitive and if there isn't anything in the style or packaging to endear it flounders and fails.The performances are professional, but nothing to get all riled up about. Revenge, hate, misunderstandings, ignorance, blood lust, and not the least, stubbornness are all here in abundance but it is nothing we would not expect from the backwoods at a time of little education and much clannishness.One historical theory...one wonders if Hatfield would not have deserted during the war in front of Mccoy, who stuck out "the cause" to the end and ended up being mistreated in a POW camp...would he have been as bitter towards his friend? That seemed to be where the seed of hate was planted.