How long is the movie dancing with wolves

Dances with Wolves (1990) - IMDb

Cast & crew
User reviews
Trivia

IMDbPro

19901990
PG-13PG-13
3h 1m

IMDb RATING

8.0/10

265K

YOUR RATING

POPULARITY

Play trailer1

1 Video

99+ Photos

AdventureDramaWestern

Lieutenant John Dunbar, assigned to a remote western Civil War outpost, befriends wolves and Native Americans, making him an intolerable aberration in the military.Lieutenant John Dunbar, assigned to a remote western Civil War outpost, befriends wolves and Native Americans, making him an intolerable aberration in the military. Lieutenant John Dunbar, assigned to a remote western Civil War outpost, befriends wolves and Native Americans, making him an intolerable aberration in the military.

IMDb RATING

8.0/10

265K

YOUR RATING

POPULARITY

Director
- Kevin Costner
Writer
- Michael Blake(screenplay by)
Stars
- Kevin Costner
- Mary McDonnell
- Graham Greene

Director
- Kevin Costner
Writer
- Michael Blake(screenplay by)
Stars
- Kevin Costner
- Mary McDonnell
- Graham Greene

See production, box office & company info

577User reviews
94Critic reviews
72Metascore

See more at IMDbPro

Won 7 Oscars
- 51 wins & 38 nominations total

Videos1

Trailer 1:31

Watch Dances With Wolves: 20th Anniversary Edition

Photos231

Top cast

Kevin Costner

Lieutenant Dunbar

Mary McDonnell

Stands With A Fist

Graham Greene

Kicking Bird

Rodney A. Grant

Wind In His Hair

Floyd 'Red Crow' Westerman

Ten Bears
(as Floyd Red Crow Westerman)

Tantoo Cardinal

Black Shawl

Robert Pastorelli

Timmons

Charles Rocket

Lieutenant Elgin

Maury Chaykin

Major Fambrough

Jimmy Herman

Stone Calf

Nathan Lee Chasing His Horse

Smiles A Lot

Michael Spears

Jason R. Lone Hill

Tony Pierce

Spivey

Doris Leader Charge

Pretty Shield

Tom Everett

Sergeant Pepper

Larry Joshua

Sergeant Bauer

Kirk Baltz

Edwards

Director
- Kevin Costner
Writer
- Michael Blake(screenplay by) (based on his novel)
All cast & crew
Production, box office & more at IMDbPro

More like this

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves

Rain Man

The Postman

The Last of the Mohicans

The Untouchables

The Bodyguard

The Last Emperor

The English Patient

Platoon

Open Range

Driving Miss Daisy

Unforgiven

Storyline

Did you know

Alternate versions
The 236-minute "extended version" or "Director's Cut" has been released on home video, altering the movie as such:
- 38 x new scene
- 15 x extended scene
- 12 x alternative footage
- 5 x alternative text
- 1 x new text
- 3 x postponed scene
- 3 x altered arrangement of scenes
- 3 x shortened scene.
There is also a 233-minute version which cuts out the 3 minute Intermission at around 133 min featuring John Barry music.

Connections
Featured in At the Movies: Jacob's Ladder/Waiting for the Light/Tune in Tomorrow.../Vincent & Theo (1990)

Soundtracks
Fire Dance
By Peter Buffett

User reviews577

Review

Featured review

10/

A Moving and Superbly Made Movie

Like most of the commentators here, I found "Dances With Wolves" to be a moving and superbly made movie. Others have eloquently talked about the wonderful music and score, the very real script, and excellent acting, so there is no need for me to elaborate. But another element of the movie that I found even more notable is its depiction of Native Americans as individuals with feelings, honorable if at the same time frequently peculiar customs, and as human beings with human urges and impulses. What a refreshing contrast to all of the pablum and nonsense that has been the staple of Hollywood and its treatment of "injuns" over the years.

So it comes as no surprise that some of the criticisms here come from people who believe the movie is anti-white or anti-army or glorifies Native Americans. But I believe these comments completely miss the mark. First off, Costner in the movie himself portrays an army figure--the movie is trying to show that not all people in the army are beasts. This is again brought out by the young leader of the troops attempting to arrest Costner and bring him back to trial; this soldier is depicted as a fair and honest young man put in a difficult spot.

Perhaps one of the reasons for the shortsightedness of some of the movie critics is their lack of understanding of the terrible plight faced by native Americans and the awful, holocaust-like consequences of the policy that was known as "Indian Removal." And yes, I am a professor who knows something about the subject and who uses this film in class (and I am not afraid to admit it). Please have a look at "As Long as Grass Grows or Water Runs" a chapter in Howard Zinn's famous book, "A People's History of the United States." It uses many primary sources to describe exactly what happened; the phrase, by the way, was a promise made by Andrew Jackson (later President Jackson) to Cherokee Indians if they would relocate (a promise later broken, of course). Jackson, by the way, refused to enforce a court order from the Supreme Court in the case of Worcester v. Georgia involving an individual sentenced to prison for questioning the legitimacy of laws repressing the Cherokees. Jackson also fought the Creeks killing hundreds of them and later boasted, "the truth is, the (Creeks) did not respect the power of the United States...We bleed our enemies in such cases to give them their senses." From 1814 to 1824, Jackson was instrumental in fashioning a series of treaties that deprived Indians of over 3/4 of Alabama and Florida, one-third of Tennessee, one-fifth of Georgia and Mississippi, and parts of Kentucky and North Carolina. These treaties were little more than land grabs and Jackson is widely known to have practiced extensive bribery and other dirty tricks in securing them. At the same time, Jackson and his friends and relatives received many patronage appointments as land agents, traders etc (I guess he would have gotten along well with Dick Chenney and Bush) and of course, he and his friends bought up much of this land that became suddenly available.

Another good source for what happened to the Indians is the eyewitness account of a soldier who served in the mounted infantry. John G. Burnett in 1890 published his reminiscences, "The Cherokee Removal through the Eyes of a Private Soldier". "I was sent as interpreter into the Smoky Mountain Country in May, 1838, and witnessed the execution of the most brutal order in the History of American Warfare. I saw the helpless Cherokees arrested and dragged from their homes, and driven at the bayonet point into the stockades. And in the chill of a drizzling rain on an October morning, I saw them loaded like cattle or sheep into 645 wagons and started toward the West. " This evokes images not unlike those showing S.S. officers putting Jews in railroad cars. "At this time, 1890," continues Burnett, "we are too near the removal of the Cherokees for our young people to fully understand the enormity of the crime that was committed against a helpless race. Truth is, the facts are being concealed from the young people of today." Burnett later describes the "streams of blood that flowed in the Indian country in the summer of 1838" and the "4000 silent graves that mark the trail of the Cherokees to their exile", again very much like a World War II death march. So what I find shocking about "Dances With Wolves" is that it shows, to a great extent, the brutality of the conflict between "settlers" from one civilization, and the people who already lived on the land. This stands as a testament to Costner and his willingness to take this brave position. It is precisely because this subject has become taboo and because most Americans haven't a clue as to their own history, because their image of America is similar to Pleasantville (before colorization), that many people find this movie revolting and unacceptable. Hence, they prefer to shoot the messenger of the "bad" news-- Costner.

Finally, as others have pointed out, the movie does not glorify all Native Americans. It shows that there is a spectrum of behavior amongst them, and also shows that many of their customs (eating fresh meat from just-killed animals, for example) are shocking and barbaric to us today.

helpful•36

wordsmith200
Jun 14, 2006

Is this based on any real facts? Did any European person live with natives as one of them?
Is it true that around that time the Sioux tribe was finished? Are the buffalo extinct?
Why did Major Fambrough act so strangely?

Details

Release date
- November 21, 1990 (United States)
Countries of origin
- United States
- United Kingdom
Official sites
- Official Facebook
- Official site
Languages
- English
- Sioux
- Pawnee
Also known as
- Khiêu Vũ Với Bầy Sói
Filming locations
- Badlands National Park, South Dakota, USA
Production companies
- Tig Productions
- Majestic Films International
- Allied Filmmakers
See more company credits at IMDbPro

Box office

Budget
- $22,000,000 (estimated)
Gross US & Canada
- $184,208,848
Opening weekend US & Canada
- $598,257
- Nov 11, 1990
Gross worldwide
- $424,208,848

See detailed box office info on IMDbPro

Technical specs

Runtime
3 hours 1 minute
Color
Aspect ratio
- 2. 39 : 1

Contribute to this page

Suggest an edit or add missing content

Top Gap

What is the streaming release date of Dances with Wolves (1990) in Canada?

Answer

More to explore

'Dances With Wolves'--the Really Long Version : Movies: A four-hour cut of the film opens in London. It features 52 minutes of footage that did not appear in the original release. The extra scenes help spell out the film's themes more clearly.

By DAVID GRITTEN

Dec. 20, 1991 12 AM PT

SPECIAL TO THE TIMES

LONDON —

For those of you who thought that, at 181 minutes, this year’s runaway Oscar winner “Dances With Wolves” wasn’t quite long enough . . . here’s the good news.

A four-hour cut of the movie, titled “Dances With Wolves--The Special Edition” has opened in one West End theater here. It features 52 minutes of footage that did not appear in the originally released movie.

But why? That is a question addressed in a letter to British film reviewers by the film’s director and star Kevin Costner, and producer Jim Wilson. “Why add another hour to a film which by most standards pushes the time limit of conventional movie making?”

There were two main reasons, according to a statement from Costner and Wilson: “The 52 additional minutes that represent this ‘new’ version were difficult to cut in the first place, and . . . the opportunity to introduce them to an audience is compelling.

“We have received countless letters from people worldwide asking when or if a sequel would be made, so it seemed like a logical step to enhance our film with existing footage . . . making an extended version is by no means to imply that the original ‘Dances With Wolves’ was unfinished or incomplete; rather it creates an opportunity for those who fell in love with the characters and the spectacle of the film to experience more of both. ”

The film won seven Oscars, including best picture. Costner was named best director on his directing debut.

“Dances With Wolves” is the story of John Dunbar, an idealistic young Civil War officer played by Costner who befriends a tribe of Sioux Indians and becomes one of them.

The 52 minutes of extra scenes help spell out the film’s themes more clearly. Included in the new footage is a trek undertaken by Dunbar and his best Indian friend, Kicking Bird, in which they come upon a forest despoiled by white hunters. A new sequence that depicts the slaughter by the Sioux of white buffalo hunters sheds new light on Dunbar’s decision to return to white society. In general, the longer version portrays the Sioux more brutally and realistically.

Additional scenes also sharpen the courtship and marriage between Dunbar and a Sioux woman (played by Mary McDonnell). The personal and cultural gap between them is now emphasized more strongly.

London critics have mainly been supportive of the four-hour version. Those who liked the original film tended to like the longer film more, though dissenters have found the length of the special edition exasperating.

Christopher Tookey of the Sunday Telegraph wrote: “Now revealed on the scale intended by its director, ‘Dances With Wolves’ is much richer, more complex and sophisticated. It deserves to take its place among the classic Westerns.”

Philip French of the Observer commented: “The picture now has greater depth, and the length contributes to our appreciation of Dunbar’s isolation from the old world and of his absorption into a new culture.” The Guardian’s Derek Malcolm added: “Though four hours is the dickens of a long time in the cinema, this new ‘edition’ makes it seem like time well spent.”

Among doubters was the Independent’s Chris Peachment, who described the film as “crashing on to our screens with all the heat and speed of a legless sloth. I defy anyone who saw the original a year ago to give me chapter and verse on exactly what has been extended. There’s an extra massacre in the middle, though not a very big one. Otherwise, it’s just the same scenes extended way beyond the limits of endurance.” Geoff Brown of the Times added: “An unnecessary revival.”

The special edition is playing to two houses a day at the Odeon, Haymarket. Anne McAlpine of Guild, the film’s British distributors, said it was “doing good business,” though early box-office figures were not available. “It will definitely play into the New Year,” she added. “We are still deciding whether to open it in other theaters.”

Carol Baker at Majestic Films, the British production company that co-funded “Dances With Wolves,” said that Orion Pictures had no contractual obligation to distribute the special edition. She knew of no plans to release it elsewhere.

To date, there is no four-hour release on video, and none has been announced, although there are rumors. Nor has a four-hour theatrical version for release in the U.S. been announced.

Movie Dances with Wolves (USA, UK, 1990) - Movie Poster

Movie

Dances with Wolves (1990, US, UK), IMDb: 8

Provided by user: Rockman Rock

1/10

Movie Cast Reviews (6)Similar

Kevin Costner in an Indian tribe

Lieutenant John Dunbar finds himself in an Indian tribe, where he discovers a whole new way of life. The Indians give him the name Dances with Wolves. The Trembling Bird becomes a close friend, and the woman Standing with a Fist loves Dances with Wolves more than anything.

Severnasha, UK

Exploration, Adventure, Drama

Directories Costner

Duration of 1 minute

Date of exit March30, 1990

Age restriction16+

Kevin Kevin, Mary McDonnell, GREM, Spring Green , Robert Pastorelli, Tantu Cardinal, Charles Rocket, Maury Chaikin, Michael Spears, Tom Everett,

Films directed by Kevin Costner

Kevin Costner

67 years, films: 46

American actor. For a long time I could not find a job in Hollywood. After he got a job in the theater, he began to attend numerous auditions. Kevin did not immediately, but noticed. In his first films, he was either an extra or just a "voice-over". After the film Shadows Are Always Black (1981), Costner began to work a lot in cinema: he starred in the films Night Shift (1982), Testament (1983), Fandango (1985), Amazing Stories (1985). "Star" for the actor was 1987, when he starred in the famous gangster action movie directed by Brian De Palma, The Untouchables. In 1989, Costner formed his own company, TIG Productions, with his friend, producer Jim Wilson; it was here that he began working as a director and directed his first film, Dances with Wolves (1990), which won seven Oscars. After that, Costner became one of the most popular actors in America. He starred in many box office films, among which were "Robin Hood - Prince of Thieves" (1991), "The Bodyguard" (1992), "A Perfect World" (1993), "War" (1994).

Open scope

2003, Western

Postman

1997, Adventure

The best reviews about the film "Dancing with Wolfs"

Sangryl

768 Reviews, 9012 Objects, rating 2107

7,0003

I Cooked new genre" - is called "if you have something to say".
Kevin Costner is a popular, good, respected actor.
Actor.
What makes a person become a director? The desire to say something yourself. For example, Mel Gibson. To be honest, now I don’t know what he does better - acting or directing ~~or beat your wife~~ .
Costner, to be honest, is better at playing.
But the film is very, very good.
Everything is as it should be, a moderate happy ending, yes, dragged out, yes, sometimes naive or somehow "raw", or something ... the film is very worthy, very.
Again, made with soul! (how sticky these slogans are).
It's a pity that Boot is killed....

April 21, 2011

Corvin

54 reviews, 59 ratings, rating 82

The modern world really needs heroes. He terribly missed those Americans for whom the word "honor" has not yet become a burp from a hamburger. It became a day with fire not to find people with an open soul. We are all, long ago, prisoners of cast-iron slums, and although we live as a single community, we touch someone personally only in the frenzied crowd of the morning subway.

Costner's Native American saga is filmed very tactfully and at the same time straightforward. Careful handling of the material is understandable - the director's experience is a waste of time, and the idea itself is painful for the target audience. Although, we must pay tribute to ordinary honest Americans - this is the first and only aggression of the world gendarme, which they are ready to recognize. But not out loud.

Therefore, walking on unknown land for Dunbar is doubly dangerous. The hour is not even, or they will decide their own, or others. But as the short story unfolds on the prairies, it is easy to understand - the sincerity of the city takes. Before us is the story of Mowgli, told with love for historical details. And although Kipling would break out in a cold sweat from the events on the screen, "Dances with Wolves" is still the same fairy tale from a distant childhood, where the difference between good and bad has not yet been erased into a gray strip of dust scattered by the wind among the asphalt veins that pierced the scalp so and not a conquered country.

Who are you, dancing among the wolves? Where is your real tribe?

As for me, I'd rather dance the tango with the gray brothers than shake hands with some upright ones. You know exactly what to expect from wolves. They are fierce predators. They eat raw meat. They are not like us.

And they are not capable of meanness.

September 5, 2013

Varvara Lis

26 reviews, 26 ratings, rating 3

6Costner's Triumph

When I first saw the film, I thought it was excellent. And I liked the main character, and his story is very interesting and full of various twists and turns.
But upon re-watching, it became clear that Costner's hero is a bastard, what else to look for.

In general, "A Dance with Wolves" is like a love story of people from different worlds. Indian woman and former lieutenant. And the whole story leads to their rapprochement and to what conclusions and conclusions the main character makes.

The film lasts three hours, and this already leaves its mark on the perception of what is happening during the viewing. You can simply get tired of what is happening on the screen, and the actions on it are very stretched, by the way. I remember that this film, even at the time of its release, was sold on two discs due to the long running time.

In principle, for its time "A Dance with Wolves" was good and exciting. Especially since there are fewer and fewer westerns being made.
But now he will not surprise the viewer with anything. It will only take three hours of his life. March 10, 2019 And Costner during the period of his acting dawn, and with the role of the director coped quite skillfully. And the "wild west", shown unexpectedly cameral and natural. And most importantly, the Indian theme, displayed not in cardboard, but quite the first plan, that is, fully. And then it doesn’t matter how greedy and ruthless the white invaders were, including the formal heroes of the civil war - northerners in uniforms. Not very important, but rather just expected, and a romantic line in the plot. And even a cute wolf is just a decoration. To an ethnic, ecological, historical, adventure spectacle... You never know how many epithets can be found!

April 28, 2018

Yuri Artamonov

256 reviews, 333 ratings, rating 94

Kostner director.
The film is really good, I recommend watching it to those who are interested in the culture of peoples, not only their own. Relationships between different peoples, somewhere probably communicative ability, somewhere the desire to listen and understand another person brought up in a different cultural environment. You can feel Kostner's handwriting in the manner of narration. Well, I can not believe that such a person is capable of meanness. Happy viewing everyone.

October 13, 2013

All reviews

Similar

Shenandoa

1965, Western

Jeronimo: American legend

1993, Western

Burning Star

1960, Western

Latest raid

2003, Western 2003, Western

Avatar

2009, Action

Events

Create a unique page for your event on Afisha

This is an opportunity to tell a multi-million audience about it and increase attendance

Abakan,
Azov,
Almetyevsk,
Angarsk,
Arzamas,
Armavir,
Artem,

premiere movie
Kevin Costner's epic drama "Open Range" about the problem of free grazing in America in 1882 is released today. Simply put, it's a western, a genre for which Costner has had a long-standing soft spot, but which for more than a decade, since the Oscar for Dances With Wolves, has brought him nothing but the embarrassing Golden Raspberry. The new film does not deserve such a punishment, but LIDIA Y-MASLOVA would not delude herself about its Oscar chances either.
"Open Space" Costner failed to deepen his own previous directorial failure - six years ago "The Postman" (The Postman). For that post-apocalyptic western, the author was kicked for a long time by critics, who were uncompromisingly complacent towards the more traditional "Open Space". Still: "Postman" is 177 minutes, and "Prostor" - only 145, and one can only guess how the director's heart bled, courageously cut out several fundamental landscape sketches and conversations about the weather in order to give the viewer half an hour of free time.
Despite Costner's own confidence that the film is unlikely to be sold with great success outside of America (at home, he also achieved modest box office performance), our distributors release it quite widely, relying on the touching love of Costner men for cowboy paraphernalia: hats , boots and guns. Yes, and the main psychological content of the film is the male relationship, primarily between the hero of Costner and his senior friend, patron and employer, played by Robert Duvall. There are also two younger guys in their company of free cowboys who serve mainly as whipping boys. First, one is beaten in the unfriendly town of Harmonville and put in a "monkey" as the initiator of a fight, and then the second is broken in the skull, and because of them, two hardened cowboys have to enter into a showdown with the gang "roofing" the city.
Although there is enough open space (as picturesque as in commercials about Marlboro Country) on the screen, in a more specific sense, open range is a public pasture, that is, a prairie, for the availability of which to everyone the positive characters of the film advocate . The negative, possessive, hate the free cowboys more than the Indians, and even forbid them to drink in the saloons. However, when the cowboys rescue a local's dog during a flood and win his friendship, the drinking problem is all but resolved.
Costner's hero does not manage to solve the problem of female affection so quickly: being a good guy, but unobservant, at first he takes the local doctor's sister, cutie Sue, for his wife and does not give vent to feelings. Separately, it's a shame for Annette Bening, who, as cute Sue, was forced to take on a deliberately rumpled look so that the viewer would believe that Costner's unwashed cowboy is really her last chance. Soon the misunderstanding about Sue's marital status is cleared up, and you can safely put into the mouth of the wise Duvall character the phrase: "Women like that make a man think about putting down roots." Before taking root, Costner drools: in a single Western in the history of cinema you will not meet a character who would spit so often and profusely. Perhaps Costner considered this rude but sincere salivation as a spectacular touch to the portrait of "a good person who thinks badly of himself" - this is how he defined the essence of his character. As for the portrait of Kevin Costner himself, the average director who thinks well of himself, Open Space does not contain a single touch to him that is disgusting enough to be remembered.
Learn more