Excellent but underrated film

Don't listen to the negative reviews

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Oh, my goodness! This is one of the WORST films I've ever seen! The summary sounded so cool—a farmer hears a mysterious voice saying, "If you build it, he will come"—he builds a baseball field, and legendary players show up to play. A home run of an idea, right?Yes—only the makers of this film were more like Sal Fasano at the plate than Babe Ruth. The first glaring issue is the plot itself. The film starts as billed—guy is walking through his fields in Iowa, hears the voice. Of course, he will spend the next several minutes trying to figure out what the voice meant. He'll go talk to neighbors, find out who used to own the field, get a mysterious visitor, discover that a famous player always wanted to play there but never got the chance. Right? Wrong! Instead, after about five minutes or so, he just sort of figures out that it means a baseball stadium and that he is Shoeless Joe. No clues, startling discoveries, or anything—the idea just sort of comes to him. If Arthur Conan Doyle wrote stories in this way, Sherlock Holmes never would have taken off.Okay, so the plot's weak, but a movie can still be okay with a weak plot. Good baseball scenes ought to balance that out. Only, Field of Dreams isn't all about baseball. In fact, only about half of it is—the other half is about politics! I know—that's not what I ever heard when this movie was described to me—but it is! Examples: Ray and Annie (the main characters) were specifically described as going to Berkeley and, early on, were strongly differentiated from other Iowans. Okay, that can be chalked off as character development—but it gets worse. Kevin Costner's character is shown driving his van, which has a McGovern sticker on it. Now, that's political! George McGovern was a real political candidate—he's the man Nixon ran against in '72. His supporters might enjoy seeing that, but all the many people that voted against him certainly wouldn't. Most likely. There might be tactful ways to work it into a movie plot, but this movie is concerned with endorsing McGovern's principles—which suddenly makes it political and partisan. Also in the movie, Costner (Ray) and Amy Madigan (Annie) go to a PTA meeting, where parents are trying to get the school board to prohibit books by a fictional author named Terence Mann from being read in the schools. One mother argues that these books include promiscuity and godlessness—a charge never denied by any of the characters. Annie, however, gets up and argues that to prohibit his works in schools would be Nazism and a 1st Amendment violation. Her argument carries the day in the movie, causing great distress to us viewers! Yes, the 1st Amendment gives any book the right to be printed in America, but it doesn't give any book the right to be promoted in schools. Is it a 1st Amendment violation that kids don't read Playboy magazine in schools? No! It's discretion on the part of the teachers because to permit such literature would encourage immorality among the youth. Besides, these people aren't really for the inclusion of any book in a school curriculum. Suggest to them that a book by Rush Limbaugh be included, and see how much 1st Amendment arguments they make then. I'm not advocating that a Rush Limbaugh book be included in a school curriculum—I'm just showing that these people have a double standard when it comes to evaluating works of literature. Books they like appear because all books must be allowed—books they don't like are quietly not discussed and softly shunted off to the side. As if that's not bad enough, though, Mann himself becomes a character in the movie, with the voice then telling Costner to go to Boston to "ease his pain." Thus, not only are we forced to hear why schoolkids should read the man's books, but we're forced to watch him be portrayed as a great guy who's misunderstood. If you were cringing as his books were described, it'll get even worse as his character becomes one of the leads.Yes, a baseball movie should not be so political—but this one is, and it's terrible for it! Baseball is included to get people interested in the film, which then becomes a propaganda piece for un-American values. It was very disturbing to watch, and very disappointing, considering what I'd heard about it. If you're looking for a great baseball movie, keep looking. This isn't it.

I loved this movie when I was a kid. It came out when I was 9 and like so many other Kevin Costner movies, it became one of my all time favorites.I can still remember seeing it in the theater.It's right up there with "Bull Durham," only it seems like it's on the far opposite of the coin. "Bull Durham" took baseball and more specifically baseball fans and poked fun at us. It teased us for loving the game the same way that older sibling or favorite uncle that you looked up to teased you about your own eccentricities. Never in a mean or hostile way, but in a familial closeness."Field of Dreams" takes the opposite stance. Instead of lovingly mocking us for loving baseball, it tells the audience why fans can make the sport an obsession.It illustrates how it brings families together. How a simple game of catch creates a father and son bond. It shows its audience how the game transcends generations and, in a way, shows people why freaks like me rent apartments across the street from softball diamonds, just so, when the weather's warm, we can walk across the street and watch a game...or, when we are stuck inside working, we can crack open a window and listen to the familiar and comforting sounds.Even if you don't play there is something almost...I don't know--would angelic be strong enough?--magical? wonderful? there is something to that sound a bad makes when it hits a ball. Especially when it's followed by yells and cheers.It's something that you don't get when you go to Wrigley Field or when you watch the game on television. But you play a game, you go to the cages, you start hitting up your local high school games and you get to hear that clink, the cheers, that rush of excitement that makes you stand up in your seat and start yelling too."Field of Dreams" explains all of that, right down to the few stolen hours between twilight and darkness children get to enjoy when they sneak to the backyard after dinner and play catch until they can't see the ball any more.And right there, to go along with it, the movie is about magic too.It's almost as good as the game itself.

I remember watching this in my RE class I found it rather interesting the plot is a bit of mistry of first on wanting to know what is going to happen. The character's are wonderful and I think it's great that we get a mistry film. That we do find out in the film that on what the guy was saying to the farmer make the field and he will come meaning that the farmer's father was going to return to play cricket on the farmer's field and being reunited with him. But I think the learning message in this film is that dreams can come true. overall this movie is very good in my book 8/10

Having just watched this movie for the umpteenth time when I came across it on the TV (I have the DVD as well!), I thought it was time I wrote a review.What can I say? I think this is my all-time favourite movie. It hits a spot that no other movie ever hit. Obviously, that's a personal reaction, but I can relate to Ray Kinsella's feeling about his father. My father died when I was 21. I'd been away from home at boarding school, then uni, from the age of 11. Of course, I'm grateful for the education, but it meant I got to spend very little time with my father for the last 10 years of his life and I wasn't mature enough to realise the value of the little time I did spend with him. There were things left unsaid when he died. It would be magical to see my fatter again, as Ray gets to do at the end of the movie. Unfortunately, life doesn't afford us such chances in reality. The movie catches those emotions perfectly and I cannot help but she'd a tear at the end, when Ray see his father, so young with his whole life still ahead of him.The acting is superb, from the stars to the bit-parts. The script is wonderful and the music stirs the emotions, too. It's the best thing Costner has done, even now, 28 years later, he still hasn't topped it. The movie made Ray Liotta a star. He was perfectly cast as Shoeless Joe. Jane Earl Jones, as Terence Mann, the disillusioned 60s firebrand, brings that amazing voice to the role and runs through the gamut of emotions,from indignity to wonderment. Amy Madigan is also excellent as the slightly scatty wife of Ray. But I save special praise for Burt Lancaster, in his last movie role, who brings Doc Graham to life so perfectly. This movie us simply amazing. If you haven't seen it, please do.