The Myth: A Critical Misfire
The prevailing narrative, hardened over three decades, is that Dances with Wolves was met with a wave of negative reviews. The story goes that critics dismissed it as a bloated, self-indulgent vanity project from a star who had no business directing a three-hour
epic Western, a genre most considered long dead. This belief paints the film’s eventual triumph—culminating in a Best Picture win over the now-iconic GoodFellas—as a story of overcoming widespread critical scorn. It’s a compelling underdog tale, but one that crumbles under scrutiny. The film wasn't panned by critics; it was doubted by the industry.
The Reality: 'Kevin's Folly' Was an Industry Fear, Not a Critical Verdict
Before its release, Dances with Wolves was the joke of Hollywood. Kevin Costner, then a massive star, poured his own money into the project when studios balked at its length, its budget, and its extensive use of the Lakota language with English subtitles. The production was reportedly grueling, and industry insiders mockingly nicknamed the film "Kevin's Folly" and "Costner's Gate," a nod to the infamous 1980 Western flop Heaven's Gate that bankrupted a studio. The expectation was a colossal failure. But when the film finally premiered in the fall of 1990, a funny thing happened: the vast majority of critics loved it. They weren't panning it; they were praising its ambition, its stunning cinematography, and its heartfelt, revisionist take on the Western.
The Actual Reviews: A Chorus of Praise
Far from being panned, Dances with Wolves was a critical darling. Roger Ebert gave the film a perfect four-star rating, calling it a "sweeping, beautiful, romantic, exciting, committed movie." The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post raved about its grandeur and noble intentions. Critics celebrated Costner's directorial debut as audacious and visually magnificent. The film earned 12 Academy Award nominations, a clear sign of industry respect, not disdain. So where did the "panned" narrative come from? It was largely fueled by a few loud, influential detractors. The most notable was Pauline Kael of The New Yorker, a famously sharp-tongued critic who detested the movie. She called it a "New Age social-studies lesson" and labeled Costner a "bland megalomaniac." Her scathing review became a rallying point for the film's few but vocal critics, and its memory has likely contributed to the myth of a widespread negative reception.
The Legacy: How the Narrative Got Twisted
Over time, the story of Dances with Wolves became a conflation of two different ideas: the pre-release industry panic and the post-release critical discussion. The "Kevin's Folly" label was so sticky and compelling that it retroactively colored the memory of the film's reception. Adding to the confusion is the evolution of the film's critique. In the decades since its release, Dances with Wolves has faced more modern and complex criticism, particularly concerning its use of the "white savior" trope, where a white protagonist becomes the hero for a non-white community. While lauded in 1990 for its sympathetic portrayal of Native Americans, contemporary analysis often questions whether it still perpetuates stereotypes, albeit more gently than older Westerns. This valid, modern-day re-evaluation has likely been blended with the memory of its initial release, creating the false impression that these were the dominant critiques from the very beginning.
