I saw Dragonfly many years ago now but it has never left me. I am surprised that of all the movies I have seen that this is one I have found to be unforgettable. Though the budget wasn't huge and the special effects look low-grade by today's standards the acting is good and the message is powerful. It resonated with me on a number of levels. It is also a very interesting story. It doesn't matter whether you believe in the supernatural or psychic abilities or any of that, it is still intriguing. After someone very close to me passed away the movie became even more significant to me. I could really relate to his confusion and the feelings of madness, the anger and questioning of your own sanity. If you are dealing with a tragic loss or asking big questions about life, death and the after-life, this movie might give you something new to ponder, or distract you for a while - in a useful way - from your private pain and grief. Eventually, you might even find it offers some small comfort.
254 Reviews
Well acted and surprising
potter-422 May 2004
From the info on the DVD cover, I thought this was a going to be a science fiction/horror movie. I was pleasantly surprised at what this was actually about. The plot twist in the film is wonderful. Kevin Costner and the rest of the cast do a convincing and thoroughly enjoyable job with this unique premise. This film reminded me more of a "Field of Dreams" than a "Poltergeist" kind of movie. The cast is revealing. Ron Rifkin (Alias) was a great foil to Mr. Costner. Linda Hunt is perfect in the small role she plays. The director, Mr. Shadyac, seems to have broken out of the comedy mode (Liar, Liar; Ace Ventura) in a big and interesting way here. This is a good one to see if you aren't into horror movies and want something that stirs the little grey cells...I give it a 7 out of 10.
Surprisingly enjoyable supernatural tale.
fleetstar9 January 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Given that films are generally produced as an entertainment medium, and are not produced for the arty fraternity amongst us, I found this film an entertaining ride with a surprise ending. Kevin costner has never been my favourite actor, but credit where it is due he has produced some good work over the years and this film was for me, one of his better efforts and I thoroughly enjoyed it from start to finish.
****** POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD ******
Ok, the wife going off an a trip to the jungle whilst six months pregnant is unlikely, but hey.....people do stranger things in life ? don't they ? it is the viewers imagination that this film is aimed at, and those viewers that don't have one will struggle to appreciate this film. I interpreted this movie to be the living part of the sixth sense and from that point of view, I thought it was well carried out. If I were to examine every little detail of the film I could no doubt (as other reviewers have done) find things that don't quite add up. But I won't do that, because I could do it with every other film that has been made with the same result.
Summary. Very good film and well worth a look. 7/10
****** POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD ******
Ok, the wife going off an a trip to the jungle whilst six months pregnant is unlikely, but hey.....people do stranger things in life ? don't they ? it is the viewers imagination that this film is aimed at, and those viewers that don't have one will struggle to appreciate this film. I interpreted this movie to be the living part of the sixth sense and from that point of view, I thought it was well carried out. If I were to examine every little detail of the film I could no doubt (as other reviewers have done) find things that don't quite add up. But I won't do that, because I could do it with every other film that has been made with the same result.
Summary. Very good film and well worth a look. 7/10
Much more than expected.
HoraceBury1 October 2002
Many may think they know the ending, but they will be suprised. This is a beautiful film with much more depth and understanding than initially appears. If you think it is going to be an average hollywood ghost story, think again.
Interesting premise falls flat in final acts
rbverhoef5 April 2005
There is something strange about 'Dragonfly'. It is not a thriller in its subject but it deals with it as if it's a thriller. Even more strange, in some scenes it actually succeeds in that. I mean, when your wife has died and she is trying to reach you from the other side is something else than simply seeing dead people. Your wife probably has the best intentions and although it is creepy you do not have to be scared of your dead wife. I guess. The man who thinks his dead wife is trying to reach him is Joe Darrow (Kevin Costner). Is he going mad, a premise for a dramatic film, or is he really connecting to the other side?
At times where his wife is communicating with Joe, at least to Joe's knowledge, the film breaths a creepy atmosphere with a cinematography and score that make things suspenseful. But the film does not have its focus on whether Joe is going mad or not, but on how scary it is when a dead person talks to you. That there is actually suspense shows that there is some nice film-making to be found here. The premise is interesting, although not that new, but especially the final act in the film goes wrong at crucial points. There is a moment where I thought the film was over, I will not reveal where, but at that time certain things were left in the middle. It felt like the right ending. But then the film continues, providing it with an ending that must have popped into many heads from the audience, probably dismissed by a lot for being too ridiculous.
Still, the premise and the first hour are good enough to keep us entertained and although it should not work as a thriller, it does. Watching it like that without thinking too much could help you like this film in one way or another.
At times where his wife is communicating with Joe, at least to Joe's knowledge, the film breaths a creepy atmosphere with a cinematography and score that make things suspenseful. But the film does not have its focus on whether Joe is going mad or not, but on how scary it is when a dead person talks to you. That there is actually suspense shows that there is some nice film-making to be found here. The premise is interesting, although not that new, but especially the final act in the film goes wrong at crucial points. There is a moment where I thought the film was over, I will not reveal where, but at that time certain things were left in the middle. It felt like the right ending. But then the film continues, providing it with an ending that must have popped into many heads from the audience, probably dismissed by a lot for being too ridiculous.
Still, the premise and the first hour are good enough to keep us entertained and although it should not work as a thriller, it does. Watching it like that without thinking too much could help you like this film in one way or another.
Although using many clichés, the plot is romantic and the story is beautiful
claudio_carvalho21 July 2003
Dr. Joe Darrow (Kevin Costner) is a recently widowed doctor. He is grieving due to the death of his pregnant wife in a Red Cross mission in Venezuela. Although being atheist, he began to believe that his dead wife wants to communicate with him, through her young patients in the Pediatrics of a Chicago hospital.
Although using many clichés, the plot is romantic and the story is beautiful. However, the time taken by Joe Darrow to find out the meaning of the symbol is amazingly long for such an obsessed and intelligent character. Further, while his wife tries to contact him through the almost dead persons, the story is OK. But if she had the capacity of telekinesis, why not give him a clear written message? My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "O Mistério da Libélula" ("The Mystery of the Dragonfly")
Although using many clichés, the plot is romantic and the story is beautiful. However, the time taken by Joe Darrow to find out the meaning of the symbol is amazingly long for such an obsessed and intelligent character. Further, while his wife tries to contact him through the almost dead persons, the story is OK. But if she had the capacity of telekinesis, why not give him a clear written message? My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "O Mistério da Libélula" ("The Mystery of the Dragonfly")
What she taught me in death is what she taught me in life. To trust, to have faith. Because as a friend of mine once said, it's belief that gets us there.
hitchcockthelegend26 September 2012
Dragonfly is directed by Tom Shadyac who also co-writes the screenplay with Brandon Camp and Mike Thompson. It stars Kevin Costner, Kathy Bates, Ron Rifkin, Joe Morton and Linda Hunt. Music is scored by John Debney and cinematography by Dean Semler. Plot finds Costner as a grieving doctor who starts to believe he is being contacted by his late wife through patients near death experiences.
"She was my ultimate partner, my best friend and lover. And I miss her beyond belief. I also know I'm never gonna see her again, not ever. And I'm just beginning to understand what that means so intensely that I sometimes wish I didn't have to wake up anymore. And the last thing I need is someone telling me what to feel, or how to feel."
It was badly marketed as a supernatural horror during the publicity prior to its theatrical release, and even now certain DVD covers lend the unsuspecting to thinking it's a nerve jangling experience. That it failed to resonate with critics and many film fans is not surprising, they either didn't get the spook fest they expected, or they simply had no time for a picture high on sentiment. And, without doubt, there are those who simply dislike Costner to the point that even when his peers were lauding him, they were throwing the poisonous darts. Does this mean they are all wrong and Dragonfly is a great picture? No, not at all, it has problems for sure, but really it could only ever appeal to one corner of the film loving market.
Dragonfly is a meditation on grief, where structured as it is, it opens the possibility of something past death offering advice and hope. This of course brings in much sentimentality as the makers hit the viewer with a sledgehammer, reference gravely ill children, young suicides and Costner's grieving. But what's wrong with sentimentality anyway? True, they go too far in the final quarter here where an underwater sequence is as trite as it gets, but some folk want to be manipulated into a teary eyed state, or they want to believe as Fox Mulder does. It's also worth mentioning that this isn't loaded as statement to say "there is" something after death, that the white light thing waits for us all, because it is disputed during a dinner conversation that puts up a valid argument against the near death experience.
Always interesting in themes and played deftly by Costner (who always does great brooding and inner turmoil) and Bates, this is a film worthy of inspection by seekers of the heart tug. Suffice to say, the horror faithful and those that hate the treacle treatment should stay away. 7/10
"She was my ultimate partner, my best friend and lover. And I miss her beyond belief. I also know I'm never gonna see her again, not ever. And I'm just beginning to understand what that means so intensely that I sometimes wish I didn't have to wake up anymore. And the last thing I need is someone telling me what to feel, or how to feel."
It was badly marketed as a supernatural horror during the publicity prior to its theatrical release, and even now certain DVD covers lend the unsuspecting to thinking it's a nerve jangling experience. That it failed to resonate with critics and many film fans is not surprising, they either didn't get the spook fest they expected, or they simply had no time for a picture high on sentiment. And, without doubt, there are those who simply dislike Costner to the point that even when his peers were lauding him, they were throwing the poisonous darts. Does this mean they are all wrong and Dragonfly is a great picture? No, not at all, it has problems for sure, but really it could only ever appeal to one corner of the film loving market.
Dragonfly is a meditation on grief, where structured as it is, it opens the possibility of something past death offering advice and hope. This of course brings in much sentimentality as the makers hit the viewer with a sledgehammer, reference gravely ill children, young suicides and Costner's grieving. But what's wrong with sentimentality anyway? True, they go too far in the final quarter here where an underwater sequence is as trite as it gets, but some folk want to be manipulated into a teary eyed state, or they want to believe as Fox Mulder does. It's also worth mentioning that this isn't loaded as statement to say "there is" something after death, that the white light thing waits for us all, because it is disputed during a dinner conversation that puts up a valid argument against the near death experience.
Always interesting in themes and played deftly by Costner (who always does great brooding and inner turmoil) and Bates, this is a film worthy of inspection by seekers of the heart tug. Suffice to say, the horror faithful and those that hate the treacle treatment should stay away. 7/10
Not great, but does not deserve such harsh comments...
lostintwinpeaks9 June 2002
This movie has been quite slated and is certainly not everyone's cup of tea. During the showing, I heard a number of people groaning and complaining, and a few even walked out.
But it's really not that bad. One of the major criticisms levelled at the movie is that it doesn't know whether it wants to be a tear-jerking drama or a supernatural horror/thriller. Why not be both? I personally always find cross-genre movies interesting... at least as noble attempts.
Certainly, there are lots of plotholes, a little bit too much "violin" (teary!) music, the ending IS out of a hallmark card, and Kevin Costner is somewhat dull at times. Despite this, it's a slightly above-average movie that at least realises it may not have the most original story ever, and tries to rise above it with some interesting twists.
Unfortunately, Kathy Bates really is criminally underused. A talented, delightful actress with scope and range of Ms. Bates should have more than do than be thrown into a few bit parts here and there. Hope the DVD has lots of deleted scenes featuring her!
But it's really not that bad. One of the major criticisms levelled at the movie is that it doesn't know whether it wants to be a tear-jerking drama or a supernatural horror/thriller. Why not be both? I personally always find cross-genre movies interesting... at least as noble attempts.
Certainly, there are lots of plotholes, a little bit too much "violin" (teary!) music, the ending IS out of a hallmark card, and Kevin Costner is somewhat dull at times. Despite this, it's a slightly above-average movie that at least realises it may not have the most original story ever, and tries to rise above it with some interesting twists.
Unfortunately, Kathy Bates really is criminally underused. A talented, delightful actress with scope and range of Ms. Bates should have more than do than be thrown into a few bit parts here and there. Hope the DVD has lots of deleted scenes featuring her!
Best Movie Ever-My Favorite
lmccalop16 December 2019
Despite some dubious moments I liked this
juneebuggy29 December 2014
*Spoiler-ish (but not really)* Despite some moments of dubious acting from both Kevin Costner (a very short haired??) Kathy Bates, and a completely over the top scene where Costner jumps over a waterfall and drowns (?) in the same bus that his wife did about a year earlier which allows him to see her ghost and get the answers he's seeking. Yes, despite all that I still liked this movie.
It's a unique story and was scarier then I was expecting, delving into ghosts and things that go bump in the night. Ultimately I guess its a love story too, as Dr. Joe Darrow, is plagued by what he believes are messages from his wife after she dies while on a red cross mission in Venezuela. Joe begins to wonder if her spirit is trying to contact him and then goes about trying to communicate with her.
The ending is a big surprise but it did leave me wondering exactly how "they" were going to get out of South America without any paperwork? 08.13
It's a unique story and was scarier then I was expecting, delving into ghosts and things that go bump in the night. Ultimately I guess its a love story too, as Dr. Joe Darrow, is plagued by what he believes are messages from his wife after she dies while on a red cross mission in Venezuela. Joe begins to wonder if her spirit is trying to contact him and then goes about trying to communicate with her.
The ending is a big surprise but it did leave me wondering exactly how "they" were going to get out of South America without any paperwork? 08.13
Turgid after-life thriller
moonspinner5526 June 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Stubborn doctor Kevin Costner is supposed to be a non-believer in the after-life, yet in a flashback sequence right near the beginning, he talks with his wife about what life-form she wants to take after death. You can tell something is definitely off right about here; the picture doesn't know where to aim, and ends up firing at a myriad of targets. There's a bird "who never talked to anyone" but Costner's deceased wife (it later flies amok in the kitchen, with Costner calling out, "Big Bird!"), and poor child actors in a hospital sequence who try to convince Dr. Kevin that they've talked to "the lady" from beyond (seems they saw her in the rainbow and she "flew them back"). It's AMAZING that screenwriter David Seltzer managed to sell this thing. It's even more stunning that Kevin Costner, Kathy Bates and Linda Hunt attempted to make it work; they are overly-earnest in an assembly-line thriller so formulaic we even get the scene where hard-working Dr. Kevin is severely reprimanded for visiting sick kids by the hospital administrator. It's the same scene you've seen a million times before, mostly between a hard-nosed cop and the desk sergeant. * from ****
Great
Priceguy30 November 2003
Call me an soppy silly man, but I loved this movie. I loved every sentimental sugar-coated silly second of it. I don't believe in life after death and I think near death experiences are hallucinations, but this movie grabbed hold of me and didn't let go. I was genuinely surprised and touched by the ending. Great movie.
Good story
klineholly12 July 2007
The flow and the dialog was awkward at times but I thought the story was really interesting. I recently caught the movie playing late one night on the SciFi channel and I'm glad I watched it. I remember wanting to see it when it came out, but it got such poor reviews that I quickly forgot about it. However, I think this movie is decent and I thought the ending was really unexpected and satisfying.
I thought the Kathy Bates character was particularly awkward because it wasn't really explained why this woman would do so much for the Kevin Costner character. The Bates character was definitely needed so that the Costner character would have someone to talk to but her motivations needed to be explained more.
However, I did enjoy the movie (even jumped out of my skin a few times) and I wouldn't mind seeing Dragonfly again.
I thought the Kathy Bates character was particularly awkward because it wasn't really explained why this woman would do so much for the Kevin Costner character. The Bates character was definitely needed so that the Costner character would have someone to talk to but her motivations needed to be explained more.
However, I did enjoy the movie (even jumped out of my skin a few times) and I wouldn't mind seeing Dragonfly again.
Didn't really care what happenned, premise went flat
Quinoa19844 March 2002
Tom Shadyac, responsible for one of my favorite guilty pleasure-like comedies, Ace Ventura, has recently (since films like the funny if sitcomish Liar Liar and the similar though not as funny Patch Adams) gone the way of the sap, and Dragonfly is an example of his plummet from his first success. It stars Kevin Costner, who works in a hospital and is emotionally distroyed when he finds out that his wife has died in South America. Soon after he starts seeing signs, visions, kids telling him secrets and all that spooky stuff, that points to his wife trying to contact him from the grave. Another romance-ghost story thriller, with another bad Costner performance and added thrills at the end don't help and, most likley hurt the film. Only two things of interest are supporting performances from the likes of Kathy Bates, Linda Hunt, and others. But overall, it's a dud. D+
Astonishingly Tender
jlbailie28 February 2002
If you check your cynicism at the door, "Dragonfly" is astonishing in its tenderness. It's beautifully shot (Dean Semler of "Dances with Wolves" and "Waterworld") and well-acted. It's a refreshing alternative to the testosterone-driven films like "John Q", "Collateral Damage" and myriad war movies like "We Were Soldiers". Kevin Costner is inexplicably Hollywood's whipping boy but he still manages to make varied, provocative choices in his projects. While I wanted to resist the heart-tug of the ending, I found I simply couldn't. If you let it, "Dragonfly" will take you someplace sweet.
Surprisingly enjoyable
cosmic_quest30 September 2006
I can't say I'm a huge fan of Kevin Costner and I'm bored of films that copy the same style of 'Sixth Sense' but there is something about 'Dragonfly' draws the viewer into the storyline and the main character's plight.
When paediatrician Joe Darrow's wife Emily dies in a bus accident in South America, where she was doing mercy work, he is left devastated and struggles to cope. But his grief is interrupted when his dead and dying patients begin communicating messages to him that he thinks are an attempt by his late wife to contact him. He's left wondering if her death has tipped him over the edge or if the dead can talk to the living? Or even if Emily is alive out there?
Costner, who plays Darrow, gives a surprisingly effective performance as a man deeply grief-stricken, caught between letting his wife go and risking insanity by pursuing these messages his young patients pass on. The storyline itself was an involving mix of romance, suspense and drama. Although certain aspects were rather clichéd or clearly just added to keep the film going longer, this was easily forgiven because Darrow was a nicely-depicted character who you couldn't help empathise with and the ending was delivered in an up-lifting manner. These days, films of this sort usually resort to shock sad/tragic finales that it's actually a pleasant change to see things end happily.
This is certainly one for Shyamalan fans or those wanting a mildly creepy and quite intelligent film.
When paediatrician Joe Darrow's wife Emily dies in a bus accident in South America, where she was doing mercy work, he is left devastated and struggles to cope. But his grief is interrupted when his dead and dying patients begin communicating messages to him that he thinks are an attempt by his late wife to contact him. He's left wondering if her death has tipped him over the edge or if the dead can talk to the living? Or even if Emily is alive out there?
Costner, who plays Darrow, gives a surprisingly effective performance as a man deeply grief-stricken, caught between letting his wife go and risking insanity by pursuing these messages his young patients pass on. The storyline itself was an involving mix of romance, suspense and drama. Although certain aspects were rather clichéd or clearly just added to keep the film going longer, this was easily forgiven because Darrow was a nicely-depicted character who you couldn't help empathise with and the ending was delivered in an up-lifting manner. These days, films of this sort usually resort to shock sad/tragic finales that it's actually a pleasant change to see things end happily.
This is certainly one for Shyamalan fans or those wanting a mildly creepy and quite intelligent film.
PRETTY GOOD MOVIE - BUT THE ENDING IS THE SURPRISE
iohefy-219 February 2002
This movie was entertaining, but a little overdone at times. Kevin Costner did a good job as well as little used Kathy Bates and Ms. Hunt. I thought the ending was dramatic and a real surprise. It is only about an hour and a half and I think overall it was worth seeing.
An Injustice To Be Rated So Low
bill_b45 October 2002
I honestly do not know what is wrong with the average IMDB voter to have rated this movie 5.8 (as of 6 Oct 2002). That is a rating deserved for movies like Scooby-Doo and Face-Off and other mindless pap that's forced on us by a sold out Hollywood with no stories left to tell and a numb audience with no desire for tales of faith and life. I know that's why I repeatedly avoid any movie that appears to have an advertising budget rivaling a presidential election campaign. Fortunately word of mouth still reveals the classics and the weekend box-office does not. That was the case with golden heart-felt movies that have withstood the test of time such as "It's A Wonderful Life" and hopefully time will reveal this movie to be a much better gem than what it is currently seen for. It's a travesty that most other voters probably can't even conceptualize what I'm talking about. For those of you who are considering this movie, disregard the thoughtless and meaningless comments most other voters have written about this movie, go see it, and save your soul. To the rest of you, Scooby-dooby doo!
Waste of time
langworthy20 February 2002
This movie was horrible. There was no creativity in the script, and videography. Pulling ideas from movies such as: What Lies Beneath, The Usual Suspects, The Fugitive, and of course The Sixth Sense.
The story lacked anything remotely close to characters that anyone would care about. Bottom line, don't see it, if you must see it then rent it...maybe.
Costner needs to stick to baseball movies because his judgement in scripts other than baseball is really bad.
The story lacked anything remotely close to characters that anyone would care about. Bottom line, don't see it, if you must see it then rent it...maybe.
Costner needs to stick to baseball movies because his judgement in scripts other than baseball is really bad.
At the very least, an EIGHT here for Costner
skyhouse57 August 2006
I find it bemusing that this flick is rated below 6 by the several thousands who have "voted." Despite the fact that at my age, 86 and counting, I cannot hear, therefore must rely on closed captions and totally miss the music score as well, and my dimming visual capacity further delimits my perceptions and appreciations, I found this venture both adventurous AND trailblazing, as in the "psychic" realm. Who among us has NEVER 'experienced' a qualm or quivering at some point in his or her life? I mean the wonder at whether or no there lies something beyond our physical ken. And whereas the protagonist's seemingly incredible finding of his own little daughter in an Andean rainforest is both 'corny' and 'happy ending,' was it not an altogether LOVELY cinematic experience? It continues to be evident, to me at least, that the great bulk of the "public" out there continues to labor under the conventional "wisdoms" of the ethnocultural majority, which, to me, is "slavery" of the worst esthetic variety. Kevin Costner, take a bow here, along with the writers and producers.
Not a bad movie, but it's got some problems.
LebowskiT100024 February 2002
Warning: Spoilers
When I first saw this trailer I thought it looked pretty good, but I was a little taken back when I saw that it was directed by Tom Shadyac of "Ace Ventura: Pet Detective", "The Nutty Professor", "Liar Liar" and "Patch Adams", but I still wanted to see it nonetheless. Well, I can't really say it was a bad movie, it was actually pretty interested and very haunting at times, but over all it was a little slow. I kept hoping it would just get to the point.
The story is pretty interesting and I thought it was pretty well acted, I even thought the child actors in the film did a pretty good job (usually I have a problem with child actors).
Ok, this is the part where I have to rant and rave about what I didn't like about the movie, so if you don't want to hear any SPOILERS, stop reading now!
I realize that it's kind of impossible to think logically with a movie like this because the whole movie is based on fantasy, but nonetheless I thought to myself: "If this woman is trying to get this guy (Kevin Costner) to go somewhere, and she has the ability to take a dragonfly-paperweight out of the box that Kevin Costner just put it into, unwrap it from the paper it was in, and put all the clothes back in the closet so that Kevin Costner's character would believe this is for real, wouldn't she have the ability to get out a friggin' piece of paper and a pencil and write it down on a post-it note or something?" I do realize however that had she done this, it would result in a fifteen minute movie and wouldn't be nearly as exciting, but it seems an awful lot more reasonable. Also...why did she draw all those cross things on the window when she could have just put the name of the place she wanted him to go to on the window? Again, I realize that this would make a very uneventful movie.
Other than that, I thought it was a pretty good movie and had a very nice ending. I was a little unsure how they were going to end the film, but I thought they did a good job. If you want my opinion though, I wouldn't recommend seeing in the theater, I'd probably wait till video, or at least see it at a matinee showing. Thanks for reading,
-Chris
The story is pretty interesting and I thought it was pretty well acted, I even thought the child actors in the film did a pretty good job (usually I have a problem with child actors).
Ok, this is the part where I have to rant and rave about what I didn't like about the movie, so if you don't want to hear any SPOILERS, stop reading now!
I realize that it's kind of impossible to think logically with a movie like this because the whole movie is based on fantasy, but nonetheless I thought to myself: "If this woman is trying to get this guy (Kevin Costner) to go somewhere, and she has the ability to take a dragonfly-paperweight out of the box that Kevin Costner just put it into, unwrap it from the paper it was in, and put all the clothes back in the closet so that Kevin Costner's character would believe this is for real, wouldn't she have the ability to get out a friggin' piece of paper and a pencil and write it down on a post-it note or something?" I do realize however that had she done this, it would result in a fifteen minute movie and wouldn't be nearly as exciting, but it seems an awful lot more reasonable. Also...why did she draw all those cross things on the window when she could have just put the name of the place she wanted him to go to on the window? Again, I realize that this would make a very uneventful movie.
Other than that, I thought it was a pretty good movie and had a very nice ending. I was a little unsure how they were going to end the film, but I thought they did a good job. If you want my opinion though, I wouldn't recommend seeing in the theater, I'd probably wait till video, or at least see it at a matinee showing. Thanks for reading,
-Chris
While `The Sixth Sense' wasn't pitiable, it hardly warrants replicas, let alone replicas that replace Bruce Willis with an inferior actor (Costner) and Haley Joel Osment with a ward of pediatric oncology pat
chronicfatigue24 February 2002
Let's not belabor ourselves with the $75 million budget (money which would have been much better spent investing in cocktail umbrella futures). Let's not wonder why this money might further be used to fund Tom Shadyac's (`Liar Liar', `Ace Ventura') horror film debut. And let's certainly not ask how Kevin Costner, fresh from his jaw-droppingly bad performance in `3000 Miles to Graceland', slips to new lows on this occasion. No, if we want to find something redeemable in `Dragonfly', the suspense film du jour, we need look no further than the appearance of Linda Hunt, the homuncular actress who portrays Sister Madeline, a nun who specializes in documenting near-death experiences. Her performance is worth staying awake for. But if you happen to be rubbing your eyes or simply shaking your head in disgust at what is unspooling before you, you will likely miss her two minutes of screen time.
`Dragonfly', in this new era of cover movies (a phrase coined by Cameron Crowe referencing his abhorrent `Vanilla Sky'), looks no further than `The Sixth Sense' for its source material. While `The Sixth Sense' wasn't pitiable, it hardly warrants replicas, let alone replicas that replace Bruce Willis with an inferior actor (Costner) and Haley Joel Osment with a ward of pediatric oncology patients.
In this go-round, the marital roles are reversed. Emily Darrow is Costner's on-screen wife, a pediatric oncologist who has been urgently called to a remote Venezuelan village. The film opens with her abrupt death in a tragic rockslide. Costner races to the scene where the following dialogue unfolds verbatim: Military Man: Por favor, go home. Joe Darrow: I'm not going anywhere. Not until this is over. This is not a good way for any Kevin Costner film to open. Regrettably this sentiment will likely resound in your head with unintended irony.
Costner plays Joe Darrow, an emergency room doctor who has been working twenty-four hour shifts, seven days a week since his wife's death. He returns to his vacant Victorian home, occupied by Big Bird, his mute parrot, and a host of temperamental light bulbs that flicker and die at convenient times.
Meanwhile back at the hospital, all of the children on the ward have taken to feverishly drawing squiggly crosses that wallpaper their rooms. Although the kids do not know why they draw this symbol, they sense that Emily's spirit is responsible. Joe grows suspicious of this and interrogates one of the young cancer patients who reveals that he has been channeled by Emily to deliver a message. But what is that message? That will have to wait another hour. But in the meantime, Joe has some clues to work with. The boy did hear her say that she wants Joe to meet her in a rainbow.
When having a sit-down with his neighbor (Kathy Bates), Joe tells her of his discoveries. `She wants you to meet her in the rainbow?' she asks him. `According to the kids that's accurate,' he says with a disarmingly straight face. The sub-plot (if that is an applicable term) involves Joe's college buddies who invite him on a whitewater- rafting trip and conveniently disappear at other times. But who are they? They are probably the thinnest batch of supporting actors ever assembled. But they do occupy the nearest table whenever Joe walks into the bar. And they're always waiting with a glass of beer poured for Joe. And a toast at the ready. But Joe is not willing to be distracted from his supernatural calling.
These reports of near-death patients channeling Emily continue pouring in. Hunt enters as Sister Madeline to help Joe get to the bottom of this puzzle. The steps that follow are long-winded and predictable and are clichéd to numbing effect. Costner spends the film showcasing a complete lack of charisma as he winds through the mindless script laid out before him. The shortcuts taken in Michael Thompson and Brandon Camp's screenplay are too numerous to count. Conveniences abound, such as the oft-discussed whitewater-rafting trip that only serves to give us a clue to what those squiggly crosses are all about. We won't bother asking why the only image that any dying person in Chicago has in their head is Joe Darrow.
But ultimately `Dragonfly' ends, because movies do, and for that we can be grateful. If we can rid ourselves of the chilling thought that our near death experience might simply be our own opportunity to deliver messages to Kevin Costner.
`Dragonfly', in this new era of cover movies (a phrase coined by Cameron Crowe referencing his abhorrent `Vanilla Sky'), looks no further than `The Sixth Sense' for its source material. While `The Sixth Sense' wasn't pitiable, it hardly warrants replicas, let alone replicas that replace Bruce Willis with an inferior actor (Costner) and Haley Joel Osment with a ward of pediatric oncology patients.
In this go-round, the marital roles are reversed. Emily Darrow is Costner's on-screen wife, a pediatric oncologist who has been urgently called to a remote Venezuelan village. The film opens with her abrupt death in a tragic rockslide. Costner races to the scene where the following dialogue unfolds verbatim: Military Man: Por favor, go home. Joe Darrow: I'm not going anywhere. Not until this is over. This is not a good way for any Kevin Costner film to open. Regrettably this sentiment will likely resound in your head with unintended irony.
Costner plays Joe Darrow, an emergency room doctor who has been working twenty-four hour shifts, seven days a week since his wife's death. He returns to his vacant Victorian home, occupied by Big Bird, his mute parrot, and a host of temperamental light bulbs that flicker and die at convenient times.
Meanwhile back at the hospital, all of the children on the ward have taken to feverishly drawing squiggly crosses that wallpaper their rooms. Although the kids do not know why they draw this symbol, they sense that Emily's spirit is responsible. Joe grows suspicious of this and interrogates one of the young cancer patients who reveals that he has been channeled by Emily to deliver a message. But what is that message? That will have to wait another hour. But in the meantime, Joe has some clues to work with. The boy did hear her say that she wants Joe to meet her in a rainbow.
When having a sit-down with his neighbor (Kathy Bates), Joe tells her of his discoveries. `She wants you to meet her in the rainbow?' she asks him. `According to the kids that's accurate,' he says with a disarmingly straight face. The sub-plot (if that is an applicable term) involves Joe's college buddies who invite him on a whitewater- rafting trip and conveniently disappear at other times. But who are they? They are probably the thinnest batch of supporting actors ever assembled. But they do occupy the nearest table whenever Joe walks into the bar. And they're always waiting with a glass of beer poured for Joe. And a toast at the ready. But Joe is not willing to be distracted from his supernatural calling.
These reports of near-death patients channeling Emily continue pouring in. Hunt enters as Sister Madeline to help Joe get to the bottom of this puzzle. The steps that follow are long-winded and predictable and are clichéd to numbing effect. Costner spends the film showcasing a complete lack of charisma as he winds through the mindless script laid out before him. The shortcuts taken in Michael Thompson and Brandon Camp's screenplay are too numerous to count. Conveniences abound, such as the oft-discussed whitewater-rafting trip that only serves to give us a clue to what those squiggly crosses are all about. We won't bother asking why the only image that any dying person in Chicago has in their head is Joe Darrow.
But ultimately `Dragonfly' ends, because movies do, and for that we can be grateful. If we can rid ourselves of the chilling thought that our near death experience might simply be our own opportunity to deliver messages to Kevin Costner.
Just Right
astoryweaver6 May 2003
This is an awesome movie. It is just right for Kevin Costner. If I had a doctor like him, I would actually go to see one. The story is touching and beautiful. I love it from beginning to end. I wish others could appreciate this film as much as everybody I know, including myself, did. I'm not a real fan of spooky movies, but this was different. It was hauntingly beautiful. I would recommend seeing this on a cold, cloudy day, snuggling with your heart's desire.
Slow getting started, but in the end, definitely worth seeing....
FourforMom23 February 2002
Perhaps poor editing is to blame for this film moving along so slowly in the beginning, or maybe there is just so much symbolism, I was reminded of 'The Blair Witch Project', but once this film takes off..........it really soars. There are a few good jolts here and there, and a nice unforseen twist in the end that makes the film all worthwhile.
Casting was impeccable, as no one else could have played Joe Darrow except Kevin Costner. His depth of compassion as well as confusion brought a reality to the character that few could've pulled off as well. He was candid, angry, grief-stricken, impatient, confused, and yes, frightened. He brought all of these emotions to the table and more just as, dare I say, each and every one of us would have done, if given the same set of circumstances. Believable? You betcha.
Kathy Bates brought several nice touches to the film, as did Linda Hunt, but I think their characters were a bit too understated, and would have liked to have seen more of them both in the film.
Once the film does start to pick up speed, however, it does so rapidly. Joe Darrow will take you through a journey towards his one and only Emily, and in the quite unexpected end, these soulmates will finally prove that love really does transcend all~
Casting was impeccable, as no one else could have played Joe Darrow except Kevin Costner. His depth of compassion as well as confusion brought a reality to the character that few could've pulled off as well. He was candid, angry, grief-stricken, impatient, confused, and yes, frightened. He brought all of these emotions to the table and more just as, dare I say, each and every one of us would have done, if given the same set of circumstances. Believable? You betcha.
Kathy Bates brought several nice touches to the film, as did Linda Hunt, but I think their characters were a bit too understated, and would have liked to have seen more of them both in the film.
Once the film does start to pick up speed, however, it does so rapidly. Joe Darrow will take you through a journey towards his one and only Emily, and in the quite unexpected end, these soulmates will finally prove that love really does transcend all~
very conventional, thus boring
apfus12 April 2003
Although I find the topic of the communication with the dead very interesting and also the overall plot quite ok the film is realised too conventional with a lot of predictable wannabe thrilling or just plain boring parts.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
