I am on a goal to see every movie in the book 1001 Movies You Must See before You Die. This is in there, so I got my hands on a VHS and saw it. It was so good that I put it in my top 10, which impressed my Grandma since I was weaning out of mostly watching Veggie Tales and other cartoons. After seeing numerous more movies, it was ranked in the 30s. I re-watched it last night and returned to my top 10. This movie is so magical and makes you believe anything could happen. As Roger Ebert put it: "It's a religious picture-but the religion is baseball." Ebert later called it the 7th best movie of 1989. Unfortunately, Siskel did not see that and gave it thumbs down! This movie leaves you with a great fuzzy feeling few movies can give you. If you watch it, the feeling will come!

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.

By another Englishman - but I live in New Zealand!A family man's undiscovered love for his late and nearly-forgotten father is described beautifully in this movie and played out superbly by its ensemble cast.Whilst I would love to relive so many of the scenes and so much of the dialogue by my own description here, I won't, because it is a beautiful, captivating film and I would not wish to detract from it for any new viewers.At 67, this is one of my absolute favourite movies.

Field of Dreams (1989): Dir: Phil Alden Robinson / Cast: Kevin Costner, Amy Madigan, James Earl Jones, Ray Liotta, Timothy Busfield: Inspiring film about the wide scope our dreams are capable of reaching. Kevin Costner plays Ray Kinella, a corn farmer whose passion is baseball. He hears a voice urging him to build a baseball diamond. With that comes players appearing who have been long since deceased. Ray Liotta plays "Shoeless" Joe Jackson who first appears much to the awe of Ray and his family. Jackson is bewildered but welcomes the opportunity to play again and invites other players that were affected by a scandal in 1919. Amy Madigan plays Ray's supportive wife who is not sure about it all but provides encouragement. His daughter believes in him and can also see the ball players. James Earl Jones plays controversial author Terence Mann whom Ray seeks out as a piece to the puzzle. He is bitter and prefers to be left alone but Ray's banter strikes his curiosity. Timothy Busfield as Ray's brother-in-law is a weak element with his struggle to convince Ray to sell the farm. It contains an underground theme of faith and believing in something. These players are given a ghostly opportunity to enjoy their passion while Ray discovers a new direction in life. He makes one final connection before thousands of headlines loom over the horizon to witness what seeing is believing is all about. Score: 9 ½ / Writing: 100% / Themes: 100% / Acting: 80% / Directing: 100% / Visual: 100%