Was the worst movie of Kurt Russell’s career entirely Kevin Costner’s fault? “It sounds nastier than it was”
If a movie starring Kurt Russell and Kevin Costner had been released in the late 1980s or early 1990s, when both were at the peak of their powers, it would probably have been a hit, regardless of what it was.
Unfortunately, the results were dire when the duo finally shared the screen at the turn of the millennium. So dire, in fact, that despite making his feature debut in 1963 and remaining a near-ubiquitous presence onscreen ever since, Russell hasn’t been in a single film that scored worse reviews from critics.
Even though they’d never been cast in the same production, there was always a loose rivalry of sorts between them, and not only because they shared an earthy, all-American charm. They’d crossed paths a couple of times before and earned one victory apiece, but nobody won the third time around.
A lifelong baseball fan, Russell had worked with writer and director Ron Shelton to develop a feature about a washed-up veteran who rediscovers his love of the game. When the time came for the studio to stump up the money, though, Bull Durham would only get the green light if Costner played the lead.
Several years later, they were inadvertently at each other’s throats once again, with Russell headlining Tombstone as Wyatt Earp at almost the same time Costner was producing and playing the title role in Lawrence Kasdan’s eponymous western. Neither man budged, and it was the latter who suffered when his interminable three-hour epic won him a Razzie for ‘Worst Actor’ and tanked at the box office.
By the dawn of the 2000s, neither man was in a particularly fortunate position, career-wise. First-time filmmaker Demian Lichtenstein’s crime caper 3000 Miles to Graceland was Russell’s first film in three years since the ill-fated flop Soldier, while Costner was scrambling to remain relevant after a string of duds.
It was easy to see the appeal for the Elvis-daft Russell, and the chance to play opposite Costner in a frivolous heist thriller predicated on a convention of impersonators had potential. However, the movie was an unmitigated, five-time Razzie-nominated disaster that lost a fortune.
It’s an objectively terrible picture that makes little sense, features several bizarre scenes that feel like they belong in a completely different film and carries the whiff of something that was torn apart and put back together in post-production as everyone involved scrambled desperately to polish an unpolishable turd.
Whispers at the time suggested that the debuting Lichtenstein was so far out of his depth that he ceded control to Russell and Costner, giving them the go-ahead to oversee two different versions of 3000 Miles to Graceland, driven by their own creative impulses.
“Both went into the editing room and made their own cuts,” a report alleged per ABC. “It sounds a hell of a lot nastier than it actually was.” Russell’s version was said to favour character development, and Costner’s prioritised the action and thriller elements, which was the one ultimately sent out to die in cinemas.
Neither actor publicly commented on what was and wasn’t true, but there are some unavoidable facts. Has Russell ever been in a movie that fared worse among critics than 3000 Miles to Graceland? No. Does Costner have a long history of interfering in his films, often to their detriment? Yes. Was it really that bad? Definitely. Make of that what you will, but what can’t be argued is that nobody came out on the other side smelling of roses.
