I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

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.

It has been at least 10 years since I last watched Field of Dreams. It was a wonderful film then and it is a wonderful film now. However most of us know this already so I am not going to delve into that.What I'm doing here today is to complain. After watching Field of Dreams I immediately - out of reflex - wanted to log into the IMDb forums and talk to fellow moviegoers about the film.But I could not.I have been active on IMDb since 1997 (Con Air and The Saint). I have made a lot of comments in almost 20 years on the forums. I have made a lot of friends, a few enemies, and even some enemies who became friends. It is amazing how film and music really breaks barriers so people who might disagree on everything else can find some common ground in film and music.I have not really used IMDb since the forums closed, I doubt many have. I may hop in to see how an actor is up to or when a film may be in the works but the heart of IMDb has been shut down and wrenched out. What good is having a film site but not allowing people to honestly (or even dishonestly but that is what IGNORE is for) talk about the films?Thanks for the 20 years of chatting with my fellow movie fans at least.However the only reason I logged in today was to say: You guys at IMDb really mucked this site up.

I was a kid when I first saw "Field of Dreams" - had to have been 10 years old or so - and I liked it because my parents did (a crowd- pleaser with Kevin Costner at peak star-power; of course they liked it). And maybe the reason this movie has such an effect on me is because I'm the same age as his character with a mortgage of my own. But there's nothing about it that's contrived. It's easy to see the man's struggle as something we can all relate to, and those dramatic moments that could just so easily go wrong in any other movie seem to come from a place of honesty here. It's just a tremendously warm and soul-enriching story; spiritual in a way that even a non- religious schmo like me can get sucked into. It's precision- engineered to tap those cherished memories of going out into the sun with Dad and playing a game of catch. For my money, that shared interest in the game is the most wholesome thing we have in this country, and this movie nails it. Also, if you can sit through this and not leave a blubbering idiot, check your pulse.9/10

Continuing my plan to watch every Kevin Costner movie in order, I come to 1989's Field Of Dreams. Plot In A Paragraph: Ray Kinsella (KC) an Iowa corn farmer, starts hearing voices, he interprets them as a request to build a baseball diamond in his crop field.Is this heaven?? I don't like baseball, never have had even the slightest interest in the game, so why do I cry like a baby every time I watch Field Of Dreams?? I will admit from the off, I am bias. I love this movie. It is not just one of my favourite KC movies, it's not just my favourite movie of 1989 (and in a year that featured Last Crusade, Lethal Weapon 2, Batman, Back To The Future 2, Dead Poets Society and the classic Weekend At Bernie's, you know how high that praise is) one of my favourite movies of the 1980's, it's one of my favourite movies in general.KC, Amy Madigan, Ray Liotta, James Earl Jones and Burt Lancaster are all perfect. Everything about this movie is perfect, not just the casting, the performances, the screenplay, the directing, the atmosphere and the score all knock it out of the park (yes pun intended again) I will deliberately avoid talking about the movies ending (so I don't ruin it for those who have not seen it) but I cried like a baby when I seen it in 1990, and I have cried every time I have watched it since, and I watch it a couple of times a year. It doesn't matter if I sit and watch it all, or catch the last twenty minutes on TV, I will be in floods of tears. If I'm not already crying, the way KC's voice breaks, will do it!! EVERY TIME. I read somewhere that the best motion pictures find meaning in not aspects of the story but rather in the underlying emotional core and heart that defines the story. Field Of Dreams is a perfect example of that saying. It's no surprise that Field Of Dreams is still entertaining and touching people regularly today (it plays regularly on TV in the UK) more than 25 years after its release. A timeless classic. 10/10 for this reviewer.