Kevin Costner Wishes He Was A Better Actor In One Of His Movies

At the outset of 1987, Kevin Costner was best known as the cocky gunslinger Jake in Lawrence Kasdan’s Western romp “Silverado.” This was a make-good role from the director, who’d cut Costner out of “The Big Chill” because his portrayal of the deceased Alex didn’t play well with test audiences; basically, the ensemble cast had done such a great job of building up Alex’s significance that the then unknown Costner couldn’t live up to the legend. And while it was a nice gesture on Kasdan’s part, “Silverado” didn’t quite catch fire at the box office in the summer of 1985.

So when Costner landed the plum role of Eliot Ness in Brian De Palma’s 1987 gangster saga “The Untouchables,” Paramount Pictures mounted a publicity offensive to sell the appealing 32-year-old actor as a major movie star who’d at long last arrived. Decked out in fine Giorgio Armani threads and armed with razor-sharp David Mamet dialogue, Costner was basically taking batting practice with a corked bat. How could he not ascend to full-blown movie stardom as Ness with De Palma behind the camera, and Sean Connery and Robert De Niro as his foils?

Most people will tell you Costner delivered as expected, but he’ll counter that he could’ve done better. How so? By bringing to his role the one thing his co-stars had in spades and he lacked: experience.

In a 2024 interview with GQ tied to the release of his as-yet-uncompleted Western epic “Horizon: An American Saga,” Costner opened up about the making of “The Untouchables.” While the film is an unimpeachable classic that grossed $76 million in the U.S. (good enough to finish 6th at the box office in 1987), Costner thinks he brought a knife to a gunfight.

“‘The Untouchables’ was a really well-written script,” said Costner. “David Mamet had written really a very perfect script, and so I wanted to be a part of it. Brian de Palma directed it, and of course, Sean Connery was in it, you know, Robert De Niro, and it was a good moment for me to be in that movie.” It was a good moment, but it wasn’t the right time for Costner. “I actually didn’t think Sean was the kind of guy that was gonna like me,” he said. “I don’t know why, but he did. He was good to me. And I learned a lot because my eyes were open. I wish I was a better actor when I did ‘The Untouchables’ but I was where I was at.”

Some critics were unkind to Costner back in 1987. Roger Ebert wrote, “The script doesn’t give him, and [Costner] doesn’t provide, any of the little twists and turns of character that might have made Ness into an individual.” I disagree with this. Whatever we know of Ness’ post-prohibition life (e.g. that he became a barely employable drunk) has no purchase in De Palma’s movie. History, in general, has no purchase. Do you think Ness led a Canadian-border liquor raid with the Mounties? Pure fantasy. De Palma and Mamet’s Ness is a boy scout because that’s what this formula gangster film requires. Costner does as cast and directed. Had he been more confident, he might’ve second-guessed De Palma as he’s done with other directors, and that would’ve gone poorly. De Palma got him at the right time, and Costner was the right kind of naïf. Here, as Sean Connery’s Malone would say, endeth the lesson.