5 hr 20 min version???
-
james-mac — 10 years ago(January 26, 2016 02:40 PM)
yes and it was meant to be that other beast. What was released was a last resort t get something/anything released. I wonder if they could have not released it in two parts as we've seen epics like Kill Bill or Lord of the Rings? probably too novel an approach for the time.
-
bstephens21 — 17 years ago(December 11, 2008 12:07 AM)
It's a movie of tremendous beauty and the rare period piece that manages to turn its setting into an entire world unto itself. In that sense, its in the tradition of
Barry Lyndon
,
Days of Heaven
and, in a lower key,
McCabe and Mrs. Miller
; a type of BIG cinema that isn't attempted anymore (Mel Gibson is the only living director to attempt such things, but he's lousy as a storyteller and has too much ideological baggage). If it was just 5 hours of Vilmos Zsigmond filming extras standing around the sets in costume, it would be a masterpiece.
Kristofferson is perfect. I always thought he was underrated as an actor (largely through poor film choices). He doesn't have a lot of range, and in most instances he couldn't carry a film, but when a role matches his range, he pulls it off. He's the perfect mix of wounded idealism, ambivalence and silent stoicism in this film. Like a post-60s "age of cynicism" Randolph Scott (which I'm certain is what Cimino was going for).
It is brilliant and a masterpiece and the best Hollywood film of its decade. I shake my head in bewilderment to anyone who says otherwise. -
TrevorAclea — 17 years ago(March 18, 2009 10:06 AM)
You hold
Four Flies on Grey Velvet- one of Argento's worst, laziest and most tedious movies (and I say that as a fan of the director) in inexplicably high regard, yet can't understand why people might be similarly enthusiastic about
Heaven's Gate
? Compared to
Four Flies - a real chore of a movie if ever there was one -
Heaven's Gate
positively flies by.
"Security - release the badgers."
- one of Argento's worst, laziest and most tedious movies (and I say that as a fan of the director) in inexplicably high regard, yet can't understand why people might be similarly enthusiastic about
-
gayspiritwarrior — 16 years ago(March 03, 2010 10:28 PM)
I'm responding to your previous posting solely because I don't want people to experience what I had to go through. I read postings online by people like you who hold HEAVEN'S GATE in the highest possible regard, and I opted to take a chance on it, despite the negative public and critical response to it upon its release. Whoops. I just want to inform those who may be curious about the film that it's a terrible movie on all fronts (excepting, admittedly, the aesthetics, which don't justify a screening of this yawner) and that it's very unlikely that YOU, the potential viewer, will enjoy any of it. Avoid HEAVEN'S GATE at any and all costs.<<
It's curious that, knowing there are people who disagree with you about this movie, you attempt to discourage people from seeing it in order to "spare" them. Doesn't it occur to you that you might just as well be depriving them of something they'd enjoy, even if you can't?
"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."Oscar Wilde -
coachromano22 — 13 years ago(March 04, 2013 01:32 AM)
There are basically 3 types of adult filmgoers. 1-The ones who go for escapism only, and just want to be entertained. Whether it be comedy, drama , action-adventure, western-does not matter. The second- are people who are art-film freaks. Those who go for the art of filmmaking, and care far more about the substance and vision of the film and its creators', then being entertained by funny scenes, or explosions, or a gunfight. In fact, they are entertained more by discussing a complex story, expensive cinematography, and the like. Then there are the rare few-like myself-that like both. And if a film can manage to do both-that is the rarest of the rare. And while, I wasn't highly entertained by Heaven's Gate-I was entertained. Both by the realism of the story, and the characters, and the famous actors, and the cinematography-and the locale and time period. Cimino really wanted to show the way things were back then. The movie was far too gritty for that time period in which it was made. However, I love the fact that he showed us so much. The types of people involved, why the conflict, and of course, the typical but real love triangle-The kind of triangle that has been going on for thousands of years. I think it is necessary to try and show modern day society how difficult life was just a century ago. It has really only been since the modern industrial age, that things began to change. And then finally w the advent of modern medicine and transportation. This allowed people to spread out over the entire US in mass numbers, preventing what happened in the movie from continuing to take place. I think people that have commented on how horrible this movie is, are far too narrow minded. It's pretty obvious that Heaven's Gate is a time capsule of a rarely talked about time and place in the history of our country. He felt that story had not yet been told. And I think he was right. If you look at a movie like The Outlaw Josey Wales, for example-There is not a whole lot of entertainment going on in that movie either. Clint Eastwood saves the movie, because he is Clint-simple as that. He has his usual witty banter scenes thrown in to divert us from the very real revenge horse opera that is taking place on the screen. Lets' face it Clint is a rare breed-putting him in a movie like Heaven's Gate would have only ruined its realism. I think that type one movie goers should refrain from commenting on these types of movies. They really have no idea how the process of storytelling or moviemaking, works. All they know is that they were bored, and thats it. I realize that hollywood is a business, but moviemaking is also an art form, and should be treated as such. You know there are people who will go to the Louvre and stare at the Mona Lisa for hours, trying to figure out what it means, and the significance of it. If an inanimate object can be treated in that manner, then so can a film.
-
osopestoso — 17 years ago(January 11, 2009 01:25 AM)
The reason REAL westerners hate immigrants is that the immigrants bring all thier cultural crap with them and, over the years, have DESTROYED the west. It's happening to this day.
Go to Tombstone AZ and read some of the articles in the Tombstone Epitaph in the courthouse museum. It's why California is now as lame as New York. -
kohntarkosz — 16 years ago(November 03, 2009 11:45 PM)
<
Ironically, this is why a lot of people in other countries have issues with the US: because American pop culture is replacing THEIR culture. When I went to Amsterdam a couple years ago, I took a train ride down to Paris for three days, and you know what I saw on every single bridge that we passed under? Graffiti. Young musicians attempt to emulate American and Anglo musical styles. And the kids dress in American style fashions. And American television and movies are very big over there. I guess what it comes down to is the older people are afraid that their culture is being supplanted by this homogenized American thing, and that the old ways will vanish forever. -
eddie-267 — 15 years ago(April 28, 2010 06:59 AM)
My local library had this on videotape; it ran for 3:26:44 from the UA symbol to the final line of text (approximately). I enjoyed watching it but thought I probably wouldn't bother again, though the music they danced to in the middle attracted me enough to record it. It is on TV tonight and they give it a 4-hour slot, but that would include ads. (UK on TCM). I might record it. I am keen to watch the ending again as my memory of it doesn't match Wikipedia's.
fleapit -
ridge-m-1 — 11 years ago(December 01, 2014 03:01 PM)
Who are the REAL westerners? Are they the American Indians whom the European immigrants committed genocide against? Are they the Mexicans whose country once encompassed what is now the vast southwest of the United States along with California until the spawn of the original European immigrants instigated a war in order to conquer that territory for the imperialistic politicians governing the United States?
Or, are REAL westerners the Waspish offspring of the original European colonists? The wonderful trait exhibited by the existing upper class descendants of the first wave of European immigrants in the film is how they valued money over the lives of more recent European immigrants in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
What destroyed the West is the concept,right or wrong of "Manifest Destiny".
There was no longer a Western Frontier for individuals that were so inclined to live a completely free life. -
Vagabear — 17 years ago(January 04, 2009 10:58 PM)
The 5+ hour version is referred to in Bach's book, FINAL CUT. Indeed, I would love to see it and would be the first in line.
I love the film as it stands - but find the shorter re-cut fascinating, as it contains a different order of sequences as well as unique ones that do NOT appear in the longer cut.
I truly wish that Cimino would/could revisit this work and construct a version that includes footage from both versions. -
gayspiritwarrior — 9 years ago(July 14, 2016 06:08 PM)
Cimino revisited the 219-minute cut, removed the sepia filter, made a couple of sound edits and slightly changed the end sequence on the boat. Other than that, it remains his preferred version.
The value of an idea has nothing whatsoever to do with the sincerity of the man who expresses it.-Oscar Wilde
