Is it really that bad?
-
Emunah — 15 years ago(April 05, 2010 07:58 PM)
Its not bad. Its not a masterpiece. Its not The Deer Hunter. But its still pretty good. It has developed this notorious reputation NOT because its "bad" but because it was the follow up film to Cimino's Deer Hunter and because Cimino got unlimited resources to make this film and it flopped horribly. It flopped so bad, that the prod company went bankrupt. Yes it did get bad reviews. Every film does. Its not awful. Its an exercise in egomaniacal late 1970s directing. Coppola did it with Apocalypse Now. Kubrick did it with The Shining. Friedkin did it with Sorcerer. And Cimino did it with Heaven's Gate. The only one who ever really recovered was Kubrick. And The Shining is now regarded as one of the, if not the best horror film ever made. The other three, among others at the time, never really recovered.
-
bstephens21 — 15 years ago(April 06, 2010 12:46 AM)
Its not bad. Its not a masterpiece
I disagree
Its not The Deer Hunter.
It's markedly better.
It flopped so bad, that the prod company went bankrupt.
I assume you mean the studio, not the production company, which regardless is an unsubstantiated myth.
Yes it did get bad reviews. Every film does.
It also got plenty of good, even great reviews once people outside the New York cache of critics got to see it. UA's critical mistake was cancelling the L.A. premiere (all though the fact that blood was already in the air probably meant that critical cronyism would win the day). UA's biggest strategical mistake was not opening at Cannes (Gate's belated premiere in France caused a riot and in a good way).
Its an exercise in egomaniacal late 1970s directing.
"Egomaniacal filmmaking" is something that only concerns a making of a film. It is not an aesthetic style, and as such, the ridiculous nature of the film's production is completely irrelevant to the quality of the film. That reviewers can't keep themselves from bringing this up show there intellectual bankruptcy in regards to discussing this film.
Coppola did it with Apocalypse Now. Kubrick did it with The Shining. Friedkin did it with Sorcerer. And Cimino did it with Heaven's Gate. The only one who ever really recovered was Kubrick.
Apocalypse Now
was and is a gigantic critical and commercial hit. Friedkin's career went into the doldrums as much for
Cruising
as for
Sorcerer
.
The Shining
seems actually mild for a Kubrick production. Anyways, the "Waterloos" of major filmmakers, while interesting, don't demonstrate any cohesive statement about the state of late 70's filmmaking. At most, it shows some the director's weren't perfect but could make flawed, but interesting work (
Comes a Horseman
,
Yanks
,
The Last Movie
,
Zardoz
,
A Wedding
, etc.), sometimes it shows the critics were full of ****, and didn't know greatness when it was in front of them (this film,
They All Laughed
,
Bring Me the Head of Alfred Garcia
). Occasionally, even the critics will by-omission admit being wrong by pretending they loved the movie all along (
Two-Lane Blacktop
,
Days of Heaven
,
King of Comedy
, every Cassavetes) but not often enough. I don't think a single one of those so-called "fiascos" show anything close to an excuse for what happened to Hollywood afterwards. -
HolyShackles — 15 years ago(February 04, 2011 02:59 PM)
bstephens, I just want to say how impressed I am with all of your statements in defense of this film and how much I've enjoyed reading them (I've scanned through the two dozen or so topics on this board and read them all). You've provided empirical rationales for every aspect of the film and pushed everyone who claims it's so terrible to explain why they feel so to the limit which they always give up on trying to do after you've forcefully exposed them to be knee-jerk reactions while never stooping to the lower level of insulting their intelligence or character. They are perfectly entitled to hate the film, but you said it best in another post that their "opinions are nothing without rational support" which I have seen little to none of from this film's detractors. I was also browsing through the Sorcerer message board recently and you articulated and nailed my thoughts about the film spot on by saying that it probably would've been the greatest remake of all time if Friedkin hadn't relied too heavily on Wages of Fear for the transport section of the film and "if he nailed that as well as he did the first half of the film" then the film would be truly great.
Anyways, posting this not to just sing your praises, but am wondering if you have any sort of blog or website of your own that you devote to film criticism, or if you are a writer for any actual magazine because I'd love to read any official work you have done. If not, then I think you should seriously consider doing so because I find everything you have written and debated to be completely constructive analysis, probably amongst the best I've ever read online and you'd have a regular reader with me, keep it up. -
Prismark10 — 15 years ago(March 14, 2011 09:57 AM)
Its a very well filmed epic that took risks. Its dark with some unsympathetic characters. The film rather tanked at the box office and it does have flaws. The most serious one was a cohesive narrative. You have a hard time following the story.
Its that man again!! -
Fillmore85 — 11 years ago(September 21, 2014 02:21 AM)
Ha!
You are #2 on my list of people I've seen who are so blinded by the intellectual intentions of the film-maker that you fail to actually be emotionally affected at all.
People don't like Heaven's Gate because the characters are poorly developed, scenes go on for far too long (yes, I get the point of the dancing/rollerskating scenes. They also didn't need to be 20+ minutes), and there was no real emotional core. That you think it is better than The Deer Hunter just outs you as a pretentious academic, all too concerned with what Cimino "meant" to do with one scene or another, and not at all caring whether he succeeded.
It's fine to like a flawed movie. It's okay to have guilty pleasures. We all have different tastes. But your feeble attempts to intellectually bully those who disagree are embarrassing, and trying to mask it in academic jargon doesn't help your case at all. Grow up. -
junefirst26 — 15 years ago(April 14, 2010 04:10 PM)
I just saw this film a few days ago for the first time. The 3 hour, 39 min. version. It is a very beautiful film to watch, you almost feel as though you are back there in time. Though while beautiful to see, I just wished that I cared for the characters more. I think that if the film had more little scenes that endeared you to these people, you would have felt their pain more. Scenes like you see in Lonesome Dove, or even Mc Cabe and Mrs. Miller. Little humerous scenes that show the viewer that not all is impending doom. As for the immigrants, I almost feel nothing for them, because it seems I only see them in scenes of confrontation, anger, yelling, cock fighting. Though there are sad scenes where women are pulling a plow, and the widow pulling her cart, I must admit I don
t feel their pain like I thought I should. I think there is too much focus on the female lead, and who she is going to go with. Basicaly, there isnt much charm in this film. Though Dr. Zhivago, was kind of thin on plot, I still really cared for these people and their plight, as I do for everyone in The Deer Hunter also. I should also mention that the DVD did NOT have English subtitles, because I must admit that I must have missed about 25% of the dialog trying to understand what people are saying. I`ll have to go and check out Final Cut on youtube, if its still there. Thanks. -
smiley_b81 — 15 years ago(April 19, 2010 09:07 PM)
Recently I'd compare the critical drubbing of this movie to the one bestowed on Peter Jackson's "The Lovely Bones" for instance. If that movie flopped huge (and its director wasn't sweating cash out his ears), would his career have gone the way of Cinimo?
Busey+Boll=Match made in heaven -
PotassiumMan — 15 years ago(June 10, 2010 02:53 PM)
The film's length is really what kills it. Its not really the acting. The film just never ends and seems sluggish. Keep in mind that when this film was released in 1980, people had high expectations for quality filmmaking. Nowadays, a film like this would probably be much less furiously panned. It would merely be dismissed as boring. But after the wealth of great films of the 1970's, it should come as no surprise that this one seemed so dreadful.
-
donofthedial — 14 years ago(October 30, 2011 05:33 PM)
I saw it when it first came out. I was not a Cimino fan, nor a Kristopherson fan. I went to see it b/c I could not believe that it was as bad as people were saying. I saw it, enjoyed it and admired it. Some of the battle scenes had me looking to see who was who. And I saw a version with an ending that was apparently little seen by most audiences. Very disturbing and the next day at work I felt the need to talk about it with people. I never saw that ending again.
It has been quite a while since I have seen any version of the film and I would like to see it again. -
jmillerdp — 10 years ago(April 09, 2015 12:54 AM)
The cinematography is awful, in my opinion. I have always admired Vilmos Zsigmond's dedication to his director's vision. But, man!, movies like Cimino's "Heaven's Gate" and Altman's "McCabe & Mrs. Miller" look really bad to me.
I. Drink. Your. Milkshake! [slurp!] I DRINK IT UP! - Daniel Plainview - There Will Be Blood