Waste of time
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Heaven's Gate
laughing_solo — 15 years ago(May 08, 2010 10:25 AM)
After two hours into the movie, I was sure that the story would materialize soon but I was getting impatient. After three hours, I began getting angry, but still believed that something meaningful would emerge from all of this drivel I had been subjected to. When the movie ended, I was stuuned and pissed off that I had just wasted four hours of my life because Michael Cimino didn't know what the hell he was trying to do with a very impressive cast.
Incidentally, I haven't read all of the discussion points, so this may have already been mentioned, but this is the movie that is responsible for the standard clause in an actor's contract regarding cruelty to animals. Cimino actually blew up horses. Orson Welles was so pissed, he spearheaded the movement to make sure that no low-life director would ever again have the opportunity to repeat Cimino's remarkable disregard for the welfare of animals. -
bstephens21 — 15 years ago(May 08, 2010 06:16 PM)
Yawn. Cimino knew very well what he was doing. And there certainly is a story there. How about trying specifics instead of vague blanket statements.
As for the animal cruelty, unfortunate, but there is still no legitimate proof that Cimino knowingly went out of his way to blow up the horse. And even if so, it wouldn't be the first great film to regrettably feature animal cruelty. -
PotassiumMan — 15 years ago(June 08, 2010 11:34 AM)
I've known about this film for years and never got around to watching it. Based on what the critics have said, it seems like I haven't missed anything. But I might still get around to giving it a look. At the very worst I will have wasted four hours of my life. Cimino's career as a director is over so there's no way he would be able to pay for wasting my time.
-
edrisi — 15 years ago(June 10, 2010 10:06 AM)
Orson Welles subsequently apologised to Cimino for having believed all the "slaughtering of animals" boloney.
$35million , months of shooting and -allegedly- 1 horse got hurt.
The lawsuit against the film makers got dropped.
And so it goes. -
bstephens21 — 15 years ago(June 16, 2010 02:12 PM)
the sound recording is so bad you cannot understand all of the dialogue, either.
Once again, something completely intended by Cimino, and which completely served its purpose: to create a soundtrack that is as layered and detailed as the visuals.
If that's you sole point of contention, then I assume most of those Robert Altman masterpieces are "unmitigated disasters" too. -
molien — 15 years ago(June 16, 2010 07:45 PM)
The dialogue is not my sole problem with the film. We could talk lack of character development, scenes that go on forever with no discernable point, scenes with so many people in them (shot like coverage shots) so you have no idea who anybody is. Don't ask me. Ask all the people who rightly labeled this is a disaster when it came out. It's just that with every crappy film,there's always people who have to "revisit" it and say it was "misunderstood". Sometimes when a film bombs on release, it's real simple. It bombed because it sucked. Sometimes an "auteur" needs a Producer looking over their shoulder or somebody to rework their script.
-
bstephens21 — 15 years ago(June 16, 2010 10:31 PM)
We could talk lack of character development, scenes that go on forever with no discernable point, scenes with so many people in them (shot like coverage shots) so you have no idea who anybody is.
Lets. I'd really like examples.
Ask all the people who rightly labeled this is a disaster when it came out. It's just that with every crappy film,there's always people who have to "revisit" it and say it was "misunderstood". Sometimes when a film bombs on release, it's real simple. It bombed because it sucked.
And sometimes people hide behind the crowd to mask the lack of substance in their opinion. I'd love to "Ask all the people" who labeled this a disaster, I really would, but I'll settle for you. So shoot -
molien — 15 years ago(June 17, 2010 07:40 AM)
I notice in your posts you are always asking people to show you "examples". I just did. For me I don't care a whip about the people at the end of the movie, because to me, Cimino didn't allow you to care about them, let alone the mob of immigrants, so I didn't care if anyone lived or died. Film needs to involve you and this film didn't involve me. If it did you, great, good for you. I am just saying the film didn't work for me. I noticed in another thread you labeled all Heaven's Gate haters as "Neandrathals". Seems like you spend alot of time defending this movie and some of your threads take longer to read than to watch the movie. And I don't think you're a Neandrathal for liking the movie, I just disagree, so leave it at that. I also teach Film Studies at a University, so not saying that makes me the ultimate authority, but I do know how movies are made and I've made them myself, so I am definitely not a Neandrathal.
-
bstephens21 — 15 years ago(June 24, 2010 02:39 PM)
I just did. For me I don't care a whip about the people at the end of the movie, because to me, Cimino didn't allow you to care about them, let alone the mob of immigrants, so I didn't care if anyone lived or died. Film needs to involve you and this film didn't involve me.
That's not an example. That's a blanket statement. You could simply change the nouns in that sentence, post it on a dozen boards, and it wouldn't make a difference, because it doesn't say anything specific or of value about the film. Where's the burden of proof? You say the film doesn't involve you? Fine. But what does it do that fails to involve? What does it do in regards to writing, mise-en-scene, acting, specific scenes and moments, etc. that fails to draw you in? What exactly should have Cimino done differently? Those are examples.
I noticed in another thread you labeled all Heaven's Gate haters as "Neandrathals".
I didn't. I said that even the greatest film will have "neanderthals" who hate them for ridiculous or flimsy reasons. That isn't to say there aren't valid reasons to hate "great" films. Or that just because a movie is considered "great", it should be free from criticism and reevaluation (that would be hiding behind the crowd as much as people who hate this film).
Look, agreeing to disagree is fine. I get it. It's a post-modern world. Everything is what the individual personally defines it as. Fine. But the fact is, criticism is the attempt to take the subjective, and make it objective. You takes these gut reaction, knee-jerk instincts and instant (dis)pleasure you get from a film, and by analyzing them, trying to rationalize them, providing them with proof, showing how these opinions are supported by the intrinsic properties of the film, trying to figure what exactly the filmmakers were trying to do beyond YOUR opinion, etc. you raise your opinion to something beyond that of a insubstantial whim. You prove your hypothesis, and if you don't create something that is quite a fact, you reinforce your viewpoint to something that is well above simple opinion. Or, in the rare cases when the evidence in the film doesn't hold up to your initial opinion, you are able to reevaluate yourself; such intellectual adaptability being crucial to any critic, or critical thinker.
I'm not saying there aren't people who do that for (or against) this film (or any film). But there are always a small number of people who just shout their initial opinion without any attempt to justify or rationalize it. People who refuse to use the critical capacity that partly makes them human (and which is essential for any film viewer). In essence, intellectual neanderthals. Unfortunately, sometimes they're the loudest, and get to influence public opinion well beyond what we as a society should allow.
Are there critics who really engaged with
Heaven's Gate
? Sure. There a few. I've read nearly all the criticism, so there are a few "dissenting" opinions worth commending. David Denby and John Pym - while I feel they make some major mistakes in their criticism, and jump to more than a few faulty judgments - certainly are worth singling out as people who cut through the smokescreen around the film, and tried to engage it on its own terms. Jean-Luc Godard as well, who considered the film a "failure", but thought that the critical reaction was even worse. The same can't be said for the majority of critics, however, especially not those who were responsible for its initial "failure": Vincent Canby (who was guilty of major hyperbole), Pauline Kael (who got drunk during the screening), John Simon (who's guaranteed to hate anything as long as Cimino's name was on it), Rex Reed (who blatantly lied in his review), Roger Ebert (who makes several ridiculous judgments about the film that simply don't hold up), and so on and so on
Seems like you spend alot of time defending this movie and some of your threads take longer to read than to watch the movie.
Isn't that special? The teacher of "Film Studies" at a University partaking in anti-intellectualism. I'm assuming your students write haikus for their final exam? -
Prismark10 — 15 years ago(March 15, 2011 09:05 AM)
The film is not a waste of time, it tries to make a bold statement if not all together successfully.
If Cimino intended that the dialogue be layered etc. That was a serious misstep as the choppy sound was one of the reasons why people could not understand the story as they could not hear key parts of the dialogue.
Its that man again!! -
laughing_solo — 14 years ago(August 16, 2011 03:35 AM)
If an attempt at a bold statement is what makes something NOT a "waste of time", then I've been on many dates with women who must have been trying to make a bold statement. Cimino's direction on "The Deer Hunter" was outstanding, even better on "The Sicilian", but I disagree that his foul-ups on "Heaven's Gate" were 'works of art' or attempts at making a bold statement. Cimino simply didn't know what the hell he wanted to do with the film and his obvious indecision produced a major WASTE OF TIME!!!
-
Rich359 — 9 years ago(July 29, 2016 09:02 AM)
I agree. I tried many times to watch this film again since I saw it in NYC on t he second day of its opening. Its just bad. Christopher Walken is woefully miscast and plays the role as if its based in 1980 and in NYC, John Hurt is a silly and annoying character that does nothing but distract from the plot, Ciminos plays many scenes for claptrap value, and the scene where Sam Waterson slaps John Hurt and calls him a "silly son of a bitch" was so off and silly, that the whole theatre broke out in laughter. That with the impossible to hear dialogue, and soft focus sepia tone photography, the graphic gore, little character development, unlikable immigrants, I could go on and on. Its just bad.
-
Xeokym — 13 years ago(April 22, 2012 08:58 PM)
That's not an example. That's a blanket statement.
You sure are fond of saying "blanket statement." What's slightly amusing is that repeating "That's not an example, that's a blanket statement," you are basically dismissing what the other person has said with the wave of your hand, which is also very similar to making a 'blanket statement.' Like a "blanket dismissal."
Your responses are almost as long & boring as Cimino's 1.3 million feet of footage (or 220 hours) for this sluggish trainwreck of a movie. You are OK with accepting that someone else doesn't have the
taste
for this movie, but when they give clear examples of the movie's faults, you seem to get agitated & very sarcastic, even insulting.
Isn't that special? The teacher of "Film Studies" at a University partaking in anti-intellectualism. I'm assuming your students write haikus for their final exam?
S/he wasn't
bragging,
he was simply saying he wasn't a "neanderthal."
Why nitpick details when the whole friggin movie is sluggish, boring, convoluted piece of crap?
Your example is the entire movie.
The characters are never developed, none of them garner an ounce of empathy in the audience. The dialogue is difficult to decipher, whole scenes stagnate without making any kind of point, and the plotline is vague, unresolute, and never manages to grab all the threads & pull them together by the end. It's an overlong, bloated corpse full of hot gas. Personally, a lot of my favorite movies are cheesy B-movies; I know they're "bad" but I don't care, I find something entertaining & enjoyable watching them. What other people think of the movie doesn't affect my enjoyment of it at all. So I don't know why you're so hellbent on defending this polished turd like it was a diamondI haven't seen you give one example of any sort of redeeming factor for this movie. All I see you doing is whining about how neanderthals are convincing all these other people (who, exactly? that's awfully vaguea blanket statement of sorts) to see their point of view. Which is nonsense. If someone is so stupid as to take some stranger's word for it that a movie is bad & they never give it a chance, so what? Again - how's it affect your enjoyment of the movie? Do you need back-up from 50 million other strangers in order to like a movie? What is so hard about saying "yeah it's got flaws, but I like it anyway?"
|{(V)
I can't understand your crazy moon language. -
bstephens21 — 13 years ago(April 22, 2012 10:09 PM)
You sure are fond of saying "blanket statement." What's slightly amusing is that repeating "That's not an example, that's a blanket statement," you are basically dismissing what the other person has said with the wave of your hand, which is also very similar to making a 'blanket statement.' Like a "blanket dismissal."
Of course, it's a blanket dismissal. There's nothing of substance to dismiss in detail.
Your responses are almost as long & boring as Cimino's 1.3 million feet of footage (or 220 hours) for this sluggish trainwreck of a movie.
More anti-intellectualism.
You are OK with accepting that someone else doesn't have the taste for this movie, but when they give clear examples of the movie's faults, you seem to get agitated & very sarcastic, even insulting.
Good. Poor film criticism is insulting to me, as it should be to anyone with any critical facility. May as well pay it back in full.
S/he wasn't bragging, he was simply saying he wasn't a "neanderthal."
Yawn I never said he was bragging, nor did I ever call him a neanderthal (which I explained in that very post)
Why nitpick details when the whole friggin movie is sluggish, boring, convoluted piece of crap?
A movie is a collection of details. You need to be able to "nitpick" those, otherwise, you don't actually have an opinion, just a series of blanket declarations than can only be "refuted" by descending into a flame war.
If you can't have this conversation, why even have these forums? Would we be better served making another "Six Degrees of" or "Type of characters name with your elbows" thread?
The characters are never developed, none of them garner an ounce of empathy in the audience. The dialogue is difficult to decipher, whole scenes stagnate without making any kind of point, and the plotline is vague, unresolute, and never manages to grab all the threads & pull them together by the end. It's an overlong, bloated corpse full of hot gas.
Good. This is a start. But without details, it does nobody any good.
So I don't know why you're so hellbent on defending this polished turd like it was a diamondI haven't seen you give one example of any sort of redeeming factor for this movie.
This isn't a thread entitled "Wonderful time spent" created by me. I'm going to react to what's posted before me. Those who make a statement need to be able to defend it. If the conversation organically gets to a point where it would be served by me defending the film, scene-by scene, in detail, maybe I will. I'd welcome the conversation taking a turn there. But I'm not going out of my way to write an BFI volume on this. Not in this context. My arguments are ultimately less about convincing the person before me he's wrong (people rarely admit they are) than inspiring a conversation which
other
people who aren't so stubborn and fixed in their opinion may get something out of.
Again - how's it affect your enjoyment of the movie? Do you need back-up from 50 million other strangers in order to like a movie? What is so hard about saying "yeah it's got flaws, but I like it anyway?"
Because I'm not so narcissistic to think that my own personal gratification is paramount to all others, nor so naive to think that the poor taste of others won't effect me. Call me old-fashioned, but I believe the cinema is a communal experience, and I think a society with a healthy culture is a healthier society, as great works of art enrich us. But you can't always expect a great film to passively wash over you: the greatest works of art are always the beginning of a conversation it is up to you to put in the work to respond to it.
A movie that doesn't inspire passion is a film that's hardly worth one's time. A great film makes you into a fanatic, it forces you to proselytize for it, to turn other into true believers. Others disliking this film, doesn't effect my enjoyment. I know it's a great film! What it does is effect others. It repels them, when they should be drawn in, it keeps them from watching a film that may very well love. It takes a film that reaches the dizzying rarefied heights of pure cinema, and then puts up wall in front of it marked "Verboten!" keeping other artists from even think of aiming that high again, and keeping viewers from demanding that other films aim for that standard. A true cineaste will fight for that ideal standard, if not in
Heaven's Gate
, then in
Modern Times
or
Au Hasard Balthasar
or
Police Story
. Too many people experience too much
product
and not enough
cinema
. They deserve to be shaken out of their complacency, if that means experiencing something real Now, I am enough of a narcissist to think that my preaching contributes to that. -
-
Edohiguma — 9 years ago(July 28, 2016 10:31 AM)
I'm assuming your students write haikus for their final exam?
Wow. I would classify that statement as "racist" and/or bigoted, after all it displays a clear "haiku are garbage and easy" attitude by some Yank who tries to ride the pseudo-intellectual high horse (and fails.)