The version I saw recently (after many years) was 3 hours 37 minutes long.
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Heaven's Gate
Edohiguma — 9 years ago(July 28, 2016 11:03 AM)
The version I saw recently (after many years) was 3 hours 37 minutes long.
I want that time back.
It's a very slow movie. The whole intro at Harvard, that serves no purpose whatsoever (except maybe some form of background story) takes over 20 minutes. That's poorly edited. The fight under the tree, which takes several minutes, serves what purpose exactly? It's bad storytelling.
Then the characters. They took the names of historic characters and that's it. Complete misrepresentation of the historic figures. Overall the movie is utterly unhistoric. There is so much wrong in it, it makes John Wayne's movies look like documentaries.
Then the events. The prime example is when the war finally begins. The settlers end up riding around the gunmen in circles. There is some shooting, some people get killed (people we know nothing about, so why would we care about them?) But throughout it all, and this lasts for quite some time, one group of settlers rides clockwise, the other counter clockwise, while the gunmen in a defensive circle just take potshots at them. That scene is so stupid and really stands for what a waste of resources this movie is.
And again, the entire "war" in the movie is one big fantasy from the director that has nothing to do with what actually happened.
It's bad. It's not a masterpiece. It's long, boring with scenes that seems to be written by a 10 year old, bad editing and a level of storytelling that is worse than what George Lucas can produce. -
Outstandingness — 9 years ago(August 29, 2016 11:29 AM)
please save the "it's your opinion" diatribe. Every post on IMDb is an opinion, you're just wasting time rambling on about that. You should try to offer counterpoints that support the argument for why HG is good or at least valid.
When a director has made the film 'The Deer Hunter', I think you should give him credit that he knows what he is doing.
no, that's a bad idea. good directors sometimes fail and bad directors sometimes succeed. it should be judged on a case by case basis and not by their prior work.
Just look at all Stanley Kubrick's films
Look at Tarkovsky and Bla Tarr
these don't prove that HG was a good movie