Waste of time - Heaven's Gate (1981) Discussion

[–] bstephens21 14 years ago

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.

reply

[–] PotassiumMan 14 years ago

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.

reply

[–] edrisi 14 years ago

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.

reply

[–] molien 14 years ago

The film is an unmitigated disaster, pretentious and boring to the point of putting one to sleep. the sound recording is so bad you cannot understand all of the dialogue, either.

reply

[–] bstephens21 14 years ago

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.

reply

[–] molien 14 years ago

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.

reply

[–] bstephens21 14 years ago

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...

reply

[–] molien 14 years ago

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.

reply

[–] bstephens21 14 years ago

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?

reply

[–] ARadicalAliensNoun 14 years ago

Pwnd!

reply

[–] Prismark10 13 years ago

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!!

reply

[–] laughing_solo 13 years ago

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!!!

reply

[–] Rich359 8 years ago

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.

reply

[–] Xeokym 12 years ago

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 diamond...I 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 vague...a 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?"

»«ëÕ|{¥(V)
I can't understand your crazy moon language.

reply

[–] bstephens21 12 years ago

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 diamond...I 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.

reply

[–] ishiidobie 10 years ago

Bstephens, I have read your replies. You are an effing arrogant @$$hole and every reason someone should not like this film if someone like you defends it. Die.

reply

[–] bstephens21 10 years ago

Perhaps. But I'm not wrong.

reply

[–] jejozi 11 years ago

Wow, you're a pretentious, pseudo-intellectual horses a$$. You pretend to be all high and mighty, then stoop to the ad hominem attack.

This will be the high point of my day; it's all downhill from here.

reply

[–] Edohiguma 8 years ago

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.)

reply

[–] Mustafa32 13 years ago

"I also teach Film Studies at a University"
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear :(

For starters, I suggest you stop making pronouncements about what a film "needs" to do and start trying to understand what a film intends to do.

reply

[–] HindumunInc 13 years ago

"I suggest you stop making pronouncements about what a film "needs" to do and start trying to understand what a film intends to do."

FUNNY! I say things like that to people who automatically write off comedies, action movies, horror movies, etc... just because of their genre or their director. For example: Micheal Bay does not "intend" to win Oscars; he does not "intend" his movies for the same kind of people that like French Avant-garde, or David Lynch; Mr. Bay does not "intend" people to think his movies are artistic or that he is an "auteur". Micheal Bay intends his movies to be the movie equivalent of junk-food. I don't mean that in an insulting way like many others do. Sometimes you just want to relax and shut off your brain for two hours, it's no different than an upper-middle class person reclining at a spa, except much cheaper.

How about another example: if you go to a comedy it doesn't matter if the cinematography is Oscar worthy, or that the plot is ironclad, or that the acting is Shakespearean, what matters is: is it funny? Granted I agree that the "movie" movies (Epic Movie, all but the first Scary Movie, etc...) are not funny. But there are plenty of hilarious movies, or frightening movies, or action packed movies, that do what THEY intend to do, but film critics give them bad reviews anyways just because they were made for the sake of entertainment and not High Art or some kind of social commentary.

What I'm saying is it is hypocritical to defend a movie from the insults of the masses because it "intends" to be high art, but then turn around and criticize a movie that "intends" to be entertainment for the masses because it isn't high art.

Your argument that it's more important what a movie intends to do then how it does it means that Micheal Bay is by far the most successful director of our generation. Keep that in mind the next time you look down your nose at someone.

I am a heterosexual male who has seen all the Twilight movies-DAMN YOU RIFFTRAX!

reply

[–] erwinvegas 10 years ago

Extremely late to this party, I know, but with so many subjects sub-link these days, I'll never find them all on time
.
Your reply got me thinking for a bit and I had to respond. I couldn't let it go because your reply seems to twist this way and that, more of a high school debate captain's moves than coming to actual helpful points about movie making. Yet your questions are good, such as a riddle.

I think the answer is that movies have become more than art. That saddens me a little, because I am one of those supposed "hypocrites" for thinking the masses need help finding or understanding what an artful or thoughtful film was doing, while also making fun of (or hating) the films equivalent to, as you accurately described, junk food. I want movies to be art, though like you, I have belly-laughed at some bad... well let's say sometimes I like "junk food" too.

Now forms of art have always collected fans and foes since the "beginning", however when I look back decades or more, at paintings, writings, music, and especially dance, it seems people today have evolved or devolved to include a broader spectrum of quality, and I swear it's because of not having the time to know any better, their worlds cluttered with the cheap, fast and out-of-control. The junk food is selling enough to make a good living, while people hundreds of years ago may have gagged if tasting cheetos or twinkies for the first time. Maybe not. All I know is my foreign exchange students used to food in Italy or France usually referred to our supermarket bread as "rubber bread" for a reason. The point is, standards have dropped for several reasons. It's still happening, from the experiences I've had with many films over the last 15 years. "Needs" AND "intentions" lazily included... the film can still suck.

Finally, I think your point for the person "looking down their nose" is only part right. You don't actually provide an answer to the problem. And It's a tough one... I understand. Another thing I understand is that Michael Bay is certainly not the most successful director of movies, unless success is only measured in "doing what you want" and you're still a joke. Do you know for sure Bay wants to make movies the equivalent of junk food? Maybe he's tried to be serious and realistic at times, and after enough people said "it sucked", he just followed what got them to buy tickets anyway.... the non-stop schlock action instead of understanding how films he loved as a kid were made.

What I'm saying with all this stuff is this; I can only guess what the directors and others were trying to do with their films, and I DO make good guesses (according to follow-up interviews), however when I get "hypocritical" according to you, it's just not that simple. I see more films the last 20 years that attempt realism, comedy... or everything, then turns out like a Michael Bay film (or IS a Michael Bay film), and starts to rot in continuity... then the intention is impossible to know from the work, and it's a failure as a film even if masses have bought tickets to escape life. That's not success even if films are being forced to avoid being art for the sake of including something for everyone. The viewers should just go to an amusement park.

I still don't think the "professor" should say what a film "needs" to do. She/He should SUGGEST what a film that works well usually includes. Otherwise, an art professor would be right in telling someone what art "needs", when we all know some of the worst and best art in human history always flutters between objective/subjective when experienced, therefore the most "non-involving" pieces might still be considered masterpieces some day.

reply

[–] SnoozeAlarm 12 years ago

bstephens21 you come across as arrogant. you could make you points without the condescension

http://tinyurl.com/cjsy86c

reply

[–] bstephens21 12 years ago

Of course I'm arrogant. I'm on the right side of history, here!

reply

[–] cmoore1886 11 years ago

I actually think Heaven's Gate is a masterpiece, it's in a class with Citizen Kane, 1900, Once Upon A Time In America and Caligula

reply

[–] Mustafa32 13 years ago

The director's cut of Heaven's Gate is, and is widely regarded as, an absolute masterpiece. It does require the audience to pay attention and use their brains, however. And if you "couldn't make out who everybody is" then maybe you should be watching it in a cinema as intended and not on a mobile phone.

reply

[–] negativeions101 12 years ago

You sound like a huge *beep* Dialogue should be crystal clear regardless of other sounds in the background.

reply

[–] bstephens21 12 years ago

Says who? Movies got along just fine for forty years without dialogue. I think it can withstand a little engine rumbling in the background.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bstephens21 12 years ago

I acknowledge your frustration.

reply

[–] cinesteam 11 years ago

Says the idiot.

reply

[–] z_dude_here 12 years ago

What movies got along just fine for forty years without dialogue? I would prefer some examples. I don't want a blanket statement.

reply

[–] bstephens21 12 years ago

Ah, perhaps I was being facetious: movies got along fine for forty years without spoken dialogue.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dea-syria 11 years ago

Do you mean Popeye, or O. C. and Stiggs?

reply

[–] looking4ahandout 14 years ago

I watched Heaven's Gate because of the infamous reputation. Obviously I am in the minority but I didn't think it was that bad. Not great but not deserving of the reputation it has. If it didn't lose so much money it would be viewed differently. I've seen far worse films that don't get treated like Heaven's Gate because they made money or cost little to make.

reply

[–] jamescole2035 14 years ago

Disagree with ole bpsteve here and you're "partaking in anti-intellectualism" apparently.

The only thing more long winded and pretentious than Heaven's Gate are your posts you arrogant tool.

reply

[–] bstephens21 14 years ago

If you want to cling to that opinion, its your right. I have no intention of fighting the windmills. I just want to open up the dialogue on the film to allow it the conversation it deserves.

And ultimately, I am confident that critical opinion will swing closer to my direction in the coming years. I'm already seeing the small rumblings of a full-scale reconsideration of the film, and considering some of the "plans" for the film in the future, I see no reason for it to lose momentum.

We can only wait and see.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] okami36 13 years ago

I thought this movie was a lot like Caligula in many ways.

Both had an interesting person/event at the heart of the story.

Both had a ton of great actors/actresses.

Both are way too long.

Both are boring.

This could've been called "Dramatic Pause: The Movie" or "Lots of Footage of People Walking and/or Doing Very Little".

Had the pacing been tighter, this could've been a great film.

reply

[–] ABetterDay 11 years ago

Heaven's Gate is a terrible film. Actually....it's not so much a film as it is a political statement. It should not have been made. Liberalism run amok.

Remember When Movies Didn't Have To Be Politically Correct?

reply

[–] mordloldad 11 years ago

I would say it's a failed political statement. Cimino wanted to turn the Western genre upside down and show the "real" west. Instead he created a black-and-white tale that dealt in absolutes just about as much as any Western that came before it. Sam Waterson's character is the Darth Vader of the western. He is literally a mustache twirling villain (although, his mustache is one of the most impressive things about this movie) and he looks like a Stalinist general in the Red Army. The mercenaries involved with the actual Johnson County War weren't out to massacre poor immigrants (in actuality there weren't many impoverished European immigrants in Wyoming), they actually set their sights on some affluent targets. I don't mind that Cimino took liberties with history necessarily as plenty of great films have done so (Amadeus immediately comes to mind) but if you're claiming to "demystify" the west, creating your own mythological west isn't the best way to go about it. In the end Cimino did turn the Western genre upside down, with Heaven's Gate's failure big studios were afraid to touch many Western projects.

reply

[–] bbpictures 11 years ago

Yes, yes, and yes.

Just one of several reasons why this movie feels like a mess thematically.

reply

[–] Leilanit96701 11 years ago

I have never managed to get through more than 45 minutes of this disaster. I've tried coming in on the middle and watching from the beginning but it doesn't seem to matter. There is no character development and the storyline is simply boring. The dialogue is hard to understand and I feel like I'm watching the film through a dust cloud. Waste of money and a waste of talent.

reply

[–] matushka1731 11 years ago

It's great that a few people such as M. Stephens thought that this was a gem of a film; however, I was determined to give it a shot and deliberately stayed up until 4AM to watch it in all its TCM glory. I must agree with M. Solo that it was a total waste, except for admiring the cinematography and art direction which were impressive. Cimino apparently decided that the way to follow up his great DEER HUNTER, was to make one overblown, extended, excessive scene after another (a la DH's wedding sequence)...and then fill it with babbling dialogue that no one could possibly understand (plus all the soundtrack racket). TCM's Mankiewicz advised that we were about to see the Director's cut, so I'm not sure which version I actually wound up watching! But, I do know that I have no desire to see another version. A waste of some poor animals, an interesting cast, a possibly interesting historical event---and by 4AM, a really meaningless waste of time.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chiefwahoo01 11 years ago

is it ok to blow up directors?

reply

[–] frmrfran 8 years ago

Cimino wanted recognition and the permission to make more drivel. After 90 minures I can't take anymore. I read a review about how this movie was so rivoting and honest and needed four hours in the telling. Well, at 90 minutes when I saw the fiddler doing his 1980's Xanadu skating in his 1970's boot-skates I said enough is enough. Realism? Yes, the cinematogrphy is lovely and the scenes muddy and cold and it puts you in the scene with them, but my appreciation ends there. Well, let me skate on out of here...I have given this movie all my time I am willing to waste. Oh, his Russian hooker gf was very cute, though Kris (in stoic character) couldnt tell her so.

reply

[–] col_rutherford 8 years ago

Well, at 90 minutes when I saw the fiddler doing his 1980's Xanadu skating in his 1970's boot-skates I said enough is enough. Realism?

It's ironic you complain about the roller skating scene, because while Heaven's Gate takes many liberties with history, the roller skates are historically accurate. Roller skating was hugely popular in America in the 1880s and 90s. Wyoming's first roller skating rink was established in Johnson County in 1885. What is anachronistic about the scene is that the tune the band is playing, "The Mamou Two Step", debuted in 1951.

reply