MovieChat Forums > Heaven's Gate (1981) Discussion > Tried to watch for the first time.....no...

Tried to watch for the first time.....nope

posted 15 years ago by simingsm
27 replies | jump to latest

I really wanted to like this movie, despite all the negative reviews, since I am such a big fan of The Deer Hunter. I had trouble getting through the first fifteen minutes of the graduation. Then, I really lost interest the more and more I watched. The only thing that I enjoyed was the ten minute skating and dancing sequence at Heaven's Gate. If you remove all the other boring, meaningless, dusty/smokey scenes and incoherent dialogue this movie is simply...some really beautiful music being played to an old west skating rink party....that just happened to cost $36 million dollars to shoot. Now that is the most expensive music video of all time.....

You like fireworks, boy? What do you say to a rocket...in your pocket?

[–] ebronste 15 years ago

yah, I'll admit that's one of the film's biggest flaws: Like the Deer Hunter, it has scenes that drag on and on.

[–] bstephens21 15 years ago

How you can like the roller skate scenes (which you won't get any disagreements from me on) but hate the graduation ceremony is beyond me. Even Steven Bach liked the opening, despite finding the rest of the film terrifying.

[–] simingsm 15 years ago

I just did not understand what anyone was talking about....The Priest and Brad Douriffs speeches did not make any sense to me. Everyone was just laughing their a$$es off at their mumbled words about god knows what....

You like fireworks, boy? What do you say to a rocket...in your pocket?

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] simingsm 15 years ago

You are correct.That was Jon Hurt. Just more evidence as to how confusing this scene was in my mind. Plus, if they are graduating from college why do they look 50 years old? Their wrinkles and liver spots were not covered up well at all.

You like fireworks, boy? What do you say to a rocket...in your pocket?

[–] bstephens21 15 years ago

Their wrinkles and liver spots were not covered up well at all.

The one true flaw of the film. Granted, one that is minor at best and easily compensated by how beautifully the rest of the scene plays out.

Just more evidence as to how confusing this scene was in my mind.

Or how little you were paying attention.

[–] simingsm 15 years ago

"The one true flaw of the film....Or how little you were paying attention."

Umm...did we watch the same film? There are numerous flaws in this film. You are right in regards to me not paying attention. To count all the flaws you would need to chug a pot of coffee first so that you could actually stay awake through all the long winded scenes. The length of the movie is not an issue it is just how boring it is played out.

You like fireworks, boy? What do you say to a rocket...in your pocket?

[–] bstephens21 15 years ago

Try a few. I'd like to hear what you perceived as "flaws".

[–] beresfordjd 14 years ago

Have to agree. I have tried it a couple of times but cannot make it more than half an hour. A terrible waste of talent and resources.

[–] Shambaby 14 years ago

It's reassuring to know there is ONE other intelligent person here on IMDB. I just finished watching this terrible film. I'm assuming that most of the commentors are under 13 years of age. I would have written the exact same thing. Now, I'm going to watch INTOLERANCE.

[–] bstephens21 14 years ago

Interesting, because quite a few critics have drawn parallels between Cimino and Griffith. But, you know, since the "established" critical discourse states Griffith was a genius (although his career crashed-and-burned much in the same way as Cimino, and he was probably as disliked in his days as Cimino is now) and Cimino is a failure (despite even his worst films show a startling talent and hints of genius as much as the best auteur), that's all that matters, since your string of posts have been nothing but parroted clichés and myths about this film without one original, or even supported, idea as to why this film is "terrible".

But, in lieu of actual critical conversation, I guess it's easier to namedrop established classics to make yourself look better. So if you don't mind, I'm off to see an original 35mm print of Murnau's Sunrise, set to Mahler's 9th Symphony, projected on to the surface of a Vermeer, while the movie is hand-projected by the zombie corpse of T.S. Eliot. Do I win?

[–] james-1448 14 years ago

Well said, bstephens21. The entertainment media manipulates minds the same way the news media does. A film is released, they trip over each other to be on the right side of the story, and often times it takes years, even decades, for the actual facts to come out.

I saw this film for the first time two days ago, I was impressed. I liked it better than The Deer Hunter, and found the story to be MORE cohesive and thought provoking than other similarly themed "good" films (Once Upon A Time In The West, McCabe and Mrs. Miller, etc.)

Last Movies seen:

INLAND EMPIRE:9.55/10
Shooter:6.73/10
The Good Shepherd:7.89/10

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] col_rutherford 14 years ago

Casting John Hurt and Kris Kristofferson as college students was ridiculous.

Actors not looking their characters' ages is a common problem when the characters have to age many years during the course of a movie. Should you get different actors to play the same character at different ages, which can be confusing, or do you use hair and make-up to make the actor look younger or older, which can be unconvincing?

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bstephens21 14 years ago

The opening is crucial to the movie. And yes, it says a lot more than the fact they "knew each other when they were young". And yes, Kristofferson and Hurt do look kinda ridiculous (although Kris almost pulls it off). And yes, that point is irrelevant.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bstephens21 14 years ago

And you're a troll. Your point?

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bstephens21 14 years ago

Kristofferson's great, and in between this, Pat Garret and Billy the Kidd and Trouble In Mind, shows he's a perfectly capable actor.. The sound design serves its purpose. And the movie is beautifully put together.

Have anymore cliches you wanna parade out?

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bstephens21 14 years ago

Kinda my point... Substance-less, one-line "criticism" can be refuted with the same.

And do believe he was a troll. 80% of his posts were about people being to old for their roles.

[–] trinity-destler 13 years ago

I don't know, it's sad. There are definitely things about it that work. I'm still watching it, so I don't have any kind of fully formed opinion, but I think it's wrong to call the film bad (it's not)- trouble is, it's just as difficult to call it good. It's a mess in more ways than one. The one that gets me most right now is that I've gotten to the first successful, moving character development and its two hours in.

I refer to the scene with Nate and Ella and the wallpaper: it was so sweet and said so much with so little, that I actually feel very invested in them and their relationship based on that scene. The problem with this is, up until this point Nate has been a complete blank slate and his feelings for Ella are literally the only thing that animates his character. I gather there's supposed to be a contrast between his character and Jim's, between his heritage and his choices, and there was nothing to build that conflict. The "tense" conversation between the two men is meaningless and incomprehensible.

The other problem with the wallpaper scene being, I'm pretty sure I was supposed to care about Ella's relationship with Jim- to feel for her conflict and sacrifice here- and I don't. At all.

In fact, I'm still waiting to care about Jim in any capacity. The Harvard scene sets up his generation and background, but there's nothing about the individual. It set up John Hurt's character reasonably well, but he's disappeared from the film.

"It's that kind of idiocy that I empathize with." ~David Bowie