Funny how 40 years later, Heavens Gate is getting standing ovations at Venice film festival and the New York film festival is screening it in the "Masterworks" section... If anything, this is not a story of a studio bomb, but a film critique bomb.
No. First, when the film was first released, the whole movie was covered in a muddy brown sepia colour that took out ALL of the colourful imagery, literally making every frame ugly and dirty. And sitting through that for 3,5 hours... it doesn't take Einstein to figure out that's going to negatively impact your opinion of the film. There is a reason why Cimino did a 180 on that later. Second of all, this is a bad film. Period. Im sorry, but all the criterion magic dust in the world can't make this film a masterpiece. It is boring, it is bland, it is sooooooo slow, and for no reason. So many scenes go on and on and on without adding anything new. Its just length. Why not make a 5 hour movie then, why not make it 10 hours! Just the prolog alone makes you go to sleep. You have to come to the conclusion that the masterful way Cimino directed The Deer Hunter was a fluke. He was at the right place at the right time and had the right collaborators, just by chance. Because in every movie since he has been unable to repeat that recipe. Have you seen Desperate Hours? It is literally the worst movie ever made. You couldn't make worse directorial decisions if your life depended on it. Heavens Gate isn't as bad as Desperate Hours, not even close. It's just so insanely mind numbingly boring. Take away the beautiful photography and all you have left is a story on ventilators.
@@laurencewhite4809 No offence, but that is just repeating the same clichés, mostly popular among people who havent REALLY seen anything apart from Deer hunter but have a definitive idea who Cimino is. Perhaps read on Cimino and buy the colorful biography by Charles Elton where these popular myths are confronted in detail. For one, Deer Hunter wasnt a "fluke" in the slightest: Ciminos work for/with Eastwood was very good, Year of the Dragon is also considered a cult classic and while The Sicilian isnt exactly coherent and great as-is, it absolutely have some traces of greatness. The story how Heavens Gate was "unwatchable" due to sepia filter is simply silly, its something Roger Ebert popularized in his review. The point isnt even the film itself, but how the game was skewed against it from the very beginning before it was released.
@@f4ust85 The Year Of The Dragon is awful, no matter how many times directors like Tarantino try to make it seem like a hidden gem. It's not. It's just a mediocre (at best) dated 80s action movie, with horrendous acting. Even Charles Elton admits the acting in that is horrible. Thunderbolt and Lightfoot is great (not a masterpiece), but The Deer Hunter actually is a masterpiece. But every movie since then has not even been close, and the downfall started with Heavens Gate, and it had nothing to do with studio interference, but the lack of talent on Ciminos part. Go watch Desperate Hours. You literally could not make worse directorial decisions if your life depended on it. And the sepia argument when it comes to Heaven Gate is not silly. Go watch the criterion video on how they remastered the film, and see the comparison. The old version was literally just different shades of brown. No colours what so ever. I agree that the original reviews of Heaven Gate were over the top, but... that doesn't make it a good film.
@@laurencewhite4809 Many things far more camp than Year of the dragon are today part of the revered patheon of 1980s cinema and set in marble. Not only do narrative norms change greatly every decade, but films that are considered "masterpieces" when they were released can often be totally neglected and forgotten a generation later and vice versa. How many Academy Award winners from early 80s ring a bell nowadays? For example, Reds from 1981 is also a very "dull", long and considerately boring movie which can very much be compared to Heavens Gate, it has similar social topics, work with the actors, slow narration and relatively unpopular historical theme. Yet it got 12 Academy Awards nominations and won 3 and American Film Institut put it into a Top 10. How many people would watch Reds today and call it a great and stunning film? I dont think it would differ much from Heavens Gate.
It's honestly not a good looking movie, it's aggressively brown and the filters make it blurry, and it's completely caked in grain. Even for a movie of its time it is not good looking
@@JaceDanielFilms I agree. I don't like the movie. But do you know why it is CAKED in grain? Because the original negative of the film does not exist anymore. It was so heavily edited back when it was originally released, and they don't have the original pieces that made it impossible for Cimino to edit together his original cut. But what they did have was negative copies of the original cut, but... the color was devided into three separate negatives. One negative for the red color, one for the blue and one for the green. They had to pancake them together to get the colours back, literally put them on top of each other (digitally), and by doing that you also got the grain from three different films together in one image.
That's not dust in rooms, that's old style reality. People smoking caused rooms to cloud up. Stoves caused it. Lamps caused it. Cold weather caused it. I've been in those rooms as a child growing up.. It's called realism. I watched this on my own when I was a young teenager (my memory is that it was the original long version) I was enthralled by the imagery. Long? Yes. But even at that age, I realised it was not attempting to be a popular blockbuster Western. It was reaching for art. I haven't seen it in 30something years. I'd suspect it has aged much better than the reactions of these critics. I sense there was more to the 'hate' than smokey scenes. The tone in the voices sounds like an agenda was being played out.
Exactly, so well said, higher ups told these two critics to ride the michael cimino united artists demonizing band wagon, just like david leans wrongly attacked and gorgeous film ryans daughter and this movie heavens gate shouldve won academy awards for best picture and best director and best cinematography and best sound design at least.
Interesting you note that even the tone in the critics ‘ voices can somehow translate to setting an agenda. In fairness though Roger Ebert did say he couldn’t believe that it was as bad as everyone said. It sounded like he went to it with an open mind .
This severely underappreciated underrated western masterpiece was severely mauled by arrogant jealous narrow minded film critics who should go live on a remote island somewhere together where they can all doubt each others existence.
The Criterion Collection Blu Ray of "Michael Cimino's Heaven's Gate" looks amazing. Vilmos Zsigmond's cinematography had many, many images of jaw-dropping beauty (and devastating horror). The battle was too dusty to see the enemy clearly? Maybe that was the point. I think S & E had their "two thumbs" in their eyes.
I love this movie, and I agree with most of what they say. Heaven's gate will likely forever be divisive due to its odd story and editing choices, but for me it's masterpiece. thanks for uploading this with its beautiful criterion remaster.
Yes, it should be noted that when Siskel and Ebert refer to the sepia tone in their review, that is the original version of the film. The remaster changes the color grading to look more vibrant and natural.
It's terrible, but it's fascinating. I'm the same way with the Deer Hunter. I watch the thing over and over, seen it dozens of times, but actually, it's not a good film at all. The more I analyze it, the worse it gets, and I have no idea why critics don't recognize it. But, bad as it is, it's still fascinating, just in how wrong-headed it is. Heaven's Gate doubled down on all that wrongheadedness and magnified it...
I actually liked the dust and the haze that lingered over every set piece.. it added to the realism.. But yeah underdeveloped characterization is pretty much inexcusable when you have that much money and resources at your disposal. I'm glad I watched it though :) And think the best line was, "Goodbye Ella and Jim."
It's funny to me that Cimino hired probably the best cinematographer ever born... and then gave him almost nothing but smoke and dust clouds to shoot. Even Vilmos Zsigmond could only do so much with those conditions...
I'm glad we get to look back now and see the people that created are still remembered, cherished and love while the people that critique are only remembered for looking like clowns.
Love this movie as well. It got an unfair by critics from the beginning but since then, it has garnered alot of love and appreciation from subsequent audiences and viewers. 👌👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
I'm a little confused here. Did they review the 2 hour (studio edit) version (released in 1981), or the 3.5 hour (original edit) version that only showed a couple times in screenings in late 1980? NYT critic Vincent Canby all but singlehandedly destroyed the original Heaven's Gate, trashing it for various reasons. The film was pulled by the studio, taken away from Cimino, and cut almost in half. I seem to recall Ebert really disliking the short version in his written review, beyond what he even says here. 25 years later Cimino and editors re-cut the film, and changed the look of it away from a sepia feel, to a more technicolor feel. This is the version that's now on BluRay. This edit was done in 2012 after Siskel had passed away, and Ebert was near the end of his life. This version was reviewed again by the NYT by Dennis Lim (and another writer) as well as Daniel Barber of the BBC, and they had very high praise for this edit, calling the film a masterpiece. A shame Siskel, Ebert (as well as Vincent Canby) never got to see this version. And even more of a shame the rest of us couldn't in 1980.
Two reviewers calling a shiny turd a masterpiece doesn’t make it so. You can’t throw lipstick on a pig and pretend it is now a beauty pageant super star.
@@johnfitzpatrick3094 Johnny, Auld Clover, stand on your head, pour some bubbly in your ear'oles, replace your dodgy marbles with eyes, and get your loop cleaned. If Heaven's Gate is lost on you, you really need the auld jumper cables applied!
I never seen this film by Cimino but for a film that was considered a disaster looks alright. The film battle scenes in this film reminds me of the Russian film "War and Peace".
Here we are in 2022. Heaven's Gate has only gotten better & better with time. The film abounds with stunning memorable images & great performances. In 1970, critics shat all over David Lean's film Ryan's Daughter. The critical vitriol was so severe & so relentless that Lean didn't make another film for 14 years. And Ryan's Daughter has only gotten better and better with time; it is also a stunning masterpiece abounding with memorable images & great performances. Who remembers critics? And did any of them ever make a film? I have never in my life consulted a review by a film critic in order to decide whether or not to see a film. Too many critics are no-talent piss ants trying to sustain a career by hitching a ride on the accomplishments of superb artists who perpetuate the evolution of film making by taking risks in their work that critics, in their bloviatings, never have to countenance. Great films are always for the future; critics are yesterday's newspapers. Final Cut: The Making & Unmaking of Heaven's Gate th-cam.com/video/XnG-KZwrCxs/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=CinemaGarmonbozia
Ryan's Daughter won two Oscars and was a huge box office success, boss. I'm not seeing the analogy with the notorious critical and commercial flop Heaven's Gate, and I'm not understanding why we should detest critics because they might hurt a major director's feelings.
@@marzilyas Apparently my comment was completely lost on you. There is no "analogy" between Ryan's Daughter & Heaven's Gate. In both cases, the critics had their knives out before they'd ever seen either film. Read the Kevin Brownlow and Gene Philips biographies of David Lean, & Steven Bach's book on Heaven's Gate, Final Cut. "Ryan's Daughter won two Oscars and was a huge box office success" You're completely missing the point. Richard Shickel said to David Lean's face, about Ryan's Daughter, "Give me one good reason why we had to sit through this piece of shit." The American critics had formulated a collective attitude about Lean's work, that it consisted of little soap operas framed pretentiously as grand epics. Nothing could be further from the truth. They imposed that dishonest nonsense of bollocks over Ryan's Daughter, & took great pleasure in savaging the film. Collective intellectual dishonesty is something rather different than having one's feelings hurt. Think about it for 30 seconds. " I'm not understanding why we should detest critics because they might hurt a major director's feelings." That isn't at all what I said. Too many critics were intellectually dishonest, & they succumbed to power trips, thinking they could make or break a director's career. Pauline Kael was one example, as were Richard Schickel & Vincent Canby. Look at Roger Ebert's initial review of Heaven's Gate. It is idiotic. This was more the case in the 1970s and early 80s, before Hollywood churned out $300 million vapid CGI comic book movies, & film criticism went by the wayside. Robert Altman said of critics: "Critics stand on a plateau watching a battle down in the valley. When the battle is over, they ride down to the valley and shoot the survivors." Altman's brilliant masterpiece, The Long Goodbye, was savaged by critics upon its release. Today it stands as one of the great masterpieces of its time, & all of those critics that bent over backwards to slag it have vanished into oblivion.
@@ericmalone3213 Some of us who have to work hard for a living and put up with stress every day have little time or sympathy for rich, successful people who complain about being criticized. What a tragedy. I don't know if you realize it, but you propose a false choice between thoughtful New Hollywood stuff with the mindless crap of modern superhero movies that I myself don't care for, as if disliking Heaven's Gate is like casting a vote against the Godfather Part 2 and for Aqua Man 2 ("This was more the case in the 1970s and early 80s, before Hollywood churned out $300 million vapid CGI comic book movie"). I recently watched the Long Goodbye for the first time, and it was pretty good, an interesting time capsule of the early-mid 70s as a Raymond Chandler adaptation, but it's not above criticism, as no film is, and it doesn't really compare with Altman's best work in my opinion. It's no Nashville or McCabe and Ms. Miller, etc. Regardless, I will save my tears for the beleaguered director, especially in this day and age, with the death of print media and any sort of centralized critical apparatus that you seem to rail against retroactively.
Definitely not the garbage that the critics told it to be. But cmon, its also not the masterpiece either that Cimino promised. Yes, it is well-shot, the attention to detail showed. But that is also where the problem is. THe scenes are prolonged pointlessly. It really has serious pacing issues. THe acting was decent but nothing memorable
I LOVE THIS FILM! Yes I admit the film has alot of problems (overlong, some weak story structure, some unclear characterizations, Jeff Bridges, John Hurt, Paul Koslo, Brad Dourif all wasted) but I like it despite all that. But there's alot of good things (awesome cinematography, awesome period detail, Kris Kristofferson, Sam Waterson, Christopher Walken closely resemble their historical counterparts, great music, great special effects) I disagree with the critics. There is nothing dull in this film! A nearly four hour film which grabs your interest from start to finish.
@@ericmalone3213 Don't care what you think. Nothing you said would change my mind. You can be as rude as you want. This is America I'am entitled to my opinion regardless what you have to say.
@@michaelperkowski641 " This is America I'am entitled to my opinion regardless what you have to say." STUNNING ORIGINALITY! SHARP, IMAGINATIVE WIT! No wonder you don't have a clue! " Nothing you said would change my mind. " said The 2020 Election Denier, utilizing poor grammar.
Don't care what you say. Be as angry all you want. You got anger issues because someone will not agree with you. You are arguing with John Fitzpatrick as well because he doesn't agree with you either. Poor Eric Malone cry baby.
5:54 I cant believe Christopher Walken gets killed AGAIN after the Deerhunter. This time it was worse. I haven't seen this film but this scene reminded me The scarface,how Al Pacino dies in the end.
Funny how 40 years later, Heavens Gate is getting standing ovations at Venice film festival and the New York film festival is screening it in the "Masterworks" section... If anything, this is not a story of a studio bomb, but a film critique bomb.
No. First, when the film was first released, the whole movie was covered in a muddy brown sepia colour that took out ALL of the colourful imagery, literally making every frame ugly and dirty. And sitting through that for 3,5 hours... it doesn't take Einstein to figure out that's going to negatively impact your opinion of the film. There is a reason why Cimino did a 180 on that later.
Second of all, this is a bad film. Period. Im sorry, but all the criterion magic dust in the world can't make this film a masterpiece. It is boring, it is bland, it is sooooooo slow, and for no reason. So many scenes go on and on and on without adding anything new. Its just length. Why not make a 5 hour movie then, why not make it 10 hours! Just the prolog alone makes you go to sleep.
You have to come to the conclusion that the masterful way Cimino directed The Deer Hunter was a fluke. He was at the right place at the right time and had the right collaborators, just by chance. Because in every movie since he has been unable to repeat that recipe. Have you seen Desperate Hours? It is literally the worst movie ever made. You couldn't make worse directorial decisions if your life depended on it.
Heavens Gate isn't as bad as Desperate Hours, not even close. It's just so insanely mind numbingly boring. Take away the beautiful photography and all you have left is a story on ventilators.
Agree to disagree 😂
@@laurencewhite4809 No offence, but that is just repeating the same clichés, mostly popular among people who havent REALLY seen anything apart from Deer hunter but have a definitive idea who Cimino is. Perhaps read on Cimino and buy the colorful biography by Charles Elton where these popular myths are confronted in detail. For one, Deer Hunter wasnt a "fluke" in the slightest: Ciminos work for/with Eastwood was very good, Year of the Dragon is also considered a cult classic and while The Sicilian isnt exactly coherent and great as-is, it absolutely have some traces of greatness. The story how Heavens Gate was "unwatchable" due to sepia filter is simply silly, its something Roger Ebert popularized in his review. The point isnt even the film itself, but how the game was skewed against it from the very beginning before it was released.
@@f4ust85 The Year Of The Dragon is awful, no matter how many times directors like Tarantino try to make it seem like a hidden gem. It's not. It's just a mediocre (at best) dated 80s action movie, with horrendous acting. Even Charles Elton admits the acting in that is horrible.
Thunderbolt and Lightfoot is great (not a masterpiece), but The Deer Hunter actually is a masterpiece. But every movie since then has not even been close, and the downfall started with Heavens Gate, and it had nothing to do with studio interference, but the lack of talent on Ciminos part.
Go watch Desperate Hours. You literally could not make worse directorial decisions if your life depended on it.
And the sepia argument when it comes to Heaven Gate is not silly. Go watch the criterion video on how they remastered the film, and see the comparison. The old version was literally just different shades of brown. No colours what so ever.
I agree that the original reviews of Heaven Gate were over the top, but... that doesn't make it a good film.
@@laurencewhite4809 Many things far more camp than Year of the dragon are today part of the revered patheon of 1980s cinema and set in marble. Not only do narrative norms change greatly every decade, but films that are considered "masterpieces" when they were released can often be totally neglected and forgotten a generation later and vice versa.
How many Academy Award winners from early 80s ring a bell nowadays? For example, Reds from 1981 is also a very "dull", long and considerately boring movie which can very much be compared to Heavens Gate, it has similar social topics, work with the actors, slow narration and relatively unpopular historical theme. Yet it got 12 Academy Awards nominations and won 3 and American Film Institut put it into a Top 10. How many people would watch Reds today and call it a great and stunning film? I dont think it would differ much from Heavens Gate.
I don't love the movie but I'm STUNNED to hear they think it's a bad looking movie.
The sepia filter makes it look like someone smeared shit all over the screen, other than that it would be one of the most beautiful movies ever
It's honestly not a good looking movie, it's aggressively brown and the filters make it blurry, and it's completely caked in grain. Even for a movie of its time it is not good looking
@@JaceDanielFilms I agree. I don't like the movie. But do you know why it is CAKED in grain? Because the original negative of the film does not exist anymore. It was so heavily edited back when it was originally released, and they don't have the original pieces that made it impossible for Cimino to edit together his original cut. But what they did have was negative copies of the original cut, but... the color was devided into three separate negatives. One negative for the red color, one for the blue and one for the green. They had to pancake them together to get the colours back, literally put them on top of each other (digitally), and by doing that you also got the grain from three different films together in one image.
That's not dust in rooms, that's old style reality. People smoking caused rooms to cloud up. Stoves caused it. Lamps caused it. Cold weather caused it. I've been in those rooms as a child growing up.. It's called realism. I watched this on my own when I was a young teenager (my memory is that it was the original long version) I was enthralled by the imagery. Long? Yes. But even at that age, I realised it was not attempting to be a popular blockbuster Western. It was reaching for art.
I haven't seen it in 30something years. I'd suspect it has aged much better than the reactions of these critics. I sense there was more to the 'hate' than smokey scenes. The tone in the voices sounds like an agenda was being played out.
Exactly, so well said, higher ups told these two critics to ride the michael cimino united artists demonizing band wagon, just like david leans wrongly attacked and gorgeous film ryans daughter and this movie heavens gate shouldve won academy awards for best picture and best director and best cinematography and best sound design at least.
Interesting you note that even the tone in the critics ‘ voices can somehow translate to setting an agenda. In fairness though Roger Ebert did say he couldn’t believe that it was as bad as everyone said. It sounded like he went to it with an open mind .
44 years later, I finally watched this film. It's pretty good.
One of the best movies ever filmed in my opinion.But what do I know
You’re right, you don’t know anything!
@@capoislamort100but he does know what a masterpiece looks like unlike you .
This severely underappreciated underrated western masterpiece was severely mauled by arrogant jealous narrow minded film critics who should go live on a remote island somewhere together where they can all doubt each others existence.
The Criterion Collection Blu Ray of "Michael Cimino's Heaven's Gate" looks amazing. Vilmos Zsigmond's cinematography had many, many images of jaw-dropping beauty (and devastating horror). The battle was too dusty to see the enemy clearly? Maybe that was the point. I think S & E had their "two thumbs" in their eyes.
Like Ulysses, like Eyes Wide Shut, Heaven's Gate is sui generis, one of a kind, difficult to categorize.
watched this for the first time yesterday. Brilliant film
I love this movie, and I agree with most of what they say. Heaven's gate will likely forever be divisive due to its odd story and editing choices, but for me it's masterpiece. thanks for uploading this with its beautiful criterion remaster.
Yes, it should be noted that when Siskel and Ebert refer to the sepia tone in their review, that is the original version of the film. The remaster changes the color grading to look more vibrant and natural.
It's terrible, but it's fascinating. I'm the same way with the Deer Hunter. I watch the thing over and over, seen it dozens of times, but actually, it's not a good film at all. The more I analyze it, the worse it gets, and I have no idea why critics don't recognize it. But, bad as it is, it's still fascinating, just in how wrong-headed it is. Heaven's Gate doubled down on all that wrongheadedness and magnified it...
Odd story and editing choices? What?
I actually liked the dust and the haze that lingered over every set piece.. it added to the realism.. But yeah underdeveloped characterization is pretty much inexcusable when you have that much money and resources at your disposal. I'm glad I watched it though :) And think the best line was, "Goodbye Ella and Jim."
It's funny to me that Cimino hired probably the best cinematographer ever born... and then gave him almost nothing but smoke and dust clouds to shoot. Even Vilmos Zsigmond could only do so much with those conditions...
I'm glad we get to look back now and see the people that created are still remembered, cherished and love while the people that critique are only remembered for looking like clowns.
I've always wanted to see this movie
Love this movie as well. It got an unfair by critics from the beginning but since then, it has garnered alot of love and appreciation from subsequent audiences and viewers. 👌👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
I'm a little confused here. Did they review the 2 hour (studio edit) version (released in 1981), or the 3.5 hour (original edit) version that only showed a couple times in screenings in late 1980?
NYT critic Vincent Canby all but singlehandedly destroyed the original Heaven's Gate, trashing it for various reasons. The film was pulled by the studio, taken away from Cimino, and cut almost in half. I seem to recall Ebert really disliking the short version in his written review, beyond what he even says here.
25 years later Cimino and editors re-cut the film, and changed the look of it away from a sepia feel, to a more technicolor feel. This is the version that's now on BluRay. This edit was done in 2012 after Siskel had passed away, and Ebert was near the end of his life. This version was reviewed again by the NYT by Dennis Lim (and another writer) as well as Daniel Barber of the BBC, and they had very high praise for this edit, calling the film a masterpiece.
A shame Siskel, Ebert (as well as Vincent Canby) never got to see this version. And even more of a shame the rest of us couldn't in 1980.
Two reviewers calling a shiny turd a masterpiece doesn’t make it so. You can’t throw lipstick on a pig and pretend it is now a beauty pageant super star.
The last great masterwork of old school Hollywood filmmaking .
I thought it was good. Slow by today's standards but it stuck with me.
Siskel and Ebert were on the money with this one. 3.5 hours of my life I'll never get back.
Spent 3 seconds reading this comments, shame can't get back this valuable time.
@@АртемКошиков-ы3о Doubtful.
You're an insensible wodge. The film is a masterpiece & was entirely lost on you.
@@ericmalone3213 No, I'm not. No, it's not.
@@johnfitzpatrick3094 Johnny, Auld Clover, stand on your head, pour some bubbly in your ear'oles, replace your dodgy marbles with eyes, and get your loop cleaned. If Heaven's Gate is lost on you, you really need the auld jumper cables applied!
The battle scenes achieve a kind of Fog of War I’ve never seen before or since
I never seen this film by Cimino but for a film that was considered a disaster looks alright. The film battle scenes in this film reminds me of the Russian film "War and Peace".
Most of the battle scene is so dusty, you can hardly tell what's going on in the scene.
Isabelle Huppert joins the list with Jobeth Williams, Adrian Barbeau, Barbra Hershey, Amanda Donohoe, Adrienne Corri.
There are so many movies that are so much worse than this one.
Not just many but most movies we see nowadays.
Here we are in 2022. Heaven's Gate has only gotten better & better with time. The film abounds with stunning memorable images & great performances. In 1970, critics shat all over David Lean's film Ryan's Daughter. The critical vitriol was so severe & so relentless that Lean didn't make another film for 14 years. And Ryan's Daughter has only gotten better and better with time; it is also a stunning masterpiece abounding with memorable images & great performances. Who remembers critics? And did any of them ever make a film? I have never in my life consulted a review by a film critic in order to decide whether or not to see a film. Too many critics are no-talent piss ants trying to sustain a career by hitching a ride on the accomplishments of superb artists who perpetuate the evolution of film making by taking risks in their work that critics, in their bloviatings, never have to countenance. Great films are always for the future; critics are yesterday's newspapers.
Final Cut: The Making & Unmaking of Heaven's Gate
th-cam.com/video/XnG-KZwrCxs/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=CinemaGarmonbozia
Totally agree. Great comments.
@@JasonBagherian CHEERS Jason!
Ryan's Daughter won two Oscars and was a huge box office success, boss. I'm not seeing the analogy with the notorious critical and commercial flop Heaven's Gate, and I'm not understanding why we should detest critics because they might hurt a major director's feelings.
@@marzilyas Apparently my comment was completely lost on you. There is no "analogy" between Ryan's Daughter & Heaven's Gate. In both cases, the critics had their knives out before they'd ever seen either film. Read the Kevin Brownlow and Gene Philips biographies of David Lean, & Steven Bach's book on Heaven's Gate, Final Cut.
"Ryan's Daughter won two Oscars and was a huge box office success" You're completely missing the point. Richard Shickel said to David Lean's face, about Ryan's Daughter, "Give me one good reason why we had to sit through this piece of shit."
The American critics had formulated a collective attitude about Lean's work, that it consisted of little soap operas framed pretentiously as grand epics. Nothing could be further from the truth. They imposed that dishonest nonsense of bollocks over Ryan's Daughter, & took great pleasure in savaging the film. Collective intellectual dishonesty is something rather different than having one's feelings hurt. Think about it for 30 seconds.
" I'm not understanding why we should detest critics because they might hurt a major director's feelings." That isn't at all what I said. Too many critics were intellectually dishonest, & they succumbed to power trips, thinking they could make or break a director's career. Pauline Kael was one example, as were Richard Schickel & Vincent Canby. Look at Roger Ebert's initial review of Heaven's Gate. It is idiotic. This was more the case in the 1970s and early 80s, before Hollywood churned out $300 million vapid CGI comic book movies, & film criticism went by the wayside. Robert Altman said of critics: "Critics stand on a plateau watching a battle down in the valley. When the battle is over, they ride down to the valley and shoot the survivors." Altman's brilliant masterpiece, The Long Goodbye, was savaged by critics upon its release. Today it stands as one of the great masterpieces of its time, & all of those critics that bent over backwards to slag it have vanished into oblivion.
@@ericmalone3213 Some of us who have to work hard for a living and put up with stress every day have little time or sympathy for rich, successful people who complain about being criticized. What a tragedy. I don't know if you realize it, but you propose a false choice between thoughtful New Hollywood stuff with the mindless crap of modern superhero movies that I myself don't care for, as if disliking Heaven's Gate is like casting a vote against the Godfather Part 2 and for Aqua Man 2 ("This was more the case in the 1970s and early 80s, before Hollywood churned out $300 million vapid CGI comic book movie"). I recently watched the Long Goodbye for the first time, and it was pretty good, an interesting time capsule of the early-mid 70s as a Raymond Chandler adaptation, but it's not above criticism, as no film is, and it doesn't really compare with Altman's best work in my opinion. It's no Nashville or McCabe and Ms. Miller, etc. Regardless, I will save my tears for the beleaguered director, especially in this day and age, with the death of print media and any sort of centralized critical apparatus that you seem to rail against retroactively.
Definitely not the garbage that the critics told it to be. But cmon, its also not the masterpiece either that Cimino promised. Yes, it is well-shot, the attention to detail showed. But that is also where the problem is. THe scenes are prolonged pointlessly. It really has serious pacing issues. THe acting was decent but nothing memorable
I LOVE THIS FILM! Yes I admit the film has alot of problems (overlong, some weak story structure, some unclear characterizations, Jeff Bridges, John Hurt, Paul Koslo, Brad Dourif all wasted) but I like it despite all that. But there's alot of good things (awesome cinematography, awesome period detail, Kris Kristofferson, Sam Waterson, Christopher Walken closely resemble their historical counterparts, great music, great special effects) I disagree with the critics. There is nothing dull in this film! A nearly four hour film which grabs your interest from start to finish.
The Johnson county war was enough story. The movie didn’t need a 3 way triangle melodrama.
Siskel and Ebert where right about this one.
Insensible wodge, you are deaf dumb & blind.
@@ericmalone3213 Don't care what you think. Nothing you said would change my mind. You can be as rude as you want. This is America I'am entitled to my opinion regardless what you have to say.
@@michaelperkowski641 " This is America I'am entitled to my opinion regardless what you have to say."
STUNNING ORIGINALITY! SHARP, IMAGINATIVE WIT! No wonder you don't have a clue!
" Nothing you said would change my mind. " said The 2020 Election Denier, utilizing poor grammar.
Don't care what you say. Be as angry all you want. You got anger issues because someone will not agree with you. You are arguing with John Fitzpatrick as well because he doesn't agree with you either. Poor Eric Malone cry baby.
@@michaelperkowski641 Poor Darling Dingbat, I'm not angry, I'm laughing! Back to grammar school with you!
Napoleon 2023 is worse
Nothing pretty to look at?? It is gorgeous. You gotta be blind to not see the beauty.
It was kinda that bad
5:54 I cant believe Christopher Walken gets killed AGAIN after the Deerhunter. This time it was worse. I haven't seen this film but this scene reminded me The scarface,how Al Pacino dies in the end.
@@ouackstrax 👍
I saw this film. An extremely painful experience. Horrible film.
They're right. The film's a turkey. A long, boring mess.