Review of Heaven's Gate (1980) by John W — 10 Aug 2010

Heaven's Gate is an undebateable masterpiece. It is, however a disaster. The movie, itself is flawless. The average moviegoer probably would not enjoy it, but anyone with actual respect for film can't deny it's at least a good movie. What went wrong with the movie, then, if it is the masterpiece that I'm calling it? Well, several things went wrong outside of the movie.

First, the movie was plagued by a God awful cut that haphazardly cut over an hour of the movie. It was a disaster. Anyone who still thinks the full cut is confusing should see the shorter cut. Now, that's confusing. In its fullest version, the film DOES make sense. Do not listen to anyone who says otherwise. They've just read an early review of the shorter cut, and decided that they know even to make a case against it. They're just full of $#17.

Second, the most damning of all the negative occurences is the Vincent Canby review. He posted his review early, and it was of the shorter edit. It WAS confusing, but let's take a peak at Vincent Canby's background. He dislikes the following movies: The Godfather Part II, Chinatown, After Hours, The Empire Strikes Back, Patton, and many many more. Still, even with his background, critics and the public listened to him! I would think that if someone didn't like Chinatown, it'd be a good thing for that same person not to like my movie! I guess he is considered a respected critic, but I say that's just because he was an old critic. Like, he deserved respect for just doing his job for a long duration. He doesn't need to be doing it well; he just needs to be doing it. Let me tell you, I do not respect Vincent Canby. Apparently, Jeff Bridges doesn't either. In a recent interview, he explicitly called Heaven's Gate a masterpiece, and said that Vincent Canby didn't correctly perform his job. Still, you can't undo this stuff, or anything. Nice try, though, Jeff. Mickey Rourke's been trying for years, as well.

Third is, of course, bad word of mouth. It spreads like cancer, and unfortunately, the idea of a critic proof movie was perposturous at the time. No one saw it, so it didn't make money. I have no doubt that if Canby hadn't posted his review early, it would have made its money back. I don't even care that he wrote the review. It's that he posted it early. I bet he knew what he was doing, too. What an A-hole.

Now, my rant is done. So, what do those who are still giving this negative feedback still object to? ... I don't know. They're mentally handicapped? That's my best guess. Really, I have tried looking for imperfections in this movie for years, and I still haven't found any. Not a one! The main complaint is that it's excessive, and long. Isn't that what The Deer Hunter was, too? In fact, this movie is told in the same way as The Deer Hunter. The format is basically the same. You get long, seemingly pointless takes, a lot of character interaction, and little action. In The Deer Hunter, there is only 2 minutes of war violence, for those of you who haven't seen it yet. There's more action in this one, but not as much as you'd expect. It'd be a double standard to call this movie self-indulgent and excessive without calling The Deer Hunter the same. They're not, though. This movie, like The Deer Hunter, uses an unconventional method to tell a story. Kubrick did that on all of his films, too. Cimino could still be making unconventional movies like this, had this not been a failure. His last three movie aren't bad, but they're not great at all. Even though I mentioned The Deer Hunter a lot in this review, I don't like comparing the two. This is a standalone film, and doesn't need the director's past work to defend itself.

I've gone into the "negatives", but here are some positives. The cinematography is probably the best in any film in history. It's beautiful. Cimino's still a genious when it comes to shooting a movie. He scouts locations by himself. The cast and acting is great, as well. It's amazing that this cast didn't sell the movie. True, I focus on the director of a movie most of the time, but if Christopher Walken's in it, I'll watch it. It could be the fricken Country Bears. I don't care. The acting is perfect for the movie. It's believable, to say the least. Most people don't enjoy watching long movies, but I for one, do. I believe that if a movie is over 3 hours, it can't be bad. There is enough work put into that movie to redeem most of its flaws. This is a hefty film at a little under 4 hours. Even at that length, I wasn't bored. Some might complain that the movie is too talkative, but I don't care if the dialogue is well written and furthers the story. Here, it doesn't further the story. Rather, it sets up a realistic atmosphere for this movie to take place. It's similar to the talkative scenes in The Deer Hunter. I know, but it's impossible to not bring that movie up on occassion.

I saved this last bit of my rant for last before my closing recommendation. This is the wild card for all of those idiots who go into an argument about this movie without actually sitting through it: "It destroyed United Artists!" Actually, when you get into the technicalities, it didn't. United Artist's own incompetence led to its downfall. At any time, the studio could have restricted Cimino from asking for any more. Anyway, when people say, "It took down United Artists!" it's as if they take it personally. What, did you work for United Artists, or something? Are we all forgetting that Francis Ford Coppola destroyed a studio, too? True, he owned that one, but why didn't that ruin his career? Why don't people take that personally. In closing, if a person's entire argument is made up of all the points I addressed, just dismiss it. They just don't know what they're talking about. Judge it for yourself.

So, if you have a real appreciation of film, whether it be the storytelling element of it, or the technicalities behind the scenes, check this movie out. The only retail version is the full cut, so you won't get ripped off, or anything. Go into it with an open mind, and I'm sure you'll enjoy it. Thanks for reading. *Please excuse spelling or grammar errors. I didn't realize how long this would drag on for.*.