Do you feel that Heaven's Gate deserves a critical reassessment?

Tools    


Does Heaven's Gate deserve a critical reassessment?
58.33%
7 votes
Yes
41.67%
5 votes
No
12 votes. You may not vote on this poll




There appears to be some strong opinions in regards to Heaven's Gate and whether or not it is worthy of a critical reassessment.

To be perfectly honest, I find it a terribly dreary and unremarkable mess of a film, but there seem to be some fans in the forums.

Feel free to discuss all of the things that make you feel the movie should be re-appraised and/or re-visited.



Didn't this get one a few years ago before Cimino passed away? I like the movie very much despite all the criticism which is well deserved.



Didn't this get one a few years ago before Cimino passed away?
The question was whether it really deserves it.

For me, personally, the answer is "no". But I also reserve the right to revisit the movie at some future date and possibly change my mind.

However based on my memories of it, right now, I would still consider it a turd.



As was brought up in the other thread, this film has already gotten a reassesment, but yes, I'm glad it got one. I think much of the main criticisms it gets such as it being too long or too slow aren't entirely sound (not to imply that everyone has these reasons for disliking it though), so I would say its reassessment is more than earned.

Anyways, here's what I wrote on the film:

Heaven's Gate (1980) -


Given its sprawling, padded out runtime, it's not hard to figure out why this is one of the most divisive cult films out there. Did it have to be 3.5 hours long? No. Was there a ton of padding to draw out the film? Of course. Are these inherently problematic elements though? Not necessarily, no.

While one could certainly call the film slow (as much as I hate using that word), I prefer to describe it as patient. There are multiple ways to tell a story. Not every film should be required to follow the same narrative progression to get to the end. Having the pacing meander is another valid approach to storytelling. Is there a line where this could go too far? Probably. Am I one to determine what that line is? Absolutely not. Trying to come up with a set in stone rule for how long a film can be allowed to meander before it becomes a flaw (especially if you're trying to nail down an exact number of minutes the film has to commit to) would be ridiculously hard to determine, vary depending on the attention span and taste of the person deciding it, and quite frankly wouldn't be worth the effort of doing so.

While one could argue that this film goes too far pacing-wise, the more pressing question I ask myself when watching meandering films is whether they offer enough in the way of mood, style, feel, etc. to keep me engaged. All things considered, this film did an alright job at that. First things first, I think the main argument one could make towards its length is that it serves to paint a vivid portrait of the town's rhythms and give us a sense of what's going to be disrupted (the same argument could be made for the divisive first hour of The Deer Hunter). While I admired what Cimino did, I think The Deer Hunter handled this pacing style better. Since the threat of Canton's posse was made clear before the big chunk of padding, taking focus away from that and shifting to a more relaxed tone took me out of the film for most of the middle act since a significant amount of narrative tension was lost in the process. This wasn't an issue with The Deer Hunter as, while the first act had the inevitability of the Vietnam War, it mainly loomed in the background while the relaxed and rhythmic vibes of the town were at the forefront.

Still though, the prolonged middle act was able to keep me on board for a few reasons. For instance, with the exception of The Searchers, it's probably the most gorgeous Western I've ever seen (it's a shame the film wasn't on the Criteron Channel when I watched it). The landscape/panoramic shots are beautiful to look at and, with the abundance of flowers in some shots, bordered on fantasy at times. Given that Westerns are more reliant on the scenic qualities of their environments than most other genres, this is a big strength. A few of the side characters were also decently compelling. Nate Champion's arc is well-done, John Hurt gives his character enough humanity to balance out his pathetic aspects, and Ella Watson's able-bodied portrayal fit the action-centric second half really well. Jim Averill is perhaps the least colorful of those characters, but this didn't bother me much. The action scenes in the second half probably don't warrant much defending (aside from the unfortunate on-set animal cruelty). They're tehnically impressive, differentiate from each other significantly in terms of set pieces, and in the case of the wood wagon fight at the end (how did the immigrants even build all that in one night?), rather jaw-dropping given the amount of craft on display.

I originally gave this film a slightly lower rating, but in retrospect, I decided to bump it up a notch. I think the "too slow" criticisms levied at it aren't entirely fair or sound, so even though it's not without its flaws, I'm okay with giving it this extra bit of support. Really, if you loved The Deer Hunter, you should find plenty to enjoy with this film.
__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd



Trouble with a capital "T"
I'll post my own review:

Heaven's Gate (1980)
Director: Michael Cimino
Writer: Michael Cimino
Cast: Kris Kristofferson, Christopher Walken, John Hurt, Sam Waterston, Brad Dourif, Isabelle Huppert, Jeff Bridges
Genre: Adventure, Drama, Western
Length 219 Minutes (Director's cut)


Synopsis [spoiler free]: A personalized telling of the real-life Johnson County Wars which took place in Wyoming in 1890. The cattle wars were a bloody battle over cattle ranchers rights and the rights of settlers to fence their prairie homesteads.
In the film the war is reduced to more simply terms with the hungry immigrants eating the ranchers cattle thus earning the ranchers wrath. The film focuses on a well-to-do sheriff and his attempts to protect immigrant farmers from the Cattle Association who declares a bounty and hires 50 gunmen to execute 125 immigrant settlers.

Review: Beautiful, Tedious, Amazing and Long....those are words that come to mind after watching the restored Director's Cut, which runs nearly 4 hours in length. Heaven's Gate was surrounded in controversy, running way over time and over budget. Costing 44 million to make, which is a lot for 1980. The film was a huge box office flop and earned back only 4 million dollars, nearly bankrupting United Artist studio. Critics panned it and audiences staid away and the career of the director was nearly ruined. Thanks to Criterion Collection we now have a beautiful restored Directors Cut of this epic.

Heaven's Gate is so vast in it's reach that it's hard to critique. The director Michael Cimino was a perfectionist. Sets were built only to be tore down as the buildings distances didn't suit Cimino's needs. There were delays after delays, as Cimino wanted every last detail to look authentic. Much of the shooting was done in the prime light hours just after sunrise and just before sunset, when shadows were long but soft and the color temperature was warm. With such facetiousness the film should look great right?

It looks beautiful alright. The scenes are like moving art. The care in the art direction and cinematography really paid off. Even if the story is not that riveting at times, it's breath taking to look at. These still photos don't do the film justice, but here's a few examples of the artistry of Cimino.


Sunset lighting creates rich warm colors. The camera angle is low and a wide angle lens shows the vastness of the scene. The film exposure is dark, yielding a near silhouette of horses and men.


Early morning light is softly bright and emotionally cheery, which imparts a light feeling to this ride through the country side.

Two of the most stunningly visual scenes are the prologue waltz dance at Harvard. And the violinist-roller skater in the huge Heaven's Gate building. In that scene the camera starts off with a really wide angle showing how vast and detailed the building is and how densely packed the immigrants are in it. Then a tele photo lens is used as the camera tracks the moving violinist as he skates around the floor. This scene was the highlight for me, amazing!

The characters themselves and the actors who play them are fine. They look the part and they're always in character. But this is not a character or story driven film...it's about the visual, but don't think that means there's no action...there's plenty of action. The action comes at appropriate places too and is as grandiose as the rest of the film.

I could go and on about the look of the film, but at almost 4 hours the epic story itself didn't always resonate with me like the cinematography did. The final battle while brilliantly staged, reminded me of a shoot em up, action film, but it was done in grand style.

Heaven's Gate
is a triumph of the visual that worth 219 minutes of your time.

+



For folks who personally enjoy the movie - I'm happy for you

However if this movie has been "reassessed", it doesn't seem to be reflected in its RT scores, both of which are still lower than the majority of recent movies that are out in theaters right now:




Trouble with a capital "T"
And to add to the discussion the only other review of Heaven's Gate here at MoFo is MarkF's review.
Heaven's Gate (Michael Cimino, 1980)



I was one of those people who actually saw Heaven's Gate in 1980 in its original version before UA pulled it, recut it and dumped it back on the market five months later. At 219 minutes, it certainly is a formidable film and one which you have to be prepared for. (Of course, any movie over three-and-a-half hours needs your dedication, especially at the theatre.) What got Heaven's Gate into trouble with most viewers (and critics) is that it started out with several long, mostly-impressive (in and of themselves) set pieces which didn't especially seem to connect to each other and further the plot. In other words, the most-difficult part of the film was the beginning. Of course, several foreign epics have been structured similarly and hailed as masterpieces, and although I won't namedrop them right now, most of them are Italian. Then, there is the other thing which caused Heaven's Gate to bomb, and that was that there was a backlash against Cimino for winning the Oscar Best Picture (The Deer Hunter) with what some wrong-headed people (including Jane Fonda) thought was a pro-war, right-wing flick.

Now, I went back in 1981 and rewatched the film, cut by 70 minutes, and it's true that it was faster-paced and that it seemed action-packed (most all of the action was rear-loaded originally), but it also seemed choppy because the set pieces which used to be 20 minutes were now five minutes long. It also eviscerated much of the character motivations, the acting, the thematic complexity, and left you wondering who some people were. Today, I rewatched the restored version, and although it's still something of a tough row to hoe, it's certainly the way to watch the film. For one thing, Vilmos Zsigmond's sepia-toned cinematography is both spectacular in the context of the film and in the way we see history often through old sepia photos of the West. The film is about the Johnson County Wars of Wyoming in 1892, and the scenery is impressive and makes you feel as if you were close to Heaven's Gate, but in this version, there's just as much hellfire as anything.

Heaven's Gate is a big flick, and it has a big cast. The central character is obviously the man played by Kris Kristofferson who sides with the European immigrant settlers against the Cattleman's Association and eventually the U.S. Army. He meets and falls in love with a wild Frenchwoman (Isabelle Huppert), but she also loves Christopher Walken who's actually on the wrong side of the situation. Sam Waterston plays a scumbag who's basically in charge of arranging the killing of the settlers, and John Hurt, who doesn't believe in what he stands for, is also on his side just because he's too ineffectual. The cast is full of many other names, including Jeff Bridges, Brad Dourif, Joseph Cotten, Mickey Rourke, Terry O'Quinn, Geoffrey Lewis, Richard Masur, Tom Noonan, and a few others. David Mansfield's elegaic musical score is a strong asset (he's the violinist in the movie every time you see one), and the sets and costumes are spectacular. Ultimately, Heaven's Gate comes across as some strange melding of 1900, McCabe and Mrs. Miller and Soldier Blue. Some people will hate it, others will love it, and many will scratch their heads. But if you get through it to the end, it's obvious that it's trying to be about something important, and in more than one way, it succeeds.



For folks who personally enjoy the movie - I'm happy for you

However if this movie has been "reassessed", it doesn't seem to be reflected in its RT scores, both of which are still lower than the majority of recent movies that are out in theaters right now:

The RT critical reviews aren't contemporary. Their publication dates range all throughout the 21st century.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/heavens_gate/reviews



The RT critical reviews aren't contemporary. Their publication dates range all throughout the 21st century.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/heavens_gate/reviews
I see a pretty good mix of very recent reviews and some from its original run



Trouble with a capital "T"
Note: MarkF's rating style for those who don't know was usually a point lower than most of us give a movie. In other words a 3/5 rating from Mark signaled a pretty good film in his eyes. It's interesting that he seen the full length version in the theater first run before it was pulled and then watched the shortened version and gives a comparison in his review.

I seem to recall talking to him about the film. I don't think he liked my idea which was that the prologue and especially the epilogue could've been removed but leave the middle section alone. I'm not talking about doing that without the director's permission, I mean if I was the director I'd shortened the prologue and ditched the epilogue.

The prologue is beautifully shot but so long for what it is and slow paced that a viewer's mind can already be 'revolting' against the slowness of it before the film's main story 'starts'. You only get one chance to make a good impression and the prologue made me think OMG what am I in for.

The epilogue, also well filmed doesn't seem that necessary and to me seemed disjointed from the main story. It seemed like a personal thing the director wanted to do. I think if those changes had been made by the director before it's first release, the film would've enjoyed a critical success.



I see a pretty good mix of very recent reviews and some from its original run
Yes, but the ratio of positive to negative reviews is also considerably higher for those in the 2010s and 2020s vs. those in the 2000's. The Wikipedia article I linked also discusses more of those reviews in detail.

The film also did quite well on the 2022 Sight & Sound poll and the 2023 TSPDT list.




The film also did quite well on [...] the 2023 TSPDT list.
Being #365 on their list is doing "quite well"?



Being #365 on their list is doing "quite well"?
I mean, given the hundreds of thousands of films in existence which they had to choose from, being thought of as the 365th best film of all time is quite an accomplish, I'd say.



The trick is not minding
For folks who personally enjoy the movie - I'm happy for you

However if this movie has been "reassessed", it doesn't seem to be reflected in its RT scores, both of which are still lower than the majority of recent movies that are out in theaters right now:

RT is a terrible metric to go by.



Well, if there is a better metric, I really haven't seen it so far...



I mean, given the hundreds of thousands of films in existence which they had to choose from, being thought of as the 365th best film of all time is quite an accomplish, I'd say.
Well, it does seem a bit generous, I'll give you that.



Anyways, I'm not saying you're required to like the film now. If you dislike it, then continue to dislike it by all means. One can dislike the film though while simultaneously recognizing that it's garnered a cult status in recent years.



Anyways, I'm not saying you're required to like the film now. If you dislike it, then continue to dislike it by all means. One can dislike the film though while simultaneously recognizing that it's garnered a cult status in recent years.
I think there's a bit of a difference between a critical reappraisal of a movie and it achieving cult status.

In either case, I would still question whether it really has to do with the movie's intrinsic merits or maybe it's just a case of some people pining for the good ol' days of "maverick directors" getting to do their passion projects, budgets be damned.



I think there's a bit of a difference between a critical reappraisal of a movie and it achieving cult status.

In either case, I would still question whether it really has to do with the movie's intrinsic merits or maybe it's just a case of some people pining for the good ol' days of "maverick directors" getting to do their passion projects, budgets be damned.
Well, I can only speak for myself. Not for other people. I'd say my reasons fall in the former category though.



I would still question whether it really has to do with the movie's intrinsic merits.
For me it is.