MovieChat Forums > Heaven's Gate (1981) Discussion > Truly one of the worst films ever made.

Truly one of the worst films ever made.

posted 6 years ago by LetThemEatCake (2717)
25 replies | jump to latest

This film is really execrable. The plot goes nowhere, Isabelle Hubert gives one of the worst performances of all time, John Hurt looks every bit the rancid tube of dough he is, and acts equally bad. So much has been said about the production itself, but for so much money spent, the film looks horrific. You have a million extras, the clothes, the built sets but there's really nothing to look at. It's noise. It's ugly and noisy. It is NOT rich. Cleopatra is rich in every scene, this is, unbelievably given the cost, pauperious and unsightly.

Its postmodernistic editing style is some of the worst ever seen, back and forth back and forth shots, a constant and brutish reminder that it is a production and with a director. Was it intentional? I don't think so. The Scorcese style of filmmaking and its devotees are so ignorant of the delicate illusion of film I don't think they are even aware of what their style actually does to the visual narrative.

Having mentioned Scorcese, I will close with saying that, this is indeed one of the worst films ever made, however this very well could have been directed by Spielberg, Scorcese, Coppola, Lucas or any other 70's director. This is their style and this is what they do. And the language of every film done since the 70's. It's shocking how this postmodernism style has been allowed to continue for so long when it is in fact so terrible.

But do I want it changed? Not really, you enjoy the garbage and live in it, I indulge daily in the gorgeousness of Golden Age Hollywood, so I'm not really sure what is my bite, I guess I just need to point out the charlatanry of the current canon.

[–] christomacin (4655) 5 years ago

How the hell is Star Wars a "post-modern film"? That doesn't even make sense. Coppola (at least in The Godfather) is actually rather old-fashioned and conservative in style, as was Star Wars.

[–] dirkdiggler (118) 4 years ago

How the hell is Star Wars a "post-modern film"?

Quite simple really. Star Wars is a mish mash of various 20th century pop culture references made into a new whole. There is everything from 30s Flash Gordon serials to hard boiled detective fiction and John Ford Westerns. It’s basically wearing its influences on its sleeve, which is a way of the art form being aware of itself. Postmodernism only a nutshell. Think of it like Andy Warhol pop-art, where instead of traditional arts being about form, style, realism etc. postmodernism is about taking old trends and deconstructing it, often in humourous or ironic ways. In this way, Star Wars is perhaps the ultimate postmodern blockbuster series.

[–] christomacin (4655) 4 years ago

Except I don't think it was Lucas' intent to "deconstruct" anything. Lumping Lucas and Star Wars indiscriminately with other film makers of his generation seems a bit of an oversimplification. If you listen to Lucas' comments in the 70s and 80s, it's clear he intended Star Wars as an antidote to true post-modernists like Robert Altman and others of the cynical 70s. If you want to see a true post-modern film, you need to watch movies like The Long Goodbye and McCabe and Mrs. Miller. THOSE were deconstructionist postmodern films in which line between good and evil, heroes and villains, are always grey and never clear cut. Lucas' films may have been a mishmash of styles, but the INTENT of this reorganizing is where he fails in the postmodern arena. At most, he put a postmodernist sheen of what is basically classical, traditionalist storytelling. To be fair, the prequels are a somewhat different beast in that regard, but the exception proves the rule. Lucas also said Star Wars was designed primarily for children, so I don't see any cynicism or irony going on here. We are to LITERALLY take Darth Vader as a villain and Luke as a hero. Part of the relative failure of the prequels is that Lucas was trying to be both traditionalist and postmodern at the same time but was never quite able to square the circle.

[–] dirkdiggler (118) 4 years ago

No one said postmodernism has to be cynical or having a thin line between good and evil. Star Wars is still a fairytale, it’s not like The Princess Bride which is a satire of fairytales. Star Wars is a modern myth for the 20th century. What makes it fit into the postmodern category is how it is not only a pastiche or collage of various cinematic, literary, and cultural references (which blatantly recall our own collective history), but also how it used editing to bring these influences to life. Something which hadn’t been done before.

However, this line of yours is somewhat problematic

We are to LITERALLY take Darth Vader as a villain and Luke as a hero.

Did you even watch episode 5 or 6? What you said is literally the opposite of what happens.

[–] christomacin (4655) 4 years ago

Darth Vader being Luke's father wasn't planned from the beginning, contrary than what Lucas' has claimed. Be that as it may, Darth Vader is reclaimed by Luke's innate goodness in Return of the Jedi. Nevertheless, the line between good and evil is still pretty clear, although it does gradually get more complex in the later films.

Let's remember what started this conversation in the first place. The OP was claiming that Lucas was in lockstep with other members of the Hollywood New Wave in being a "postmodernist", and that this was a bad thing. This is simply not the case for two reasons. The first is that Lucas' films fail to exhibit some of the most important aspects of postmodernism you might find in the work of many of his contemporaries. Michael Cimino and George Lucas couldn't be further removed from each other in the intent of their work. Whether postmodernism is even bad at all is a matter of opinion in any case. I guess it depends on the skill and nuance of the director in question.

[–] dirkdiggler (118) 4 years ago

It’s not that Lucas fails to exhibit the important aspects of postmodernism as his contemporaries, its that he focuses on different aspects. You could say Lucas follows his own non-deconstructionist brand of postmodernism, unlike his peers. Rather than critiquing the established conventions of classic Hollywood, he recalls and champions them. Much like his friend Spielberg.

An example of Lucas using light irony or humour in his pastiche would be Indiana Jones, where the audience becomes a willing participant in the whole cinematic charade. Also, when you look back at his more experimental work in the 60s, he fits the definition like a glove.

[–] legnadibrom (6214) 5 years ago

you would appreciate Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood

[–] yatzo376 (7717) 5 years ago

Ok
I like the film

[–] Washingtonnative (2613) 5 years ago

Me too, it has it's moments.

[–] prayformojo (101) 5 years ago

I came here to say that same thing so I will just reply to this post. This is definitely in the top 5 of worst films ever made, based on effort put into it versus how bad the final product is. I even spent some time poking around trying to find some justification of why people think it's great, and just found idiots blathering about nothing, typically some mumbling about "class differences."

- It is one of the ugliest movies I've ever seen. Everything looks ugly. Even the star actors look ugly. And this was watching the cleaned up version without the sepia. Imagine watching the shitty original. No wonder it got pulled.

- The sound is so bad I had to turn on subtitles to understand anything.

- The editing is god awful. I laughed out loud when in the opening credits it cycled though about 5 editors. I knew what I was in for: a jump-cut fest, and it did not disappoint.

- The acting is ridiculous. Only Kristopherson pulls out a credible performance, but you still don't like or care about his character.

- The plot is ridiculous and pointless.

- The whole movie is a joke in many ways. One of my favorite quotes about Heaven's Gate is the guy who said there are not that many people in Casper, Wyoming TODAY let alone in the 1800s. Seriously, the shoulder to shoulder mobs in this film were unintentionally hilarious. It was obviously made by an Easterner who had zero sensibilities of the west, and what a western should entail.

But let's be honest - Cimino was not a good filmmaker. Deer Hunter was a success in spite of him, not because of him. And Heaven's Gate proves it.

I will finish with a Pauline Kael quote:
“Heaven’s Gate” is a numbing shambles. It’s a movie you want to deface; you want to draw mustaches on it, because there’s no observation in it, no hint of anything resembling direct knowledge—or even intuition—of what people are about. It’s the work of a poseur who got caught out.

[–] Wuchak (8732) 4 years ago

It is one of the ugliest movies

Actually, the locations and photography are top-of-the-line with awesome visuals despite any dust, smoke or fog. The "Harvard" scenes (actually shot in England) have a beautiful artistry while there are several impressive wilderness sequences, shot in stunning Montana (Kalispell, Glacier National Park, Blackfeet Indian Reservation, etc.) with the Casper, Wyoming, sequence done in Wallace, Idaho.

Slapping the "ugliest movie ever" label on this epic Western is the worst case of gross generalization.

The sound is so bad

Lots of movies have mumbling dialogue with challenging accents; that's what subtitles are for.

The editing is godawful... The acting is ridiculous... The plot is ridiculous and pointless.

Overreact much? The story's actually really simple with only a handful of main characters. I was never confused about what was happening and I viewed the shorter version. So the editing must not be so "godawful." Get real.

Meanwhile, I didn't see any "ridiculous" acting; the cast is one of the highlights.

the shoulder to shoulder mobs were unintentionally hilarious.

Caspar was a boom town at that time combined with the constant influx of Westward settlers.

But let's be honest - Cimino was not a good filmmaker.

Yeah, right. I guess you've never seen "Thunderbolt and Lightfoot," which heavily influenced Tarantino.

“Heaven’s Gate” is a numbing shambles. It’s a movie you want to deface; you want to draw mustaches on it, because there’s no observation in it, no hint of anything resembling direct knowledge—or even intuition—of what people are about. It’s the work of a poseur who got caught out."

This is so over-the-top it's laughable. When the movie was released there was a critical feeding frenzy started as payback because the press was banned from the production. Critics conveniently jumped on the hate wagon. The criticisms are thoroughly disingenuous for anyone who views the flick without a mind poisoned by baseless slander.

[–] prayformojo (101) 4 years ago

You don't really counter anything I say, you just point you don't agree. I have seen Thunderbolt and Lightfoot. It's pretty OK. My favourite Cimino film for what that's worth, but I also read or heard somewhere that Clint Eastwood was quite influential in how that film turned out.

Kael was consistent with Cimino, and her Deer Hunter review actually predicts what was going to happen with Cimino in a way. She calls out his lack of understanding of character development for example, something that plagues Heaven's Gate. Poseur is the perfect word for Cimino... and perhaps also for those who adore him.

https://scrapsfromtheloft.com/2016/07/05/god-bless-america-symphony/

[–] Wuchak (8732) 4 years ago

But I don't adore him. I'm not a fan of "The Deer Hunter." And "Deer Hunter" & "Thunderbolt" were the only other films I saw by him before viewing "Heaven's Gate," not counting films he wrote or co-wrote, like "Magnum force" and "The Rose."

While I don't like "Deer Hunter," that's different than saying I think Cimino's a bad filmmaker. I just thought (1) the first hour wedding sequence was dull and overlong, (2) the hunting sequences were inauthentic since the mountains didn't look anything like the ones within 1000 miles of Pittsburgh and (3) the focus on men shooting themselves in the head via Russian Roulette didn't make for a palatable viewing experience, not to mention it was one-dimensional. However, the prisoner-of-war scenes were effective in that they were thoroughly horrific.

As far as my supposedly not really countering your hollow criticisms, I disagreed based on the facts of the film itself, etc. You say the movie was one of the ugliest ones you've seen while I was impressed by the artistic visuals and magnificent locations, citing many of the shooting locales. There are a gazillion Westerns that are actually ugly, particularly Spaghetti Westerns. "Heaven's Gate," by contrast, has an aesthetic artistry despite the negative aspects of the story.

I didn't see the movie until last year and, trust me, I was ready for a piece of sheet after hearing the excessive carping over the years. What I saw was a very worthwhile Western. I give it 7/10.

My message to those who have jumped on the hate wagon with overkill denunciations is to chill for a moment, clear your mind, give it a fresh viewing and enjoy a quality modern, realistic Western. It's not even close to being as bad as it has been perpetually slandered. I'd watch it any day over the overrated "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" (although I love Morricone's iconic score, of course).

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I personally thought the movie was a bit slow but that was the style of movies at that time... but to say it is ugly is ridiculous. I have seen many movies where ugly is a good word to use to describe them because their focusing was shit or they didn't bother to correct the color in different shots, but the visuals of the movie were far from ugly. It makes me wonder what the OP thinks is representative a very good movie. or a better yet what movies he thinks look beautiful.

[–] prayformojo (101) 4 years ago

Get your eyes checked first, then look at the trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyet47PdQXA

It's ugly. Every shot in that trailer is ugly. Dull looking, washed out, sepia toned, brown, and ugly.

To give an example of a comparable western that is not ugly and also not awful, I would submit "Once Upon a Time in the West." Gorgeous tracking shots of monument valley, crane shots of the town, etc, etc.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmTI3xYO6mQ

is a trailer more in line with how the movie actually looked. You linked to a trailer that looked like it was a copy of a VHS tape, if the movie actually looked like it did in your trailer I wouldn't have watched the movie I would have gone back to the box office and asked for my money back. As for Once Upon a Time in the West...that movie is far from beautiful, frankly it suffers from what you claim was a problem with Heaven's Gate it was filled with desert shots and was far from the Cleopatra you mentioned as being great. As far as western movies Dances with Woves is a much more beautifully shot movie than Once Upon a Time in the West ever dreamed of being.

[–] Roguemail (1614) 4 years ago

I have to say, I dont think you understood the most basic concept of the look of the movie namely that it seemed to portray the reality of the West at that time, which up until then was always romanticised, with sweeping vistas, mountain ranges, colourful towns with colourful characters etc.

This was a film that tried to portray the harsh reality of life in the West at that time. It was not always pretty and romantic, it was indeed pretty dirty and life was hard.

You come across as someone who has a romanticised ideal of what a typical Hollywood western should look like, and cannot accept anything that deviates from that portrayal.

I grew up on the old westerns like a lot of kids, but though Heavens Gate is far from perfect, it's far from the disaster it was made out to be, and you just seem to be going along with the accepted 'wisdom' of the critics of the day, Kael included.

[–] liscarkat (18367) 5 years ago

"Heaven's Gate" is a spectacular movie. The only thing that compromised my enjoyment of it was the badly recorded dialogue, which was impossible to understand sometimes. If the background sound and dialogue were recorded on separate tracks, it might be possible to go back and correct the imbalance. Then we'd really have something great.

[–] Rocky15 (508) 4 years ago

If you honestly think this is one of the worst films ever made then you clearly haven’t seen that many films.

It might have missed the mark of being the masterpiece it was aiming to be, but it’s still a fine film.

[–] modica (4169) 4 years ago

Watch Ace Ventura Pet Detective, Freddy Got Fingered, Charlie's Angels or Star Wars The Rise of Skywalker. Those are bad movies and there are many, many more that are worse than Heaven's Gate.

[–] prayformojo (101) 4 years ago

Ridiculous comparisons. "Ace Ventura" or any of the others you mention never sold themselves as "high art" or pretended to be anything other than entertainment, and excepting skywalker were not over the top lavish productions. They also all made a profit I believe, unlike the smoking crater of "Heaven's Gate."

Perhaps the biggest crime of "Heaven's Gate" was that it pretty much ruined movies and is big reason why they evolved into the type of movies you mention. You see the 70s were the era of the "auteur" filmmaker, where a studio would give a director millions of dollars and basically let them go free to make whatever they wanted on a big budget. When "Heaven's Gate" destroyed the studio that backed it, it changed how things were done in hollywood and it was never allowed to happen again. The era of the "auteur" ended and the more corporate, more controlled, and less artistic films of the 80s came in. A trend that arguable continues up until today, though of course a few lucky filmmakers have managed to buck the trend and continue making their own films on big budgets. But today's big budget films are far more likely to be made-by-committee dreck such as "Rise of Skywalker."

[–] modica (4169) 4 years ago

[deleted]

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Heaven’s Gate wasn’t that bad a movie. The problem was the insane budget. If it had been made for 1/4th the budget, it would have been a run of the mill mediocre western.
Didn’t the same thing happen with Waterworld 15 years later? The movie went way over budget after they let an actor / director (Costner) have free run to do what he wanted. Waterworld is worse as a movie. The story is nonsense and the overacting by the cartoonish villains.

[–] ebhaynz (3688) 4 years ago

Yes, Waterworld ripping off Mad Max was really a disgrace and didn't they just find Hawaii at the end of the movie? Kinda silly.

[–] liscarkat (18367) 9 months ago

There are people who want all westerns to look like "Bonanza", with bright, flat lighting, and everybody in freshly laundered and pressed clothes.