MovieChat Forums > Heaven's Gate (1981) Discussion > The over-the-top negative criticisms are...

The over-the-top negative criticisms are disingenuous and laughable

posted 4 years ago by Wuchak (8732)
19 replies | jump to latest

Released in 1980, "Heaven's Gate" is Michael Cimino's notorious adult-oriented Western that brought down a studio. Cimino's style is arty with a focus on mundane realism, similar to Francis Ford Coppola. I'm not a fan of Cimino's previous film, the overrated "The Deer Hunter" (1978), because of the tedious opening hour and the disagreeable focus on Russian Roulette, although I love his Tarantino-like "Thunderbolt and Lightfoot" (1974) and his underrated "Desperate Hours" (1990). Cimino wisely doesn't allow the Harvard graduation sequence that opens "Heaven's Gate" to go on forever like the wedding in "Deer Hunter," not to mention it has aesthetic merit.

There are two versions of the film: The premiere New York City cut runs 3 hours, 39 minutes while the edited version that hit theaters five months later is a little over an hour shorter (roughly 2.5 hours). Critics complain that the story makes no sense, but it'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. The locations and photography are top-of-the-line. Whether or not you appreciate the story will depend on if you favor Cimino's arty, mature and realistic style. In any case, everything leads to an action-packed climax.

When the movie was released there was a critical feeding frenzy (started as payback for the press being banned from the production), but much of the criticisms are disingenuous as critics conveniently jumped on the hate wagon.

For instance, there's the complaint that this is an ugly film due to an industrial pall, including dust and smoke. Actually, the visuals are awesome despite any dust, smoke or fog.

Roger Ebert complained that a character in a burning cabin who is convinced that he's going to die writes a note and signs his full name before breaking out and getting shot, but the real-life person in question kept a journal of his besieging and, in fact, signed it off before dying (obviously he didn't want people to mistake his identity when his body was found).

Ebert also whined about a gunman breaking into a house and shooting three men who are raping a woman and yet she is unscathed. Actually the guy in question is a marshal by profession and therefore highly skilled at gunmanship.

Yet another criticism is that the antagonists in the big battle sequence could've easily gotten to their attackers who were utilizing the armored wagon made of logs by going around or behind, but it's clear that the settlers would've simply shot 'em down if they unwisely did this seeing as how they would've been out in the open. Aduh.

In no way is this one of the worst movies ever made, let alone the worst big Western (for that, see John Ford's laughable "Cheyenne Autumn").

"Heaven's Gate" gets a solid 7/10 from me.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Interesting.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I’m not going to get into so much detail, but I agree that it is not that bad. I would put it more as a 5 / 10, but watchable. There are certainly worse movies with bigger budgets out there.

[–] Wuchak (8732) 4 years ago

Even though I like the movie more than you, that's basically what I'm trying to get across: "Heaven's Gate" simply isn't THAT bad to warrant this ongoing over-the-top ire we've all heard since its release. My message to these perpetual denouncers is GET REAL.

[–] TheArgentinian (7061) 4 years ago

Just watched it for the first time. I was expecting a terrible movie. It's a masterpiece! I was never bored.

[–] Wuchak (8732) 4 years ago

Thank you.

[–] Mrmojo4700 (21454) 3 years ago

I just finished rewatching The Deer Hunter and it got me interested in giving Heaven’s Gate a shot.

[–] cyguration (3951) 3 years ago

This may be an unpopular opinion but I actually like Heaven's Gate from start to finish more than I did The Deer Hunter. I only really began to enjoy the Deer Hunter after they got to Vietnam, whereas Heaven's Gate held my interest the entire way through, and it was a fantastically filmed and directed movie.

[–] Wuchak (8732) 3 years ago

I favor "Heaven's Gate" over "The Deer Hunter" as well, easily.

Actually I'm not a fan of the latter. The wedding sequence in the opening act is waaay overlong and tedious while the mountain hunting scenes are disingenuous since they were obviously shot out West and not in the Appalachians (rolling my eyes). The prisoners-in-the-Vietnam-War sequences are effective in a harrowing way, but they're so grueling I never want to see 'em again. Meanwhile, the last act focuses too much on guys in post-war Vietnam shooting themselves in the head playing Russian Roulette. I could see three people or so blowing their brains out, but it's just overKILL.

Sure, it's technically well-made, but I found it tedious and unpalatable (speaking as someone who likes dark, heavy movies, e.g. "Apocalypse Now" and "Runaway Train").

[–] cyguration (3951) 3 years ago

The wedding sequence in the opening act is waaay overlong and tedious while the mountain hunting scenes are disingenuous since they were obviously shot in the Rockies and not the Appalachians (rolling my eyes).

I didn't mind the hunting sequence, but oh man the entire wedding section was just painful. I just... I didn't care.

I forced myself to sit through it wondering what I was supposed to be focusing on because it wasn't like it was a visually captivating sequence, nor was it draped in some kind of awesome soundtrack, or any kind of notable character development. It was just... tedious, as you said.

The prisoners-in-the-Vietnam-War sequences are effective in a harrowing way, but they're so grueling I never want to see 'em again. Meanwhile, the last act focuses too much on guys in post-war Vietnam shooting themselves in the head playing Russian Roulette. I could see three people or so blowing their brains out, but it's just overKILL.

I actually have watched the Vietnam war sequence a few times. In fact, it was the one section I used to catch whenever the film came on television. It's so well acted and it feels so real. But it's not something I ever feel like watching deliberately.

And yeah, the Russian Roulette stuff in the near final act was just hard to watch. Few films induce anxiety like watching those Russian Roulette sequences. Even the 2010 film 13, which was all about underground Russian Roulette, didn't make me feel as antsy as the sequences in Deer Hunter.

[–] Wuchak (8732) 3 years ago

I didn't mind the hunting scenes either, except for the Cascades standing in for the Appalachian Mountains. Why Sure!

[–] modica (4169) 4 years ago

I really liked the movie a lot. Not sure why it was hated so much back when it was released. 8/10.

[–] rudeboymurray (3270) 3 years ago

I just watched this and was largely very impressed. It's far from perfect, of course, but - as one of the last gasps of the great auteur-driven epic adult dramas of the era (The Right Stuff was another a couple of years later, and was not really all that much more successful at the box office), Heaven's Gate is a reminder of just how high filmmakers used to aim back in those days. What's good about this film is very good indeed. 7/10

[–] chilidoggg (14265) 3 years ago

It's a good film, definitely worth watching. 6/10

[–] rnmboon (404) 3 years ago

It is a great film and I personally rate it at 8/10. The negative response to it always felt like a critical assassination to me. Possibly due to the great success of The Deer Hunter. Some in the industry and the press were a bit envious of that success apparently. They campaigned to have this film called "bad" and the cattle that some movie viewers are it was willingly adopted.

[–] Wuchak (8732) 3 years ago

The press being banned from the production by Cimino probably started the unjust feeding frenzy. But the hatred wasn't universal outside the lamestream bubble. For instance, critics in France hailed the film.

Next time I view it, I'm going to make sure to find the 3 hour, 39 min Director's Cut (I've only seen the 2.5 hour version).

[–] Ed (525) 2 years ago

I agree, an incredible film, truly Americana in its scope and epic scale. The cinematography is so good, and I prefer this look to the over-polished digital films of todya’s Hollywood.

The 3.5 hour version is mesmerizing, albeit very slowly paced, whoch I don’t mind. I would recommend that first-time viewers put subtitles on. There are at least 6 different languages used in this film (reflecting the melting pot that is America), and the accents are thick enough or soft murmured enough to make it difficult to follow the story if youdon’t already know it.

[–] cyguration (3951) 10 months ago

This is one of those films I've thought about A LOT since first having watched it, and much like you, I loved Thunderbolt and Lightfoot and absolutely dreaded the first hour of The Deer Hunter.

To me, Heaven's Gate reminded me of a sprawling, epic Western the likes of which few films can be compared, but it's like a cross between Once Upon A Time In The West fused with Dances With Wolves if there were no narration of the latter. Big, is a word that comes to mind when thinking about Heaven's Gate.

It was odd to me because critics -- at the time -- often grossly mischaracterised the film by comparing it to Tinto Brass' infamous Caligula (and despite criticism, Malcolm McDowell turned in an Oscar worthy performance in that film). But the two films were nothing alike. Caligula was a poorly designed film despite having irrefutably strong leads in McDowell and Mirren. It's weirdly structured telling of Caligula's machinations and gratuity fused with the porn is what made it so... distasteful. But Heaven's Gate was nothing like that.

As you stated, the film has inexorably always been grounded in the realism of its setting, and filmed immaculately so; I still think about the epic battle sequences and the wide-angle shots of it taking place. I've been meaning to re-watch it more recently to see if my initial impressions of the film were off, or if I would enjoy it more after having some years to think more critically about it, but your summation of the film fits very closely in line with what I thought of it decades ago.

In re-checking my original IMDB score of the film, I gave it a 9/10, but I'm going to re-watch it soon to see if it still holds up to that ranking.

[–] Wuchak (8732) 10 months ago

When I wrote that (4 years ago) it was my first time seeing the film. The over-the-top critical response just kept me away. I was pleasantly surprised at how good of a "modern" Western it is (well over four decades old now). I definitely plan to see it again. I might even up my grade, who knows?

A good example of the critical hysteria is this book on Western Films I have by Brian Garfield (the writer of "Death Wish"). He goes over thousands of Westerns from the beginning of cinema up until the time publication. Throughout the book he repeatedly mentions "Heaven's Gate" to carp on it and even tear it to pieces. It's a great movie guide for Westerns and Garfield's an exceptional and compelling writer (although very opinionated, which is entertaining). But the book is a good example of how critics went overboard in their feeding frenzy against Cimino's film.