Ensofter Overrated and overhyped

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

pkpera Review summary is based mostly on movie's last scenes - on ship. I think that it had strong message. Now, I write my first review in renewed IMDB review submit form - what made some troubles with Firefox policy. I don't like new way of walking thru reviews too. Just my 2 cents :-) Heaven's Gate is not great movie, it has serious flaws, and is hard to watch most of time. I purchased BlueRay couple years ago, and managed to watch it until end only yesterday. First - it is too long, there are some way too long, stretched scenes. Then, the characters, their actions, motivations, dialogues - some forced Wild West 'heroes' - at wrong place. Main character talks very little. But that was just absurd that he did not say anything in very crucial situations. Why they just did not kill that main villain in black before battle - that could be main question. Ah, this is some kind of Western movie. I expected some social, historical movie rather. What is good is camera - spectacular most of time, the sets, costumes ... Shortly, the substance. Acting is fine too, but not great. I think that Cimino simply lost his sense after great success of D.H. . I still rate this 7, despite serious flaws. It has message, although not well presented. The title - I guess that everyone got it's double meaning. But that could be presented better in movie self.

Peter Kettle Heaven's Gate… William Shakespeare, in Sonnet 29, expresses much about human nature in fourteen lines. Heaven's Gate, the Michael Cimino movie, takes what seems like fourteen hours to express nothing with any clarity. Ostensibly based upon 'real events' in 1890 - the conflict in Jackson County, Wyoming, between poverty-stricken immigrants and wealthy cattle farmers - it lasts a very long 219 minutes in the Director's cut. We watched the entire bewildering chaotic brilliant epic, and I could not take my attention away from it, even though I wanted to slash whole chunks of it out. It is difficult, too long, challenging, and exasperating; and that made me think it is like many great works of fiction. Set pieces of real wonder were interspersed with longueurs which made me want to hit Cimino in the face for allowing such self indulgence. But then along comes another unforgettable image, another astounding realisation of visionary genius, and you will forgive Cimino anything. Almost.I will have to sit through this film again. Which is how I felt after reading Ulysses, Moby Dick, and Wolf Solent the first time. Greatness and banality can so often become mired together. Heaven's Gate is a great curate's egg of a movie that, because of the good parts, I will revisit because I must. It is undoubtedly a bloody but glorious mess, and a seriously loving edit would get it running faster over a shorter distance. The opening college sequence, for instance, is obviously in need of a very large but affectionate trim. Far too much dancing and huddling, many more caps in the air than necessary, hurtling along ancient streets shown far too much, and so many unfunny giggling japes; if it is not an hour too much it seems like it. The movie launches itself at the audience exultantly, but then reveals a cinematic disregard without engagement or character involvement. Good actors are wasted. We get tantalising shots that need fleshing out. Vast sequences are filled with hordes of people, every one of them too anonymous to grab our sympathy or attention. It is a pageant of multitudes without illumination, a coarse quantity rather than a telling focus. It is constantly beguiling and frustrating. And it is undoubtedly a masterpiece.

Crockett16 I've seen a lot of movies in my time. Some of them bad, some okay, some which are masterpieces. Without a doubt, Heaven's Gate is the best film I've seen so far. It is a combination of poetry and realism,the likes of which I've never seen in a movie before. Most films I've seen are either more poetic or realistic. The story involves an association of farmers whose product is being stolen by poor and starving European immigrants in Johnson County, Wyoming. Said association decides to create a death list of 125 immigrants much to the outrage of Johnson County Marshal Jim Averill (Kris Kristofferson). The stage is set for a bloody showdown between the immigrants and the association. This scenario is based on a true story called the Johnson County War. As the story goes on, a love triangle develops between the main characters and idealism and realism come to a clash that you won't forget. This film has been overshadowed by controversy due to it's extreme failure at the box office, but don't worry. Heaven's Gate is a masterpiece.

Outstandingness Just as this was panned in 1980, the pendulum has now swung back and a sympathy campaign has sprouted up to defend Heaven's Gate as a misunderstood masterpiece victimized by a conspiratorial press. However those critics were correct. Given the carte blanche for director Michael Cimino; the talents of cast and crew; the endless extensions and concessions from United Artists; the altruistic intentions and ambitions for the project that Cimino shepherded for almost 10 years… Heaven's Gate is a terrible movie and is the worst movie I've ever seen or will see. It's easy to list low budget films when ranking the worst of the worst, but when director Ed Wood makes a movie with community theater level talent over a weekend on a four figure budget, I expect a clunker. At least Ed Wood achieved the basic goal of telling a story, albeit a simple one. Characters are introduced, the plot set up, and the story proceeds. Cimino's gross incompetence undermined even those simple aspirations here because the extravagance of the production buries any attempt at meaning, and the rest of the movie collapses in on itself. To start, the casting is decidedly off. Kristofferson is wooden and incapable of carrying any epic. Huppert might be right for another script, but ultimately here she doesn't fit. Other likable actors are reduced to caricatured roles that are both underwritten or poorly written. Next the infamous prologue: I understand the idealism of the prologue is intended to contrast the disappointments of the real world, but I can't imagine a worse start to a movie than a long march into a graduation ceremony which takes its sweet time delivering dull speeches by dull characters that immediately require audience caffeination. Are we really supposed to buy Kristofferson and Hurt as college age? Why is Hurt wearing a ridiculous Little Lord Fauntleroy wig? The dance scene that follows is well made but unnecessary. I got the circular motif that was being repeated, but going to such lengths to achieve student film pretension is pure folly. Then there's a fight that's also pointless but thrown in. Mind you, the prologue is a solid 20 minutes and we barely know who these characters are and sitting through such lengthy scenes watching characters we know nothing about is torturous.When we finally endure the horrid prologue to finally meet the central character and setting, all the dialogue explaining the conflict is muffled behind train noises, animal calls, and wagons racing through the street. (side note: MC fills the streets of the tiny town with chaotic traffic that makes the Indianapolis 500 look like sublime).There are several sloppy, amateurish overdubs of key information. It's barely known who is talking, or who he's talking to and why. What dialogue is heard is frequently unimaginative and awful: the comically corny "death list" is bandied up as often as possible. Other clunkers include: "God you're beautiful." -- "So are you." and "Oh Ella. Don't die." Those aren't throw away lines, they are the only dialogue used to express the emotions for entire sequences. While the scenery is certainly majestic and the photography occasionally beautiful, the overall sepia tone that dominates the 4 hour slog is another miscalculation. Randomly a few shots appear almost orange before reverting back to sepia. Dust storms that otherwise would signal judgment day blow in and obscure everything, including the story. Cimino falls in love with the mountains and dirt so much he seems to feel like the story is an annoying distraction. A wide shot of the mountains is fine in moderation, but Cimino shoehorns shots like these nonstop for 4 hours, and they lose all effect. After the indulgence of the prologue and the incompetent audio that follows, the first meaningful audible dialogue took place at about the 40 minute mark when the cattle association first bring up the "death list" (gasp!). Somehow the next 2 hours is wasted on pointless scenes of waiting for the henchmen to enforce the death list. Having the wolf trapper grab Mickey Rourke's tongue is a bizarre waste of time. Unfortunately there's a rape scene that's drawn out and relatively graphic but again is unnecessary.If you make it to the climax, you'll be treated/subjected to such bizarre happenings that you may burst into laughter. Huppert transforms into Joan of Arc and leads the battle charge; the revolting peasants can't bother with strategy and ride in circles (yes I get it) around the trapped mercenaries; Bridges' character repeats lines like "Get out of the way!" and "Take cover!"; when the opposing sides recouperate at night, the peasants build Roman inspired rolling walls in a few hours by hand; the pharmacist gathers enough supplies to build hundreds of sticks of dynamite. Next the laughable conclusions: one peasant sits under a slowly oncoming wagon wheel and somehow seems shocked when his bones get crushed; peasants leave their protective cover and get shot; every dynamite stick they throw at the huddled men sitting close range in an open field misses completely; one peasant woman kills her suffering husband and then unexpectedly ends her own life, presumably Cimino thinking that would really magnify his point (whatever that is). And lastly in perhaps an homage to Ed Wood's love of stock footage, Sam Waterston pops up randomly and inappropriately to shockingly kill 2 of the main characters in footage that looks out of place. Michael Cimino didn't know what he wanted with this. He wanted historic detail, but used anachronistic music and dialogue. He wanted rich visuals but drowned them in sepia tones. He wanted to shoot every scene at the "golden hour" but killed its effect by overusing it. He wanted to inspire sympathy but portrayed peasants as mobs and slaughtered animals. He wanted deep feelings but no characters or dialogue to convey them. He wanted the auteur filmmaker's epic without earning it