Heaven's Gate

Starring: Kris Kristofferson, Christopher Walken, John Hurt, Sam Waterston, Brad Dourif, Isabelle Huppert, Joseph Cotten, Jeff Bridges, Ronnie Hawkins, Paul Koslo, Terry O'Quinn, Tom Noonan, Mickey Rourke, Willem Dafoe (uncredited)
Directed by: Michael Cimino
Rating: R
Genre: Adventure, Drama, Western
1980

Times Seen:
Tim: 1

Summary: A sheriff (Kris Kristofferson) works to stop a government-sanctioned posse empowered to murder 125 immigrants, claiming them to be thieves and poachers.

Review:

Tim: Heaven's Gate is a notorious Hollywood bomb, one of the biggest box office failures, a film renowned for its failures. It's a film that so frightened the studios by its failures that it changed the system, where studios would exert significantly more strict control over their productions (which led to many future failures). What can you say about a flop? Well, you can say that Heaven's Gate is actually a good movie. I admit, that surprised me, too. I liked the film. Sure, I can see the myriad issues plaguing the film- it has tons of flaws. But, this movie does more right than wrong. I think it's unfairly maligned across the industry. I didn't love it, no. But I liked it. This obviously doesn't change anything, but the movie isn't as bad as it was made out to be.

I get why this film was a tough sell for audiences in 1980. It's 3 hours, 39 minutes long and you could argue that's an entire hour beyond where it should have ended. Michael Cimino's film is in no hurry to get anywhere, even when the movie desperately needs more urgency. He allows his film to breath so much it nearly dies from oxygen toxicity. It's epic in scope, undoubtedly. However, it's too slow and too meandering. There's some great sequences throughout the film, but they are separated by many scenes that simply go on for far too long. This never completely took me out of the film, but it made it difficult to stay focused. This is a film that absolutely requires endurance on the part of viewers. The problem is that the payoff doesn't quite make it worth it.

I will say that the film is beautiful to look at. The cinematography is outstanding, the sets painstakingly detailed, the Western panoramas so beautiful it nearly hurts your eyes to look at them. The film was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Art Direction-Set Decoration. Cimino bears a lot of the brunt for the film's failures, but the movie is well made from a technical standpoint. I always enjoyed looking at the film, even when the viewing went on for too long.

The cast is really strong here, for the most part. I don't love Kris Kristofferson, but I thought he worked well in the lead role. He's always been a bit too bland and stoic for my taste, but it fits the role to some extent. I don't think Kristofferson is to blame for this film, his performance worked. Christopher Walken adds a nice supporting performance, too. I felt like his character didn't quite get the focus he was due. I wish additional scenes were cut so that we could better identify with his character. They are two parts to a love triangle that emerges, but Walken feels out of it from the start because we've spent so much more time with Kristofferson. Still, Walken works well with the time he has. I felt like John Hurt gave a solid performance, but his character wasn't handled well. His whole story could have been better. Sam Waterston is excellent in a villainous role- he truly makes you hate him. His performance was impressive. It was fun seeing Jeff Bridges in his supporting role. He doesn't quite make the impact you'd hope for someone in his role, but he does make the movie a bit better whenever he's on screen. Isabelle Huppert was decent in her role. I didn't love her performance, but she makes her mark. It was fun seeing Terry O'Quinn, Mickey Rourke, and Tom Noonan in smaller supporting roles, too. Rourke gets at least a few nice scenes. I think it's funny that this was Willem Dafoe's first role, but he was fired for laughing on set, so he only appears in the background of a few scenes. He did well for himself regardless of that inauspicious start. As a whole, the cast is probably too big, but generally works.

The story itself has a number of issues. I liked the general focus of the film- I didn't know anything about the Johnson County War in the 1890s, so it was fun learning about it. The script puts this love triangle in the middle of it, gets distracted by various subplots and getting to know the large cast, then pulls it all together for a prolonged climactic battle. Now, the battle scenes are quite intense- Cimino certainly didn't hold back on the scale or scope when crafting these. They aren't rushed and deliver quite a bit of action. Some of them are a bit frustrating (the stupidity of the immigrants in the first major clash bothered me greatly), but overall, Cimino delivers solid action scenes in addition to the major focus on the dramatic elements. Even after these scenes seem to conclude and you think the movie is just about over, it throws another surprise at you. I don't know, it's just a lot. There were so many places Cimino could have cut to make a more streamlined film that wouldn't tax the audience as much. It's definitely a film that suffers some from self-indulgence. However, I don't want to just knock this film for the sake of doing that. Enough people have already gotten their whacks in.

Heaven's Gate (also, a bad title) has a ton of flaws, yes. You really demand that a 3.5 hour movie offers more to the audience than this one does. However, Cimino still crafts a massive, epic Western that tells a story with plenty of redeeming qualities. I've seen so many movies so much worse than this one. I didn't always love the ups-and-downs of the film, but I recognize that at the least, Cimino crafted a good movie. Sure, it should have been better, but I wasn't angry at this film, even when I grew a bit tired of it. It's a good film that was unfairly maligned for whatever reason.

Rating 1-10
Tim's Rating- 7



If You Enjoyed This Movie, We Recommend: How the West Was Won, The Deer Hunter, Giant