"The Deer Hunter" sucked and this was worse. Who ever said Kris Kristofferson could act? Or Jeff Bridges, either? At least this didn't have Meryl Streep or Robert DeNiro adding to the overall stink, but it did have that freak Christopher Walken. Roller skating is the Big Thing in a so-called "Western?" Let's get real here: those currently giving this multiple stars are watching it on their big screen home theatre on a comfortable couch with free snacks and a private bathroom which they can use anytime without missing any of the movie. They didn't get soaked for tickets and overpriced popcorn at 1980's prices. They can conveniently break up the overlong running time over multiple viewing sessions. They can even fast-forward through numerous poorly edited scenes; ie. Cut to the Chase. IOW, they can avoid all the inconveniences and expenses that totally ticked off the original audience.

A misunderstood masterpiece.

Worth watching for the impressive sets alone. Don't expect a movie that feels terribly authentic - I suspect it has neither the historical accuracy or atmosphere of actual events. But I think the biggest issue with this movie is in the story telling. For much of its runtime it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. There are drawn out scenes that don't appear to advance the plot and I started to lose patience with it.

The movie is simply boring. It’s long and dull. A few impressive crowd scenes don’t save the basic drabness of the whole thing.

This film failed in America but was received well in Europe. Tastes are quite different and imo, Europeans have greater patience and appreciation for films and tv shows that allow a story to develop at a slower pace. My husband and I saw this on tv and could not tear ourselves away from it. It's depth and the story it tells on how brutal the west was rings truer than it is all too often depicted in sugar coated views of many westerns coming out of Hollywood. It's tough to watch some scenes and the music from the waltz scene still rings in my ears some 20 years later. Yes, it is long, but then so are some of the mini series shown today, but we truly loved everything about this film. It is still my favourite 'western' to this day

Welcome to the film that makes a Peter Jackson film look like a masterpiece of editing and brevity. While the acting is good, the script ranges from the incomprehensible to the bizarre (I’ve never heard of anyone being accused of having a “paper arse-hole” before). Some of the scenery is spectacular, but most scenes are overlong and the plot proceeds at a glacial pace. The good thing about the film is that you can step out to go to the toilet, take a shower, prepare and eat a three course meal and the film will still be going. Also, you’ll know what’s going on as absolutely nothing will have happened. When it came out, this film was rightly panned and considered one of the great flops of all time. Since then, opinions have changed with commentary looking at the filmmaking. With that in mind, it’s still mine-bendingly dull. It is an endurance test rather than an enjoyment.

Rampant animal abuse.

Universally panned, and justifiably so, upon its release in 1980, Michael Cimino’s Heaven’s Gate is now considered (by some) as some sort of masterpiece. It’s not a masterpiece. To its benefit, the premise is interesting – wealthy cattle barons in 1890s Wyoming wage war against poor European immigrants, who they believe to be immoral and a detriment to the American way of life. Cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond does a commendable job, creating a handful of memorable images of the remarkable landscape. However, many scenes appear to be shot through a veil of dust, smoke, and/or fog, muddying what is already, in many ways, a muddy movie. Many scenes, including the odd roller-skating dance party, serve no discernable purpose, the motivation of many of the characters is unclear, there is some truly cringe-worthy dialogue (“you talk like a man with a paper ass!!”), and Cimino’s ponderous decision making as a director would lead you to believe he was never really sure where he was going with the movie. It might be worth watching as a curiosity item, but not much else.

I enjoyed it. It does take effort to remain engaged throughout the film. Kind of like a European movie. The action gets really good in the last hour. The first hour was very slow and could've been cut by half. The acting was okay. Nothing great but it didn't hurt the film.

It made a Kris Kristofferson fan out of me, and it intensified my love for Christopher Walken, but I'm not really sure if I actually care for the film. It's a weird one but weird in a not-that-interesting way. The cinematography and score are good. I appreciate the whole message that basically people are like roaches or sewer rats or something, but I don't find the message convincing nor do I find it useful. One good thing is that, despite the fact that everyone has a brain-numbing device stuck to their face nowadays, I would rather live in this version of reality than in the world depicted here.

I fall mostly on the side of the positive re-assement of the movie. Perhaps not a "masterpiece" but still a fascinating spectacle that continually defies expectations. If you still don't get the appeal of that, well ok, but save your vitriol for something lazier.

This is an outstanding movie . Done by Cimino , it is epic in nature , similar to his masterpiece " The Deer Hunter " . Interesting characters , sophisticated emotions , great cinematography . A truly great " Western " - unlike most .

Suffered from pre Internet cancel culture. The movie many wanted to fail. Retribution for not allowing press on set... excessive cost... A director having too much power after only two films. At any rate, the film is epic and the cinematography is stunning. A masterpiece to be sure.

Some scenes are overlong, but its an expansive film of a lesser known conflict, the attention to detail is exceptional, almost every aspect is fitting of the time and place. I read some critics saying roller skating didn;t exist in the 1870's, but they obviously dont know their history, to start with the film was set in the 1890's not the 1870's, even so, rollerskates were invented in the 1700s, and roller skating became a huge fad across the world after 1863. Everything was based on photos, costumes, sets, and details were all taken from museum photos from the area at the time, over 20000 of them in total, so accuracy should never be a critism, Yes the film could have done with a tighter edit, but the recoloured criterion cut is gorgeous. Spalling, a bit messing yes, but in no way the world film ever.

Well worth watching, interesting and absorbing, at many times like watching a moving painting. Incredibly beautiful shots and brilliant camera placements and movements are so numerous that it almost produces diminishing returns. You want sweeping grandeur? You will find it here. I disagree with the assessment that the actors or the acting is not up to snuff. These are characters who are in dire circumstances, and their emotional detachment at certain times rings true. Kristofferson is not the perfect actor for his role, but I am not sure who would have been. He plays the role evenly, and I am not sure a more expressive actor would have been "better" for the part, but could have certainly made the movie more lively. The dialogue is the weakest part - often much better lines could have been written to convey the exigent moments. Very often the story and actions of the characters could have been clearer, and the historical issues at hand could have been explicated better. Questions about what Michael Cimino was "after" or what he was trying to accomplish personally or artistically, or as social criticism, or bucking the system aside, this is artistic film making at a magnificent scale. For cinematography buffs and period recreation enthusiasts, it does not get much better than this. I liked the film. It is not in any way terrible as conventional wisdom seems to hold. It is almost four hours long, but I can see watching it again some day.

This is one of the best Westerns and films I have ever seen! I'm not a western buff but I have seen Once Upon a Time In The West, Unforgiven and The Magnificent Seven. I believe I may prefer Heaven's Gate over all of them. Christopher Walken is magnificent as always and the cinematography is so elegant. The story is engaging and it does require a little patience but scenes like the square dance are incredible and unlike anything I have ever seen in cinema. I liked this one more than 'The Deer Hunter' but I did view the Director's Cut special edition. They say the original version which is about half in length sucks. The story needed every detail shown in the filmmaker's original vision. Studio involvement and execs who had no idea ruined the film's potential. There are documentary's about this as the film's box office failure ruined a movie studio and limited Michael Cimino's potential as a filmmaker. I loved it though. 95/100 A

Oh, is cowboy movie? Reviews always so bad, Blobbo never see. Or maybe get mixed up with other bad review movie, one with Dustin Hoffman and guy from Dobie Gillis Blobbo forget names of. Anyway, 56%, was it, say they liked. Would be landslide if presidential election. Check out for self, no listen to funky critic masses.

Nothing new but the cast is amazing,

FYI I am reviewing the remastered version without the brown tint in half the film. This version would've been significantly worse I imagine. Is it the worst movie ever made? Absolutely Not. Not Even close. Is it a misunderstood masterpiece? No It's Not that either. It's honestly...an Average Western with serious flaw and some really good moments in between. The acting is very good overall but is held back from being phenomenal by sparse dialogue and minimal character interactions that would have suited well for a 1 hour 45 minute film but not for a 3+ hour one. The cinematography is very good and the best part of the film by far with parts that rival Orson Welles & David Lean. The only knock is the wagon battle at the end is very hard to see what is actually being shown because of all the dust which was probably intentional to make you feel the chaos of the fight but it feels instead unrefined compared to the rest of the beauty of the film. The music is honestly just ok and a bit of a let down compared to the camera work. I wish it were more epic and used more often. The two BIGGEST flaws by far that drag this down is the horrific editing and pacing. This film could easily have about an hour and a half cut with scenes that are pointless, go on way to long, and are very boring at times. The first ten minutes are beautiful to look at but easily could be cut from the film and nothing would be lost and sum up the main problem with the editing and picture. At times the film feels like it starts to lose focus because its so bloated as well. But that being said it was interesting at times and overall was just OK. If they were ever able to cut this down by half this could become a Classic Western its not that enough isn't here its that way too much is here. It feels like a Semi finished rough cut. Unless your very curious about the film that ended New Hollywood like I was, skip this. It's boring pretty to look at but boring honestly.

Yeah, it's a train wreck. More like a wagon wreck. Isabelle Huppert was quite good, I thought. Kristofferson is his usual cardboard cut-out of passionless posturing, but he has 'that face'. I guess. Walken is pretty great, but his character is a bit questionable. John Hurt is utterly wasted as some drunken jester ass-kisser flunky. Also, wasted, like hell, is Jeff Bridges. He just seems nearly every scene he's in like some overgrown kid with a mental deficiency. Cimino got in waaayyyy the hell over his head as a filmmaker in general, and as a wannabe 'great artist' specifically. What a 217-or so minute mass of indulgence and overwrought melodrama. But I didn't hate the movie or hold it with great disdain. There are the moments that were done well, like Jim & Ella (KK & IH) together in their early scenes together. The carriage ride with Ella at the reins was pretty good. Waterston was a great little subhuman murderous sliver of greed and sociopathic obsession. Oh, and all the clips of Huppert's in the raw don't hurt. Still, some scenes are just absurd (like Ella somehow not getting shot when Jim comes blazing in, shooting left and right; Walken's Nate writing a note as his home is literally burning down around him; signing his while name to be sure they know the guy with the note in his pocket (with that very name) wrote it. And it's a garish film to look at. It's as is Cimino wanted to summon some thoughts of the dust bowl, with all its allusions to tragedy for poor working people, by hanging a haze over the camera for much of the movie. But to paraphrase an often very shrewd romantic writer when being told what he was seeing was an idealized tragic version of reality, 'You look at her, you see Grace Kelly. It's mucky muck morphine. I take the morphine. I don't take Grace Kelly.' Jeezy Pete, wtf was with that ending? Or even the last scene in Wyoming as Ella and Jim are about to leave after all that unthinkable, hellish violence? 2.8 stars