This is one of the most dramatic digital restorations I've ever seen; the best thing the film has going for it is its scenery, so seeing that the film initially neutered that with a sepia tone explains a lot about why people just despised this film at first.
Unsung masterpiece. criminally bashed by critics at the time of its release. Glad its been rediscover. Sometimes I wonder how many ogreat movies Mr cimino was deprived of making because of the backlash.
He was planning to follow up Heaven's Gate with another Western, this time from the Native point of view and with all the dialogue in Sioux language. That would have been amazing to see.
I see nothing wrong with the director realizing the error of of the color choices from 1980 and using new technology to fix it. It's one thing to have a sequence or two shot through a sepia filter, but almost four hours of it robbed much of the joy from this ravishingly cinematic film. The idea of the dirty, smokey west is well-conveyed throughout, almost too much. No one can enjoy a look that resembles Los Angeles in 1980! Behind the haze are the beautiful vistas, and now they pop and stand as sentinels over the dirty human story played out around and in them.
i was fortunate to see the 70MM long version as well as the drastically cut 143 min edition (which i believe is still wonderful). i prefer the original negative tbh but the remastered cut is still great. i, like alot of fans absolutely adore HG & i actually think it’s a better film than THE 🦌 HUNTER. RIP michael, stephen bach & john hurt 💕
This is interesting and explains one of the reasons why the original release of the film was not well received. It's good that Criterion gave this film a second chance because it really is quite good except for the battle scenes which were unnecessarily violent and (allegedly) resulted in the deaths of four horses and injured many others.
I first saw HEAVEN'S GATE in its restored limited theatrical release in the original sepia. To this day I prefer it to this later decision of Cimino's. It effected (for this viewer) an interesting psychological remove from the movie I was watching and it was a highly burnished thing of beauty to behold. Stripping the sepia away has taken away an element of nostalgic visual poetry for me that really made this film work even through its long stretches.
If Cimino supervised the restoration, then why did he allow the original prints to go out with the hazy, sepia tone that critics like Ebert said made the whole picture a cloudy, dirty mess to look at ?
@@jhutfre4855 I agree. Personally, it gives the feeling of a story of a time long passed and even a bit nostalgic with how it looks just a bit hazy/faded
He changed his mind, just as it was his idea to cut the film to 2.5 hours after the initial bad reviews. Cimino went from having irrational faith in his "genius" to questioning everything he did.
The sepia tone was insisted upon by the cinematographer, Vilmos Zsigmond, but Cimino always had mixed feelings about it. The older 2005 restoration used for the 'before' clips with the sepia tint was approved by Zsigmond, whereas the 2012 restoration was approved by Cimino.
The original film was shot with a sepia filter that gave the picture a nicotine hue. Criterion digitally removed the filtering as best it could but the resulting colors look a bit artificial.
It wasn't shot with a sepia filter. The sepia was done photochemically in the lab color timing process, just like the look of THE GODFATHER was done in the lab. Before the Criterion restoration, there was a digital transfer of the shortened 2.5 hour version that also removed the sepia tinting.
Seriously, is this a “restoration”, or a change. The original movie HAD the sepia tone. That’s how it went out. It’s not some super old degraded film they are restoring. All they are doing is using new technology to “remove” and change how it was originally intended. The sepia tone, is a mood in and of itself. See behind the scenes on “ol brother where art tho” in how the Coens purposefully used a sepia tone
I have not seen this film, but I know it was deemed "ugly" but Roger Ebert, who said the film went too extreme with it's sepia filter. I have a sense he'd be happier with this restored version if he were around to see it. That's considering he'd care to see the film again. I have not seen it, but I know the film didn't turn out the way the directed wanted it to. Maybe I'll have to check it out, just to see what all the controversy is about. The film is more infamous but certainly hasn't been forgotten by time.
I don't think Rober would had given this a second chance though. It's the kind of movie people from that generation disliked. The newer generation would probably find it underrared and masterful. But people who witnessed the horrible debacle it caused would probably never give it a second chance no matter how great it looks
@@gabbyb7347 The common viewer, sure. But as a critic and film lover, there's no reason why he wouldn't have wanted to give it another chance. He did re-visit many films that he didn't like in following years.
@@Lalo-dh8xq I mean is more hated within the industry due to its aftermath (being responsable for the studio's bankrupcy) than for anything else. That doesn't go away with a restoration. I think Roger would had hated it no matter how great it looked
@@gabbyb7347 I think that's a rather "emotional" reason to avoid re-visiting a movie. Roger was better than that, by even revisiting films that he morally strongly disagreed with (Besides, Roger was not in the industry. He was a critic, he didn't make films).
Now... let's get serious. Let's bring in the finest editor in the world... someone with heart and soul...and edit this movie down to two hours and re-release the movie in it's digitally restored form. This movie deserves a second chance. Goodness knows that Hollywood has lost its way. Heavens Gate can put it back on track again.
This video's been very carefully worded to present the false impression that this cut is how Heaven's Gate was originally meant to look, and that's BS: the sepia tone was a deliberate decision made by Michael Cimino. They're "restoring" colors that we were never meant to see-- that is, until Cimino got the message that everyone thought the movie looked like garbage. I do appreciate the work gone into improving the look, but I object to the dishonesty (and yes I believe they know exactly how disingenuous they're being), this is not the "original" or "true" Heaven's Gate, it's 100% a revisionist alteration.
It seems going by interviews with those who worked on the movie, Vilmos Zsigmond decided on the sepia colours, but Cimino was always a bit iffy about it, so it's not quite revisionism so much as there was always two different views on how the film should look. I hope any future releases of the film give the option of both, I think they both have their own strong points.
It's not like he's needed for further restorations. A 4K transfer will just improve the resolution, they have his approved 2K master to use for color and etc.
Many people like the story. Besides, it's still an important film in the history of cinema, regardless of its quality and reception. A restoration is necessary and appreciated.
Видеоклипы
This is one of the most dramatic digital restorations I've ever seen; the best thing the film has going for it is its scenery, so seeing that the film initially neutered that with a sepia tone explains a lot about why people just despised this film at first.
I do dig that almost sepia tone look of the unrestored examples though.
I prefer the original sepia for this movie.
Seriously stunning. Like removing an old varnish from a painting!
Unsung masterpiece. criminally bashed by critics at the time of its release. Glad its been rediscover.
Sometimes I wonder how many ogreat movies Mr cimino was deprived of making because of the backlash.
He was planning to follow up Heaven's Gate with another Western, this time from the Native point of view and with all the dialogue in Sioux language. That would have been amazing to see.
I love this movie, watch it if you haven't seen it
I see nothing wrong with the director realizing the error of of the color choices from 1980 and using new technology to fix it. It's one thing to have a sequence or two shot through a sepia filter, but almost four hours of it robbed much of the joy from this ravishingly cinematic film. The idea of the dirty, smokey west is well-conveyed throughout, almost too much. No one can enjoy a look that resembles Los Angeles in 1980! Behind the haze are the beautiful vistas, and now they pop and stand as sentinels over the dirty human story played out around and in them.
i was fortunate to see the 70MM long version as well as the drastically cut 143 min edition (which i believe is still wonderful). i prefer the original negative tbh but the remastered cut is still great. i, like alot of fans absolutely adore HG & i actually think it’s a better film than THE 🦌 HUNTER. RIP michael, stephen bach & john hurt 💕
This is interesting and explains one of the reasons why the original release of the film was not well received. It's good that Criterion gave this film a second chance because it really is quite good except for the battle scenes which were unnecessarily violent and (allegedly) resulted in the deaths of four horses and injured many others.
One of the best. A masterpiece
Love stuff like this. Really interesting.
I first saw HEAVEN'S GATE in its restored limited theatrical release in the original sepia. To this day I prefer it to this later decision of Cimino's. It effected (for this viewer) an interesting psychological remove from the movie I was watching and it was a highly burnished thing of beauty to behold. Stripping the sepia away has taken away an element of nostalgic visual poetry for me that really made this film work even through its long stretches.
One of the strangest films ever made. Combines some of the best cinematography ever created with some of the worst dialogue ever written.
Cimino: "More smoke! More smoke, dammit!! I want it to look smoky!!!! OK, this is, what? Take 238? OK, and...ACTION!"
It's glorious without that haze. Still miss it, though.
I have never heard of split celluloid recording.
Presents great opportunity for digital manipulation through.
If Cimino supervised the restoration, then why did he allow the original prints to go out with the hazy, sepia tone that critics like Ebert said made the whole picture a cloudy, dirty mess to look at ?
i also like sepia version more
@@jhutfre4855 I agree. Personally, it gives the feeling of a story of a time long passed and even a bit nostalgic with how it looks just a bit hazy/faded
He changed his mind, just as it was his idea to cut the film to 2.5 hours after the initial bad reviews. Cimino went from having irrational faith in his "genius" to questioning everything he did.
The sepia tone was insisted upon by the cinematographer, Vilmos Zsigmond, but Cimino always had mixed feelings about it. The older 2005 restoration used for the 'before' clips with the sepia tint was approved by Zsigmond, whereas the 2012 restoration was approved by Cimino.
I might be crazy but I thought that Cimino purposely chose that dark sepia color.
He did. Just as he was the one who wanted to cut the film down.
@@zippymufo9765 yes, so pity, I am also not a fan of this restauration, and, no wonder, Cimino also chose THAT
The original film was shot with a sepia filter that gave the picture a nicotine hue. Criterion digitally removed the filtering as best it could but the resulting colors look a bit artificial.
It wasn't shot with a sepia filter. The sepia was done photochemically in the lab color timing process, just like the look of THE GODFATHER was done in the lab. Before the Criterion restoration, there was a digital transfer of the shortened 2.5 hour version that also removed the sepia tinting.
Seriously, is this a “restoration”, or a change. The original movie HAD the sepia tone. That’s how it went out. It’s not some super old degraded film they are restoring. All they are doing is using new technology to “remove” and change how it was originally intended. The sepia tone, is a mood in and of itself. See behind the scenes on “ol brother where art tho” in how the Coens purposefully used a sepia tone
this is not a restoration
this is improving the original print, which looked all washed out on purpose
Uploading a video demonstrating HD film restoration in 360p makes as much sense as a screen door on a submarine. Seriously wtf?
I have not seen this film, but I know it was deemed "ugly" but Roger Ebert, who said the film went too extreme with it's sepia filter. I have a sense he'd be happier with this restored version if he were around to see it. That's considering he'd care to see the film again. I have not seen it, but I know the film didn't turn out the way the directed wanted it to. Maybe I'll have to check it out, just to see what all the controversy is about. The film is more infamous but certainly hasn't been forgotten by time.
I don't think Rober would had given this a second chance though. It's the kind of movie people from that generation disliked. The newer generation would probably find it underrared and masterful. But people who witnessed the horrible debacle it caused would probably never give it a second chance no matter how great it looks
@@gabbyb7347 The common viewer, sure. But as a critic and film lover, there's no reason why he wouldn't have wanted to give it another chance. He did re-visit many films that he didn't like in following years.
@@Lalo-dh8xq I mean is more hated within the industry due to its aftermath (being responsable for the studio's bankrupcy) than for anything else. That doesn't go away with a restoration. I think Roger would had hated it no matter how great it looked
@@gabbyb7347 I think that's a rather "emotional" reason to avoid re-visiting a movie. Roger was better than that, by even revisiting films that he morally strongly disagreed with (Besides, Roger was not in the industry. He was a critic, he didn't make films).
MGM corporation or ... United Artists ?
yallow rosa MGM bought UA after the Heaven’s Gate debacle, so in a sense they owned it for many years.
No this film killed UA
The movies lookes like Red dead redemption 😮
Now... let's get serious. Let's bring in the finest editor in the world... someone with heart and soul...and edit this movie down to two hours and re-release the movie in it's digitally restored form. This movie deserves a second chance. Goodness knows that Hollywood has lost its way. Heavens Gate can put it back on track again.
fuck that!
After reading the problematic history, I just watched the trailer and thought at least the imagery looked great.
So even that was a problem before..
The way this film looked put me off ever watching it, even though I'm a fan of Deer Hunter.
I prefer sepia. it should be dusty looking movie.
This video's been very carefully worded to present the false impression that this cut is how Heaven's Gate was originally meant to look, and that's BS: the sepia tone was a deliberate decision made by Michael Cimino. They're "restoring" colors that we were never meant to see-- that is, until Cimino got the message that everyone thought the movie looked like garbage. I do appreciate the work gone into improving the look, but I object to the dishonesty (and yes I believe they know exactly how disingenuous they're being), this is not the "original" or "true" Heaven's Gate, it's 100% a revisionist alteration.
It seems going by interviews with those who worked on the movie, Vilmos Zsigmond decided on the sepia colours, but Cimino was always a bit iffy about it, so it's not quite revisionism so much as there was always two different views on how the film should look. I hope any future releases of the film give the option of both, I think they both have their own strong points.
All that time and work, for a 2K (and not at least 4K) restoration. What a waste. And now Michael is dead. What a waste.
It's not like he's needed for further restorations. A 4K transfer will just improve the resolution, they have his approved 2K master to use for color and etc.
Man, I love this film as east european.
You can't change the story. The problem with the film is that the story was weak. Waste of time restoring this film.
Many people like the story. Besides, it's still an important film in the history of cinema, regardless of its quality and reception. A restoration is necessary and appreciated.
This movie isn't worth restoring. It's a boring and painful chore to watch, imagine going through it and restoring each individual frame.
Go and watch Krull then, jeez...talk about pearls before swine.
Obscure Entertainment
Then you mustn’t have a very well-developed attention span. You have to get lost in this movie to appreciate it.
I love this movie.
Yep, having a contrary opinion is not allowed, you will be assimilated.
By all means express your opinion. But grow a hide, others may express their disagreement.
Absolutely cooked decision to put that sepia tone all over it lmao