Hey, really liked the video! Have been finding it hard to find much stuff on the Soderbergh cut, this gave a nice comparison that offered me some perspective on their main differences, having not seen the Cimino version. Well done on the video!
Thank you for this video and the link to the Butcher's Cut. As someone who loves Cimino's version I must admit when it comes to story, in this case ..."less is more".
I'd like to see someone edit back Soder's cut without that stupid, painful sepia filter. 108 minutes is a lot for a western. Cimino's cut makes it more of a historical documentary. Which is more marketable?
The prologue essentially kills the film in it's crib. It's really that bad. Not only is our suspension of disbelief ruined (Hurt and Kristopherson can't pull off looking like they are in they're early 20's) But it's incredibly boring. A movie should get people's attention immediately. If you open a film with school speeches, it better be a comedy. Imagine the first scene being Walken's killing of the immigrant? Besides, nothing in the prologue has any power, because Billy and Jim reuniting later rings hollow anyway. The film is muddled and pretty forced and incoherent despite it's length. Billy and Jim's relationship is contrived and so is everyone else's. That's the movies weakness regardless of ANY editing. Cutting it to just over 2 and half hours and removing the entire prologue and some scenes here and there (Jim first meeting Ella, Jim reading the death list, Ella's rape etc), would have made it a rambling, but very entertaining mini epic.
This film is the prime example of an artist failing to kill his darlings. As you said, the opening is the biggest problem. It's incredibly boring. If you can't deliver something in the first 20 minutes that is interesting or exciting or in some way moves you emotionally, you've failed. Great cinematography and nothing else, is essentially a polished turd. Second biggest problem with this movie, to me, apart from the overall slow pace and incoherent and uninteresting story... the second biggest problem is the main character and Kris Kristofferson. The character is boring, and so is Kris Kristoffersons acting. Imagine someone like De Niro in that role.
@@laurencewhite4809 Kristofferson and Hurt being too old to pass as 20 yrs olds is hard to swallow, i'll give you that. But I don't feel the prologue is just plain boring and how then would you make the connection between the opening and closing of the film, where Nate resigns himself to his life of wealth, privilege and college trophy sweetheart after failing as a sheriff protecting and living as "one of the people". Seems you guys who feel this way have too short an attention span if you already lost interest in the first 30 min, you probably didn't even bother to see the rest!
Never waste time establishing something that has no particular payoff. The prologue is wholly unnecessary. The character actually works much better if you know less of his background, anyway. You can infer enough without that completely out of left field opener that goes on and on for no purpose.
Heaven's gate's lenghty corpus would have been transformed today into a series
Hey, really liked the video! Have been finding it hard to find much stuff on the Soderbergh cut, this gave a nice comparison that offered me some perspective on their main differences, having not seen the Cimino version. Well done on the video!
Thank you for this video and the link to the Butcher's Cut. As someone who loves Cimino's version I must admit when it comes to story, in this case ..."less is more".
Thanks for posting this. And great summary! Saved me from having to watch the soderburg edit
Thankfully we have the full version. Soderbergh's version is simply an opinion.
I actually saw the Soderbergh cut of Heaven’s Gate.
I'd like to see someone edit back Soder's cut without that stupid, painful sepia filter. 108 minutes is a lot for a western. Cimino's cut makes it more of a historical documentary. Which is more marketable?
Good one
I'd like to see this. Where can I?
there you go
extension765.com/blogs/soderblog/heavens-gate-the-butchers-cut
cheers
@@MrSavo1992 Thanks
heavens gate definitely needs at least 30 minutes cut from it but soderberghs cut butchers the movie
if i had the equipment id edit it myself
The prologue essentially kills the film in it's crib.
It's really that bad.
Not only is our suspension of disbelief ruined (Hurt and Kristopherson can't pull off looking like they are in they're early 20's)
But it's incredibly boring.
A movie should get people's attention immediately.
If you open a film with school speeches, it better be a comedy.
Imagine the first scene being Walken's killing of the immigrant?
Besides, nothing in the prologue has any power, because Billy and Jim reuniting later rings hollow anyway.
The film is muddled and pretty forced and incoherent despite it's length.
Billy and Jim's relationship is contrived and so is everyone else's.
That's the movies weakness regardless of ANY editing.
Cutting it to just over 2 and half hours and removing the entire prologue and some scenes here and there (Jim first meeting Ella, Jim reading the death list, Ella's rape etc), would have made it a rambling, but very entertaining mini epic.
This film is the prime example of an artist failing to kill his darlings. As you said, the opening is the biggest problem. It's incredibly boring. If you can't deliver something in the first 20 minutes that is interesting or exciting or in some way moves you emotionally, you've failed. Great cinematography and nothing else, is essentially a polished turd.
Second biggest problem with this movie, to me, apart from the overall slow pace and incoherent and uninteresting story... the second biggest problem is the main character and Kris Kristofferson. The character is boring, and so is Kris Kristoffersons acting. Imagine someone like De Niro in that role.
@@laurencewhite4809 Kristofferson and Hurt being too old to pass as 20 yrs olds is hard to swallow, i'll give you that. But I don't feel the prologue is just plain boring and how then would you make the connection between the opening and closing of the film, where Nate resigns himself to his life of wealth, privilege and college trophy sweetheart after failing as a sheriff protecting and living as "one of the people". Seems you guys who feel this way have too short an attention span if you already lost interest in the first 30 min, you probably didn't even bother to see the rest!
Never waste time establishing something that has no particular payoff. The prologue is wholly unnecessary. The character actually works much better if you know less of his background, anyway. You can infer enough without that completely out of left field opener that goes on and on for no purpose.
Which is The sense of this? Do you want to let editing 2001 by Robert Zemeckis...It is so arbitrary way to watch cinema
it was a course assignment during my postgraduate studies...
@@MrSavo1992 Ok
@@MrSavo1992I hope your doing well fren
Svaka čast