you mean the digital version available today that is recolored - not the original. my parents saw it and said it was like trying to watch a movie looking through a glass of tea. everything was a brown monotone.
@@MothGirl007 i disagree. i think it's actually starting to be overrated by a new generation. 1) they are enjoying a different prettier visual spectacle in the altered version which wasn't wasn't available from the real film, and 2) i think they are often just appreciating the drama and social importance inherent to the actual historical event rather than reacting to how well that history was adapted into a script. cimino has the talent to take a good story idea and create a great script, but he just didn't do it with this film. what burr seems not to get when he says heaven's gate is better than chariots of fire or that waterworld is a good movie is that it's not about a popular desire to tear down people who have had success (or at least it's not only about that. it's about taking into account what the artist wase given when you judge the work as successful or not. if i give you 5 minutes and some finger paints and a big piece of butchers paper, I'll say you were successful if you make something that's merely nice to look at. if you're given hundreds of dollars worth of oil paints and sable brushes and take six months to produce your painting, then even if it's 10% better than the cheap version in aesthetic terms, your effort will still be 100x worse because of all the wasted potential. so, waterworld would actually be an okay movie if it was a roger corman film made on a shoestring. you can say you personally enjoy watching heavens gate more than chariots of fire (although most people won't agree). chariots is a rather slight story and could easily be 15 minutes shorter, but heavens gate is an interminable meandering 3.5+ hours and was made using 15x the resources that went into chariots. that makes chariots a far better film. also, on a human level, there's something perverse about a film whose central message is about advocating for poor hardworking people who don't get a fair shake - and becoming so self-indulgent in the way that you waste money on the project that you end up ruining an independent company which challenged corporate giants and causing thousands of working class people to lose their jobs.
Heaven's Gate tanked U.A. That's why Cimino was crucified, and it led the end of a Film era when the Director was trusted with final cut. The movie is in no way bad, and is filled with amazing performances and cinematography (Vilmos Zsigmond), it's just too long in certain parts. I've always liked the movie though.
Yep. The corporations that owned the studios used Heaven's Gate to wrest control away from directors. We've been in Blockbuster Superhero Hell ever since.
It didn't lead to the end of that era alone, its just the one that stuck out. All the big directors had flops at this time then that stopped directors having control
@@guileniam True : Spielberg bombed big time with 1941, Friedkin bombed with CRUISING and DEAL OF THE CENTURY, and then John Landis truly f**ed everything up with his excesses which led to the accidental killing of Vic Morrow and 2 child actors in TWILIGHT ZONE THE MOVIE. THAT ended the era of the all-powerful directors.
I heard the final nail in Cimino's coffin was when he was the original director for Footloose, and he started to do the same things that he did on Heaven's Gate (Cimino wanted to rewrite the script, wanted to reconstruct the sets to his liking), which prompted Paramount Pictures to fire him. That incident told Hollywood that Cimino hadn't learned his lesson from Heaven's Gate.
The thing about Heavens Gate: it is NO WAY a storytelling masterpiece...but in fact ONE of the best VISUAL masterpieces ever made. No matter which style you prefer: The original 1980 sepia or the 2012 Restoration version...Vilmos Zsigmond, ASC visual storytelling gravitated you into that time period. Almost as astonishing as Néstor Almendros' work. 1980 really had a great year of visual breathtaking films like Raging Bull and The Elephant Man. A visual experience I WILL never forget. RIP Michael Cimino.
All great directors are first and foremost visual directors, even fucking Woody Allen knows exactly how to shoot his actors and his sets in the most efficient way, Vilmos, like any director of photography, isn't a director at all, he does what the movie director decides, he has no true leeway, a movie isn't an automobile, taylorism doesn't apply here, except if you're Brett Ratner and the likes.😁
I consider Babylon to be the modern equivalent of Heaven’s Gate. It came out, it bombed, and critics savaged it…..but just like Heaven’s Gate, when you actually watch it, it’s pretty fucking good.
in terms of quality, yeah. but Heaven's Gate literally destroyed a studio. And it destroyed Cimino essentially. Babylon just flopped. But Damien Chazelle has been too successful for it to even affect his career. He's just going to keep on going. (Cimino's perfectionism was almost deranged.)
The movie was literally the end of an era for creative artists. It’s a masterpiece but because it bombed it opened the door to the money men and corporations. 70’s was the last great decade of movie making.
It’s nowhere close being a masterpiece in my opinion. All the criterion magic dust in the world can’t make this film great. It’s a boring mess. It is sooooo slow, for no reason at all. The opening alone makes you go to sleep. And you don’t care for any of the characters. It’s literally just good cinematography. That’s it. Take the beautiful imagery away and you’re left with a story on ventilators.
@@KneeAches Yep, it was around the same time as Heavens Gate. Both signaled the end of the Auteur Era of Hollywood, where the director was given control of the their movies.
Heaven's Gate is a masterpiece. I think the biggest problem was the film was hastily put together when it was first released and for some unknown reason there was this godawful sepia tint added to the film. The 2012 restoration shows the cinematography in all it's glory. That being said, if you're someone who complains about the wedding scene in Deer Hunter this film is probably not for you.
I don't think the film is considered the worst film ever like it's well shot and everything it's just got the label of being the film that ended the era of director lead films.
Its reputation has shifted recently but when I was growing up (late 80s/90s), Heaven's Gate frequently appeared on *worst* films of all time lists. Its commercial failure seriously impacted its critical reception for decades.
The New York Times critic Vincent Canby panned the film, calling it "something quite rare in movies these days - an unqualified disaster," comparing it to "a forced four-hour walking tour of one's own living room." Reviewing the shorter cut in the Chicago Sun-Times, Roger Ebert criticized the film's formal choices and its narrative inconsistencies and incredulities, concluding that the film was "[t]he most scandalous cinematic waste I have ever seen, and remember, I've seen Paint Your Wagon." He also heavily criticized the cinematography, calling the film one of the ugliest he'd ever seen.[44] In 1999, Time placed the film on a list of the 100 worst ideas of the 20th century.[45] Writing in The Guardian in 2008, Joe Queenan declared Heaven’s Gate the worst film made up to that time. The Verge said: "Based on 30 years of critical assessment, Heaven's Gate stands as one of the worst movies ever made. That's not an exaggeration".[47]
The reason it was called the worst film is because the hidden history we largely don't know. This film cost other filmmakers an opportunity to get their films off of the ground, due to UA pumping money into it. In addition, the fact that the production was so indulgent, and some of Cimino's behavior on set caused a stir, and its release consequentially became the target of revenge and light ritualistic sacrifice. I like the film a lot. I like The Deer Hunter more.
@@lynnturman8157 Yep. You can cling to basically and that Bill Burr said something similar based on the same information. Both things are alike, but a little different. Good job.
Or even more simple studios didnt like how the director was spending its budget and they blacklisted him, propaganda smear campaigned him with the critics. Just like they did with Sam Peckingpaw when he did Pedro Garcia
@lynnturman8157 movie news was nowhere near as prevalent as it is today. I guarantee you that only the biggest nerd was aware of that. Most people didn't want to watch a 3.5 hour western when that genre was dying. (3.5 hours!!!) In the end it made less than 4 million while being one of the most expensive movie made. That's why it's a megabomb. This would be like a Marvel movie making 20 million in total.
Mickey Rourke also has a small part in a movie called "Fade to Black" from the same year. It's a neat little psychological horror gem that's worth checking out. The actor who plays Eddie in the Tim Curry version of "IT" is the main star.
Sound's like Bill was lucky to watch the director's cut if he said it was over three hours. I'm glad to hear he's a fan of New Hollywood's last hurrah. It should be celebrated like The Godfather and Apocalypse Now.
It's like going to huge scenes in the movie like a John Ford western . You actually see the money spent . Cimono was friends with the director of the Z Channel an original premium cable movie channel in Los Angeles before HBO and Cinemax . The Z Channel ran the original uncut version of Heaven's Gate and got great reviews from the subscribers .
You nailed it, Bill. I love films, but what distinguishes me from “professional critics” is that I love films and they love themselves. I love this movie. But in fairness, I must say ther version I love is the 2012 “restored” version which is dramatically recolonized to take out the dreary sepia cast which cast a dark shadow across the original version. The current Camino-approved revision is up there with Kubrick’s David Lean’s works.
I never accepted the labelling of Heavens Gate. All you have to do is watch it and you can see it is a great movie. I always suspected it got slandered because it painted a picture of the United States, that the United States did not like.
I watched this for the first time about a year ago on Criterion channel. Always heard a lot of negative stuff about it, but i loved it. I think theres different cuts of the movie though and im sure that probably plays a factor. The version i saw was like 3 hours 40 minutes or something
he didn't say that. just that Heaven's Gate was better, and that its condemnation in light of what he believes an inferior film winning awards is incongruous with his experience
And the English Patient. Which I liked better than Heavens Gate. HG is so over wrought and feels it from the get go. Also never believed Kristopherson could pull off a leading roll. Too wooden.
@@jameshays2646 Yeah, okay. I re-listened to it & he didn't call COF a bad movie. He just said it was all right but not as good as Heaven's Gate. Well, I still disagree with him. COF is a great movie, IMO.
I have a theory that maye critics are studio plants. He would sometimes give these super suspicious reviews that would have a ripple effect (given that criticsl were for DECADES the voices of film criticism for the general populous) that would severely damage and sometimes destroy the careers of people who the studios were already unhappy with. It is so so obvious that the studios wanted to make Cimino a scapegoat and wanted to switch to the producer-run blockbuster system we have today.
I haven't seen Heavens Gate yet but I intend to, I found Year of the Dragon to be pretty good. On another note I watched a similar infamous huge flop called Eureka with Gene Hackman and a lot of other dudes and it was one of the most epic films I've ever seen (at least the opening 30 minutes).
I’m actually watching this film right now and decided I would pause it and hear what others say about it. This film. Is. It just not bad it’s probably a misunderstood masterpiece. I think the fact that it’s so long turned a lot of people off.
The blitz against Heaven’s Gate is said to have started with a local entertainment reporter who got pissed over being snubbed for an on-set interview by the director, so he started floating negative rumors about the film and it snowballed. There were excesses to be sure, like Cimino making the cast wear period-correct undergarments under their costumes so their movement and figures would look more accurate. The film was likely intended to be released in 2-3 parts as was nearly 6 hours long. The climatic battle sequence by itself was over 2 hours long as originally filmed. The longest known cut is 5 hours and 35 minutes.
Eh, thee criticism was deserved, it can be a pretty iffy film in parts and it does have a grimmy vibe that makes it look sleazier than it is, but it is not horrendous and it is pretty OK.
UA was owned by the Transamerica Corp....the box office disaster didn't make a blip to its share price...it could have continued owning UA and continued making huge profits with the Bond and Rocky franchise plus the more critically acclaimed movies!
The older sepia version did not work out and the cut-down version with subtitles is a wreck, but HEAVEN'S GATE was a political target of the incoming Reagan Administration too, as Kristofferson explained. In real life, it is an extremely ambitious film that if it were not so Marxist, might have done better, but United Artists' best people left to form Orion Pictures and the now-defunct corporate owner Transamerica drive them away and didn't;t even want to run a studio anymore. The Criterion restoration with MGM/UA is the best way to see it and will hopefully get a 4K release at some point. If you want to know how smart the film really is, read the chapters on it in the late, great Robin Wood's book HOLLYWOOD FROM VIETNAM TO REAGAN which starts with THE DEER HUNTER and really hist the nail on the head.
Burr obviously saw the Director's Cut recently and he's not realizing all the hate and criticism for the film was for the theatrical cut, which was much shorter and chopped up.
Well, the initial release that got destroyed by critics was the longer cut. It only played for a week though before Cimino asked UA to withdraw it from theaters so he could recut it.
Heavens Gate ---- ravishing beautiful to look at ---- tedious slow upon watching. Not the best movie in the world but some of the best cimeotography ever put up on the big screen.
Kris Kristofferson was in a lot of movies, but it still seems like we never got enough of him as an actor. He feels underutilized in retrospect. I wish they had made a film version of the monkey wrench gang book in the late '70s, because he would have been a perfect Hayduke.
I love Cimino's movies. Thunderbolt and Lightfoot was one of my favorite movies when I was a kid and in college when I saw Deer Hunter it blew me away but I've never been able to watch Heaven's Gate all the way through in one sitting. Its a beautiful movie but a total slog. And I read the book Final Cut, about the making of it. Cimino acted like a complete spoiled child throughout. One of the things that buried it was Roger Ebert's initial review which ripped it to shreds in ways that were not fair.
Bill Burr has no clue as to the woes of Heaven''s Gate. It wasn't about the quality of the film; it was about the overspending of the production and the mismanagement of the film's production by inept executives.
Yeah, but it was also poorly reviewed. People said it was bad. It's definitely big and unwieldy. Unfocused, maybe. But it's closer to a masterpiece than most movies.
Yeah, the press didn't help. But a lot of the media attention at the time was focused around the money, asking "is this film good enough to warrant its unprecedented budget?" There's a fascinating book on the subject "Final Cut: Art, Money, and Ego in the Making of Heaven's Gate, the Film that Sank United Artists". Also, "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" touch on that as well. "Heaven's Gate" was around the time of "Apocalypse Now", so they were hunting for headstrong auteurs who didn't manage their budgets to the studio's (or Coppola's accountant's) liking.
No, the reviews killed it, and they were talking about quality. My favorite was “Watching ‘Heaven’s Gate’ is like taking a forced 4-hour walking tour of your own living room.” That review was was got MGM to pull it from theaters to cut an hour in an effort to save it.
@@erbaldwin1Coppola at least had a legit excuse for budget overruns since nearly all the sets had to be rebuilt after that typhoon. Plus the smaller delay waiting for Martin Sheen to recover from his heart attack.
@@bobcobb3654 The famed Vincent Canby review from New York Times. Roger Ebert compared it to "Paint Your Wagon" as the biggest cinematic waste ever. The only critic who loved it was Kevin Thomas of the Los Angeles Times who "never felt so alone enjoying a film". Funnily enough, the LA Times were so embarrassed by Kevin's review that they got the previous veteran critic to trash the film and put that review on the front page while Kevin's was placed in an interior section of the paper.
I agree with everyone here, and just want to add/ask: Didn't the studio fuck with the edit, too? Like, the version that got savaged in reviews wasn't even Cimino's complete vision. I'm sure that had something to do with its failure
I saw it the theater in 1980 and that print had a foggy yellow filter when it was printed and looked horrible. Get the Criterion restored version which is crisp and colorful without the ugly filter.
Heavens Gate was cocaine deal and money laundering operation. Almost everyone in that movie is coked out of their mind, I mean just look at Jeff Bridges in any scene he's in.
This is the problem with marketing, they do a bad job at managing expectations. Heaven's Gate looked like it was going to be bigger than Gone with the Wind and when you saw it, it was a major let down.
A visually beautiful film undone by the lack of charisma and chemistry between the actors. I still take a look at it every now and then just to see if I missed something and generally speaking it's still a slog to get through.
The problem is there's natural narratives that we sort media into, so when a movie goes waaaaay overbudget it can either be a masterpiece or a disaster, there's no other way for this story can pay off. So a lot of aggressively mediocre movies (Water World, Ishtar, etc) Become The Worst Ever... while the Acdemy dumps Oscars on a Titanic (a movie overpraised, I think, due to it being way over budget and an entertaining watch). Then there's the counter-narrative that often springs up where suddenly this disappointing thing is a secret masterpiece. The big problem I think HG had was the ugly sepia tone filter that took these beautiful images and turned them piss colored, so you're not only watching a needlessly overlong film, but an ugly one (reviews really harped on how ugly it was), so if you're watching the Criterion cut where they color-corrected it, you're not seeing the movie that was released in 1980.
I haven't seen it, but I at least know that most people die in the end. It just doesn't seem realistic, or something that people would really want to watch. Another commenter here said that there's no chemistry between the characters/actors. Cimino himself said that you can't make a movie for the purpose of pushing an agenda or idea, but it seems that that's exactly what this is. People watch movies for a sense of reality, and when you have characters that don't seem real, it really kills the movie. Doesn't matter how many extras you throw at the screen or how perfect the shot is. Or your best intentions to try to tell the untold stories and sacrifices behind the formation of America. That's presumably why people were annoyed by this. ...One could say similar things about Barry Lyndon but, aside from the main character, everything else in that movie seems pretty damn real. I wouldn't be surprised if Cimino was after the same prestige as Kubrick. He wanted to be as good, but no, it takes a bit more than that.
From what I've read, the issue with Heaven's Gate, was less to do the quality of the film, and more to do with it going way over budget and then bombing at the box office.
It's funny that quite a number of comments refer to the notion that this Movie ended the power of the director to choose his own final cut. Really? I think it maybe started the sub-genre - the Lucrative sub-genre - OF 'Director's Cut' versions of movies. Why sell a Movie once? No, first sell 'em a version they won't be satisfied with. Then sell'em an extended version. Then sell'em a complete version. Then sell'em the DIRECTOR'S CUT!!!!! - all silence now! Bow before the Master, you little people. ...........Oh and then sell'em the director's final cut, and then the definitive version, and then the.............
It was very over budget, over long, some scenes weren't lit properly. It got some bad reviews and didn't make enough money to justify its expense. Newer versions were cleaned up or remastered or whatever you do to make the picture clearer and in that light it is much better than it seemed a few years ago. There have been many, many worse movies made but most of them cost way less than this one cost (relative to the era in which it was made)
Bill's right in general, but there's more, here. I think there was a concerted effort to trash this auteurist movie, and you see it with Apocalypse Now, as well. "Francis' Folly". Blah blah. The money guys were tired of the "inmates running the asylum", that's it, and so they set their mouthpieces in the media to work, moaning about budget costs, pretentious directors, even environmental damage on occasion - whatever worked to get people contemptible of a movie before it came out. The campaign mostly worked - Heaven's Gate flopped, Apocalypse flopped (so they SAY, but I have doubts about that). Probably others I can't remember. Soon enough, the money men took it all back over and the quality of American cinema sagged considerably in the 80s, compared to the 70s. Amusingly enough, the studios still took risks anyway, but risks based on previous winning formulas. Rocky? Make 5 of 'em. Jaws? Make 4 of 'em. Animal House? Make 5,775 of 'em. How many Porky's CAN we make, anyway? At least 3? Meanwhile, Apocalypse Now is on a short list of "Greatest Ever", and Heaven's Gate is fine movie that needs the beginning sequence to be edited down by half.
The problem with marketing is they don't care if you're satisfied, they only care you pay for the ticket. Short-term thinking comes at long term expense.
The problem is, these days, shitty movies are the norm. Most of the big budget Hollywood, tent pole, crap released today makes Plan 9 From Outer Space look like Bergman’s finest cinema.
Have to take issue here. Chariots of Fire is a great movie. A wonderfully understated, moving film. The English Patient? Yeah, that's a piece of s***. Boring as f***. As for Heaven's Gate, took a 3rd viewing before I said to myself "this is a great film. Man, people were wrong on this.".
You are spot on, GoblinGirl - "Chariots of Fire" is timeless with probably the greatest theme song of any movie, ever. "Heaven's Gate" has many moments of sheer brilliance. And "The English Patient," depicting a love affair between two obnoxious, self-absorbed people does, indeed, suck. Cheers!
I haven’t seen Heaven’s Gate. Not really motivated to watch it. I liked Chariots Of Fire, but The English Patient was pretty shit except for the pretty cinematography, and Fargo absolutely should have won Best Picture in 1996.
I have to agree with Bill Burr’s list. I haven’t seen this one. I’ve seen a of You Tube press for this. Movies are shit these days. I’m sure that I’d be impressed, by this. I didn’t like Deer Hunter, the first time around. Now a days, I might like it better, because Movie stories aren’t very good.
I’ve watched Heavens Gate twice. Once when it came out. Certainly it’s not the worst movie all time but it was very disappointing at the time. My second viewing reinforced my opinion (and that is all this is) that it is not for me.
This isn't the original. The original had a sepia filter and was ugly and hard to see. Cimino fixed it 2012. Hey removed the sepia filter and made it beautiful.
Cimino had to be humbled, I guess. I saw it in the theater on initial release and thought it was fine, with some tremendously good moments. I have the restored version and I'm saving it for a rainy day. I had the same reaction to watching Ishtar. I thought it was really good. Admittedly, I think anything Elaine May has done is good. Maybe one has to like her vision/style/whatever to like her movies. The pile-on on that movie was horrible. I'm a far-cry from a feminist but the negative reaction to Ishtar has sexism all over it.
I wouldn't say sexism would be the main reason (Elaine was a critically acclaimed director/screenwriter throughout the 70s), I think most critics saw Ishtar as juggling way too many themes or having too many cooks in the kitchen. It has so many subplots, goes through so many different tones and that horrible music (although the main point is the music Beatty/Hoffman are performing is meant to be awful). It's definitely ambitious and deserving of a look but by no means did Elaine May deserve to have her career blown to smithereens because of it.
This film helped me in GCSE History 1992- Johnson County War- Thanks
Heavens gate is one of my favorite movies. Such a beautiful film
It's super underrated.
you mean the digital version available today that is recolored - not the original. my parents saw it and said it was like trying to watch a movie looking through a glass of tea. everything was a brown monotone.
@@MothGirl007 i disagree. i think it's actually starting to be overrated by a new generation. 1) they are enjoying a different prettier visual spectacle in the altered version which wasn't wasn't available from the real film, and 2) i think they are often just appreciating the drama and social importance inherent to the actual historical event rather than reacting to how well that history was adapted into a script. cimino has the talent to take a good story idea and create a great script, but he just didn't do it with this film.
what burr seems not to get when he says heaven's gate is better than chariots of fire or that waterworld is a good movie is that it's not about a popular desire to tear down people who have had success (or at least it's not only about that. it's about taking into account what the artist wase given when you judge the work as successful or not.
if i give you 5 minutes and some finger paints and a big piece of butchers paper, I'll say you were successful if you make something that's merely nice to look at. if you're given hundreds of dollars worth of oil paints and sable brushes and take six months to produce your painting, then even if it's 10% better than the cheap version in aesthetic terms, your effort will still be 100x worse because of all the wasted potential.
so, waterworld would actually be an okay movie if it was a roger corman film made on a shoestring. you can say you personally enjoy watching heavens gate more than chariots of fire (although most people won't agree). chariots is a rather slight story and could easily be 15 minutes shorter, but heavens gate is an interminable meandering 3.5+ hours and was made using 15x the resources that went into chariots. that makes chariots a far better film.
also, on a human level, there's something perverse about a film whose central message is about advocating for poor hardworking people who don't get a fair shake - and becoming so self-indulgent in the way that you waste money on the project that you end up ruining an independent company which challenged corporate giants and causing thousands of working class people to lose their jobs.
Heaven's Gate tanked U.A. That's why Cimino was crucified, and it led the end of a Film era when the Director was trusted with final cut. The movie is in no way bad, and is filled with amazing performances and cinematography (Vilmos Zsigmond), it's just too long in certain parts. I've always liked the movie though.
Yep. The corporations that owned the studios used Heaven's Gate to wrest control away from directors. We've been in Blockbuster Superhero Hell ever since.
It didn't lead to the end of that era alone, its just the one that stuck out. All the big directors had flops at this time then that stopped directors having control
@@guileniam True : Spielberg bombed big time with 1941, Friedkin bombed with CRUISING and DEAL OF THE CENTURY, and then John Landis truly f**ed everything up with his excesses which led to the accidental killing of Vic Morrow and 2 child actors in TWILIGHT ZONE THE MOVIE. THAT ended the era of the all-powerful directors.
@@guileniam I bet Coppola enjoys Cimino getting all the blame while "One from the Heart" has become forgotten in history as another catastrophic bomb.
I heard the final nail in Cimino's coffin was when he was the original director for Footloose, and he started to do the same things that he did on Heaven's Gate (Cimino wanted to rewrite the script, wanted to reconstruct the sets to his liking), which prompted Paramount Pictures to fire him. That incident told Hollywood that Cimino hadn't learned his lesson from Heaven's Gate.
The thing about Heavens Gate: it is NO WAY a storytelling masterpiece...but in fact ONE of the best VISUAL masterpieces ever made. No matter which style you prefer: The original 1980 sepia or the 2012 Restoration version...Vilmos Zsigmond, ASC visual storytelling gravitated you into that time period. Almost as astonishing as Néstor Almendros' work.
1980 really had a great year of visual breathtaking films like Raging Bull and The Elephant Man.
A visual experience I WILL never forget. RIP Michael Cimino.
All great directors are first and foremost visual directors, even fucking Woody Allen knows exactly how to shoot his actors and his sets in the most efficient way, Vilmos, like any director of photography, isn't a director at all, he does what the movie director decides, he has no true leeway, a movie isn't an automobile, taylorism doesn't apply here, except if you're Brett Ratner and the likes.😁
Totally agree - it is a visual masterpiece.
Heavens Gate is a boring mess of a sleeping pill, even with the beautiful photography.
I consider Babylon to be the modern equivalent of Heaven’s Gate. It came out, it bombed, and critics savaged it…..but just like Heaven’s Gate, when you actually watch it, it’s pretty fucking good.
in terms of quality, yeah. but Heaven's Gate literally destroyed a studio. And it destroyed Cimino essentially. Babylon just flopped. But Damien Chazelle has been too successful for it to even affect his career. He's just going to keep on going. (Cimino's perfectionism was almost deranged.)
The movie was literally the end of an era for creative artists.
It’s a masterpiece but because it bombed it opened the door to the money men and corporations.
70’s was the last great decade of movie making.
It’s nowhere close being a masterpiece in my opinion. All the criterion magic dust in the world can’t make this film great. It’s a boring mess. It is sooooo slow, for no reason at all. The opening alone makes you go to sleep. And you don’t care for any of the characters. It’s literally just good cinematography. That’s it. Take the beautiful imagery away and you’re left with a story on ventilators.
Sorcerer is also amazing
I am guessing you bring up Scorcerer as another movie that bombed? Not a fan of Heavens Gate but you are right about Scorcerer.
@@KneeAches Yep, it was around the same time as Heavens Gate. Both signaled the end of the Auteur Era of Hollywood, where the director was given control of the their movies.
Sorcerer is excellent.
Shoulda won best picture that year
Sorcerer was as an awesome flick!
I agree. Watched it on the Criterion Channel. It's fabulous
Heaven's Gate is a masterpiece. I think the biggest problem was the film was hastily put together when it was first released and for some unknown reason there was this godawful sepia tint added to the film. The 2012 restoration shows the cinematography in all it's glory. That being said, if you're someone who complains about the wedding scene in Deer Hunter this film is probably not for you.
I don't think the film is considered the worst film ever like it's well shot and everything it's just got the label of being the film that ended the era of director lead films.
Its reputation has shifted recently but when I was growing up (late 80s/90s), Heaven's Gate frequently appeared on *worst* films of all time lists. Its commercial failure seriously impacted its critical reception for decades.
The New York Times critic Vincent Canby panned the film, calling it "something quite rare in movies these days - an unqualified disaster," comparing it to "a forced four-hour walking tour of one's own living room."
Reviewing the shorter cut in the Chicago Sun-Times, Roger Ebert criticized the film's formal choices and its narrative inconsistencies and incredulities, concluding that the film was "[t]he most scandalous cinematic waste I have ever seen, and remember, I've seen Paint Your Wagon." He also heavily criticized the cinematography, calling the film one of the ugliest he'd ever seen.[44]
In 1999, Time placed the film on a list of the 100 worst ideas of the 20th century.[45]
Writing in The Guardian in 2008, Joe Queenan declared Heaven’s Gate the worst film made up to that time.
The Verge said: "Based on 30 years of critical assessment, Heaven's Gate stands as one of the worst movies ever made. That's not an exaggeration".[47]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_considered_the_worst#1980s do you...
The critics had it in for the film before it was released and everyone got itchy feet, it's a good film.
It's a great movie. Watch the 216-minute version. It's beautiful.
The reason it was called the worst film is because the hidden history we largely don't know. This film cost other filmmakers an opportunity to get their films off of the ground, due to UA pumping money into it. In addition, the fact that the production was so indulgent, and some of Cimino's behavior on set caused a stir, and its release consequentially became the target of revenge and light ritualistic sacrifice. I like the film a lot. I like The Deer Hunter more.
So basically what Bill was saying...people decided it was bad because of the controversy surrounding it instead of what was on the screen.
@@lynnturman8157 Yep. You can cling to basically and that Bill Burr said something similar based on the same information. Both things are alike, but a little different. Good job.
Or even more simple studios didnt like how the director was spending its budget and they blacklisted him, propaganda smear campaigned him with the critics. Just like they did with Sam Peckingpaw when he did Pedro Garcia
@lynnturman8157 movie news was nowhere near as prevalent as it is today. I guarantee you that only the biggest nerd was aware of that. Most people didn't want to watch a 3.5 hour western when that genre was dying. (3.5 hours!!!)
In the end it made less than 4 million while being one of the most expensive movie made. That's why it's a megabomb. This would be like a Marvel movie making 20 million in total.
Heaven's Gate is my favorite film of all time.
Have you seen the 5 hour 35 minute cut?
@@Clarence_Oddbody Has anybody?
@@LeonWick526 Some have. TCM or someone did a documentary about the film and mentioned it as a rough cut.
@@Clarence_Oddbody All I've seen is the Criterion Collection director's cut.
Mickey Rourke's first movie was Heaven's Gate and became good friends with Cimino.
Mickey Rourke also has a small part in a movie called "Fade to Black" from the same year. It's a neat little psychological horror gem that's worth checking out. The actor who plays Eddie in the Tim Curry version of "IT" is the main star.
Actually, he shows up in 1979 in Spielberg's 1941!
Sound's like Bill was lucky to watch the director's cut if he said it was over three hours. I'm glad to hear he's a fan of New Hollywood's last hurrah. It should be celebrated like The Godfather and Apocalypse Now.
It's a masterpiece
…..Of Bullshit!!
@@capoislamort100No. It's a masterpiece. Stop hating on it. You're toxic.
@@jesseowenvillamor6348 you can’t sprinkle sugar on $h|+ and call it a cake, it’s just my opinion.
@@capoislamort100 No, no. You're wrong and Heaven's Gate is a masterpiece. That's just it.
Visually yes, but the story telling could have been better.
It's like going to huge scenes in the movie like a John Ford western . You actually see the money spent . Cimono was friends with the director of the Z Channel an original premium cable movie channel in Los Angeles before HBO and Cinemax . The Z Channel ran the original uncut version of Heaven's Gate and got great reviews from the subscribers .
Heaven's Gate is a gorgeous film, but it's definitely a slow burn.
… always liked this movie.
You nailed it, Bill. I love films, but what distinguishes me from “professional critics” is that I love films and they love themselves. I love this movie. But in fairness, I must say ther version I love is the 2012 “restored” version which is dramatically recolonized to take out the dreary sepia cast which cast a dark shadow across the original version. The current Camino-approved revision is up there with Kubrick’s David Lean’s works.
I never accepted the labelling of Heavens Gate. All you have to do is watch it and you can see it is a great movie. I always suspected it got slandered because it painted a picture of the United States, that the United States did not like.
I watched this for the first time about a year ago on Criterion channel. Always heard a lot of negative stuff about it, but i loved it. I think theres different cuts of the movie though and im sure that probably plays a factor. The version i saw was like 3 hours 40 minutes or something
Heaven’s Gate was released with a dark sepia filter over all the colors. The colorful version we see here didn’t see the light of day until the 2000s.
I was on board, Bill, until you called Chariots of Fire a bad movie. Chariots of Fire is a great movie. One of my favorites ever.
he didn't say that. just that Heaven's Gate was better, and that its condemnation in light of what he believes an inferior film winning awards is incongruous with his experience
Nope
And the English Patient. Which I liked better than Heavens Gate. HG is so over wrought and feels it from the get go. Also never believed Kristopherson could pull off a leading roll. Too wooden.
@@jameshays2646 Yeah, okay. I re-listened to it & he didn't call COF a bad movie. He just said it was all right but not as good as Heaven's Gate. Well, I still disagree with him. COF is a great movie, IMO.
*Fun Fact: Bridges was so enchanted by the cabin built for his character in the film that he bought it.*
I have a theory that maye critics are studio plants. He would sometimes give these super suspicious reviews that would have a ripple effect (given that criticsl were for DECADES the voices of film criticism for the general populous) that would severely damage and sometimes destroy the careers of people who the studios were already unhappy with.
It is so so obvious that the studios wanted to make Cimino a scapegoat and wanted to switch to the producer-run blockbuster system we have today.
Bill is very correct on this one. It's a beautifully made movie. Cimino made a few great movies, Year of The Dragon included imo
I haven't seen Heavens Gate yet but I intend to, I found Year of the Dragon to be pretty good. On another note I watched a similar infamous huge flop called Eureka with Gene Hackman and a lot of other dudes and it was one of the most epic films I've ever seen (at least the opening 30 minutes).
Awesome film
I’m actually watching this film right now and decided I would pause it and hear what others say about it. This film. Is. It just not bad it’s probably a misunderstood masterpiece. I think the fact that it’s so long turned a lot of people off.
The blitz against Heaven’s Gate is said to have started with a local entertainment reporter who got pissed over being snubbed for an on-set interview by the director, so he started floating negative rumors about the film and it snowballed. There were excesses to be sure, like Cimino making the cast wear period-correct undergarments under their costumes so their movement and figures would look more accurate. The film was likely intended to be released in 2-3 parts as was nearly 6 hours long. The climatic battle sequence by itself was over 2 hours long as originally filmed. The longest known cut is 5 hours and 35 minutes.
"Waterworld is a good movie" indeed it is.
Eh, thee criticism was deserved, it can be a pretty iffy film in parts and it does have a grimmy vibe that makes it look sleazier than it is, but it is not horrendous and it is pretty OK.
UA was owned by the Transamerica Corp....the box office disaster didn't make a blip to its share price...it could have continued owning UA and continued making huge profits with the Bond and Rocky franchise plus the more critically acclaimed movies!
The older sepia version did not work out and the cut-down version with subtitles is a wreck, but HEAVEN'S GATE was a political target of the incoming Reagan Administration too, as Kristofferson explained. In real life, it is an extremely ambitious film that if it were not so Marxist, might have done better, but United Artists' best people left to form Orion Pictures and the now-defunct corporate owner Transamerica drive them away and didn't;t even want to run a studio anymore. The Criterion restoration with MGM/UA is the best way to see it and will hopefully get a 4K release at some point. If you want to know how smart the film really is, read the chapters on it in the late, great Robin Wood's book HOLLYWOOD FROM VIETNAM TO REAGAN which starts with THE DEER HUNTER and really hist the nail on the head.
Burr obviously saw the Director's Cut recently and he's not realizing all the hate and criticism for the film was for the theatrical cut, which was much shorter and chopped up.
Well, the initial release that got destroyed by critics was the longer cut. It only played for a week though before Cimino asked UA to withdraw it from theaters so he could recut it.
Bill needs Letterboxd
Yeah it's very popular over there.
Heavens Gate ---- ravishing beautiful to look at ---- tedious slow upon watching. Not the best movie in the world but some of the best cimeotography ever put up on the big screen.
💯
Great American cinematic film.
Kris Kristofferson was in a lot of movies, but it still seems like we never got enough of him as an actor. He feels underutilized in retrospect. I wish they had made a film version of the monkey wrench gang book in the late '70s, because he would have been a perfect Hayduke.
The Artist hasn't aged well as a best picture winner along with Life Is Beautiful
It's a masterpiece. But it's certainly not for everyone.
I love Cimino's movies. Thunderbolt and Lightfoot was one of my favorite movies when I was a kid and in college when I saw Deer Hunter it blew me away but I've never been able to watch Heaven's Gate all the way through in one sitting. Its a beautiful movie but a total slog. And I read the book Final Cut, about the making of it. Cimino acted like a complete spoiled child throughout.
One of the things that buried it was Roger Ebert's initial review which ripped it to shreds in ways that were not fair.
Agree on Deer Hunter and slow pace of HG. My friends and I couldn't talk after leaving the cinema after watching Deer Hunter. It was overwhelming.
BB is a film actor, among other things, also film student
Bill Burr has no clue as to the woes of Heaven''s Gate. It wasn't about the quality of the film; it was about the overspending of the production and the mismanagement of the film's production by inept executives.
Yeah, but it was also poorly reviewed. People said it was bad. It's definitely big and unwieldy. Unfocused, maybe. But it's closer to a masterpiece than most movies.
Yeah, the press didn't help. But a lot of the media attention at the time was focused around the money, asking "is this film good enough to warrant its unprecedented budget?"
There's a fascinating book on the subject "Final Cut: Art, Money, and Ego in the Making of Heaven's Gate, the Film that Sank United Artists". Also, "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" touch on that as well. "Heaven's Gate" was around the time of "Apocalypse Now", so they were hunting for headstrong auteurs who didn't manage their budgets to the studio's (or Coppola's accountant's) liking.
No, the reviews killed it, and they were talking about quality. My favorite was “Watching ‘Heaven’s Gate’ is like taking a forced 4-hour walking tour of your own living room.” That review was was got MGM to pull it from theaters to cut an hour in an effort to save it.
@@erbaldwin1Coppola at least had a legit excuse for budget overruns since nearly all the sets had to be rebuilt after that typhoon. Plus the smaller delay waiting for Martin Sheen to recover from his heart attack.
@@bobcobb3654 The famed Vincent Canby review from New York Times. Roger Ebert compared it to "Paint Your Wagon" as the biggest cinematic waste ever. The only critic who loved it was Kevin Thomas of the Los Angeles Times who "never felt so alone enjoying a film". Funnily enough, the LA Times were so embarrassed by Kevin's review that they got the previous veteran critic to trash the film and put that review on the front page while Kevin's was placed in an interior section of the paper.
Always loved the movie, but I'm a history nerd sooooooo
I agree with everyone here, and just want to add/ask: Didn't the studio fuck with the edit, too? Like, the version that got savaged in reviews wasn't even Cimino's complete vision. I'm sure that had something to do with its failure
The English Patient was an amazing film. Must have gone over Bill's head. Kind of like COVID 😳😂
I saw it the theater in 1980 and that print had a foggy yellow filter when it was printed and looked horrible. Get the Criterion restored version which is crisp and colorful without the ugly filter.
One of the greatest movies of all time
Finally got to see Heaven's Gate and thought it was pretty good actually. Shame it broke the studio
Heavens Gate was cocaine deal and money laundering operation. Almost everyone in that movie is coked out of their mind, I mean just look at Jeff Bridges in any scene he's in.
Heaven's Gate is a legit great film.
"One of the worst movies ever made." Give me a break with that. Have none of these people seen "Monster a Go-Go"?
This is the problem with marketing, they do a bad job at managing expectations. Heaven's Gate looked like it was going to be bigger than Gone with the Wind and when you saw it, it was a major let down.
A visually beautiful film undone by the lack of charisma and chemistry between the actors. I still take a look at it every now and then just to see if I missed something and generally speaking it's still a slog to get through.
It was infamously over-budget and not on time, that is the poor reputation.
The problem is there's natural narratives that we sort media into, so when a movie goes waaaaay overbudget it can either be a masterpiece or a disaster, there's no other way for this story can pay off. So a lot of aggressively mediocre movies (Water World, Ishtar, etc) Become The Worst Ever... while the Acdemy dumps Oscars on a Titanic (a movie overpraised, I think, due to it being way over budget and an entertaining watch).
Then there's the counter-narrative that often springs up where suddenly this disappointing thing is a secret masterpiece.
The big problem I think HG had was the ugly sepia tone filter that took these beautiful images and turned them piss colored, so you're not only watching a needlessly overlong film, but an ugly one (reviews really harped on how ugly it was), so if you're watching the Criterion cut where they color-corrected it, you're not seeing the movie that was released in 1980.
@@stevenclubb7718 this was a great read and insight
Kristofferson and Rourke appeared together years later in
the music video
"Shuttin Detroit Down"
by John Rich
I haven't seen it, but I at least know that most people die in the end. It just doesn't seem realistic, or something that people would really want to watch. Another commenter here said that there's no chemistry between the characters/actors.
Cimino himself said that you can't make a movie for the purpose of pushing an agenda or idea, but it seems that that's exactly what this is. People watch movies for a sense of reality, and when you have characters that don't seem real, it really kills the movie. Doesn't matter how many extras you throw at the screen or how perfect the shot is. Or your best intentions to try to tell the untold stories and sacrifices behind the formation of America. That's presumably why people were annoyed by this. ...One could say similar things about Barry Lyndon but, aside from the main character, everything else in that movie seems pretty damn real. I wouldn't be surprised if Cimino was after the same prestige as Kubrick. He wanted to be as good, but no, it takes a bit more than that.
Please upload this movie free for all
Reminds me of the reception of Babylon.
From what I've read, the issue with Heaven's Gate, was less to do the quality of the film, and more to do with it going way over budget and then bombing at the box office.
It's funny that quite a number of comments refer to the notion that this Movie ended the power of the director to choose his own final cut. Really?
I think it maybe started the sub-genre - the Lucrative sub-genre - OF 'Director's Cut' versions of movies. Why sell a Movie once? No, first sell 'em a version they won't be satisfied with. Then sell'em an extended version. Then sell'em a complete version. Then sell'em the DIRECTOR'S CUT!!!!! - all silence now! Bow before the Master, you little people.
...........Oh and then sell'em the director's final cut, and then the definitive version, and then the.............
Ridley Scott & Zack Snyder are experts in that business
It was very over budget, over long, some scenes weren't lit properly. It got some bad reviews and didn't make enough money to justify its expense. Newer versions were cleaned up or remastered or whatever you do to make the picture clearer and in that light it is much better than it seemed a few years ago. There have been many, many worse movies made but most of them cost way less than this one cost (relative to the era in which it was made)
Showgirls was awesome, Bill.
Hollywood never liked thoughtful third international perspective pictures. 4th international is fine but never third international.
Bill's right in general, but there's more, here. I think there was a concerted effort to trash this auteurist movie, and you see it with Apocalypse Now, as well. "Francis' Folly". Blah blah. The money guys were tired of the "inmates running the asylum", that's it, and so they set their mouthpieces in the media to work, moaning about budget costs, pretentious directors, even environmental damage on occasion - whatever worked to get people contemptible of a movie before it came out. The campaign mostly worked - Heaven's Gate flopped, Apocalypse flopped (so they SAY, but I have doubts about that). Probably others I can't remember. Soon enough, the money men took it all back over and the quality of American cinema sagged considerably in the 80s, compared to the 70s. Amusingly enough, the studios still took risks anyway, but risks based on previous winning formulas. Rocky? Make 5 of 'em. Jaws? Make 4 of 'em. Animal House? Make 5,775 of 'em. How many Porky's CAN we make, anyway? At least 3? Meanwhile, Apocalypse Now is on a short list of "Greatest Ever", and Heaven's Gate is fine movie that needs the beginning sequence to be edited down by half.
The problem with marketing is they don't care if you're satisfied, they only care you pay for the ticket. Short-term thinking comes at long term expense.
The problem is, these days, shitty movies are the norm. Most of the big budget Hollywood, tent pole, crap released today makes Plan 9 From Outer Space look like Bergman’s finest cinema.
A cast of thousands. The movie was attacked.
Hollywood producers reasserting control from the artists. No more Francis Ford Coppolas, or their pinko societal analysis.
Have to take issue here. Chariots of Fire is a great movie. A wonderfully understated, moving film.
The English Patient? Yeah, that's a piece of s***. Boring as f***.
As for Heaven's Gate, took a 3rd viewing before I said to myself "this is a great film. Man, people were wrong on this.".
You are spot on, GoblinGirl - "Chariots of Fire" is timeless with probably the greatest theme song of any movie, ever. "Heaven's Gate" has many moments of sheer brilliance. And "The English Patient," depicting a love affair between two obnoxious, self-absorbed people does, indeed, suck. Cheers!
i agree but why is michael so obsessed with long wedding scenes
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
There is a comedy with Ryan o’neal playing an egotistical movie director. Word on da street that it is based on his close friend; Michael Cimino.
It wasn't dubbed worst picture of all time...but wasn't it biggest box-office bomb ?
I haven’t seen Heaven’s Gate. Not really motivated to watch it. I liked Chariots Of Fire, but The English Patient was pretty shit except for the pretty cinematography, and Fargo absolutely should have won Best Picture in 1996.
Why is it that Burr looks so much like Billy Corgan??
This is at the top of my watch list. I want to see the biggest flop of all time.
It's not the worst movie of all time but it's not a masterpiece either
People are going overboard on both sides about this movie
The reason this movie bombed is because it's a western with NO cowboy hats.
I thought Ishtar had been called the worst movie ever.
The waltz on the lawn and the opening of 2001: A Space Odyssey...
Hollywood studios pay for rewards! Isn't that what Ricky Gervais taught us?
Is it the worst movie ever? No. Does it suck and drag on and on and on? Yes.
With a good, tighter editing Heaven's Gate would be a great movie, a classic.
Heavens gate is so gorgeous but man but it drag in parts
I mean it looks ok. I'd see it.
Worst movie? ......"Oh hi Mark."
I have to agree with Bill Burr’s list. I haven’t seen this one. I’ve seen a of You Tube press for this. Movies are shit these days. I’m sure that I’d be impressed, by this. I didn’t like Deer Hunter, the first time around. Now a days, I might like it better, because Movie stories aren’t very good.
I thought this was going to be about the cult
Showgirls and Waterworld are fun to watch and good movies in my book. Heaven's Gate is excruciatingly boring.
Yeah it was overplayed comment that became a reality...easy comment to keep reprinting years later.
They killed alot of animals on the set. Led to the "no animals were harmed" being in movies credits
Heavens Gates fantastic movie
I’ve watched Heavens Gate twice. Once when it came out. Certainly it’s not the worst movie all time but it was very disappointing at the time. My second viewing reinforced my opinion (and that is all this is) that it is not for me.
The English patient is illegal
Heavens Gate better than Chariots of Fire- are you kidding- oh wait your a comedian
Why don't Americans know the difference between cement and concrete?
This isn't the original. The original had a sepia filter and was ugly and hard to see. Cimino fixed it 2012. Hey removed the sepia filter and made it beautiful.
Cimino had to be humbled, I guess. I saw it in the theater on initial release and thought it was fine, with some tremendously good moments. I have the restored version and I'm saving it for a rainy day.
I had the same reaction to watching Ishtar. I thought it was really good. Admittedly, I think anything Elaine May has done is good. Maybe one has to like her vision/style/whatever to like her movies. The pile-on on that movie was horrible. I'm a far-cry from a feminist but the negative reaction to Ishtar has sexism all over it.
I wouldn't say sexism would be the main reason (Elaine was a critically acclaimed director/screenwriter throughout the 70s), I think most critics saw Ishtar as juggling way too many themes or having too many cooks in the kitchen. It has so many subplots, goes through so many different tones and that horrible music (although the main point is the music Beatty/Hoffman are performing is meant to be awful). It's definitely ambitious and deserving of a look but by no means did Elaine May deserve to have her career blown to smithereens because of it.
@@koomo801 “I’m a far cry from a feminist” You probably are you just don’t like the branding for insecure reasons
Heaven's Gate is not better than The English Patient. It looks great but the story is incoherent.
Bill just can't mask his xenophobia