Mary Poppins Returns
Log in with Facebook
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Already have an account? Log in here
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
No consensus yet.
No consensus yet.
All Critics (42)
| Top Critics (9)
| Fresh (24)
| Rotten (18)
| DVD (3)
On a purely sensory level, Heaven's Gate is overpowering.
If anything, Michael Cimino's inert disaster of a Western has gotten worse over the years ...
The longer version is impressive as long as the characters and settings remain in long shot; only when the camera gets closer do the problems start.
It really is a stinker.
The balance of director Michael Cimino's film is so confusing, so overlong at three-and-a-half hours and so ponderous that it fails to work at almost every level.
For all the abuse heaped on it, this is -- in its complete version, at least -- a majestic and lovingly detailed Western which simultaneously celebrates and undermines the myth of the American frontier.
Neither Kris Kristofferson nor Christopher Walken, both of them fine actors, can prevail against the relentless scale and movement of the production.
It is a bloated Western that contains some extraordinary moments, a lot of heavy-handed political commentary and a hell of a lot of padding.
Enormous, but also gorgeous in its enormity.
The first critics to lay eyes on it mistook the emphasis on the personal and painterly for self-indulgence - static naval gazing. This confuses incident with the incidental.
I will leave others to pick nits off this epic panorama.
It is a demanding film, without a doubt - but a passionate one.
worth watching but much of the criticism is well founded imo. every scene goes on too long. period detail is exquisite and it's one of the most beautiful films i've seen but everything here is just too big. the story needed more focus. maybe a great two hour film in here somewhere
So, I'd finally decided to watch this all the way through after years of putting it off. Is it a bad film? Well...kinda. It's also a case of reputation preceeding the actual film. This isn't one of those thin, blown-out silly Kevin Costner productions. The acting wasn't bad, either. Sam Waterston, Jeff Bridges, Brad Dourif and Mickey Rourke are good in small roles. It's nice to see Walken play a complex character, something sorely lacking from his career, as of late. The lush cinematography is also top notch.
What the film does suffer from is too much ambition, poor pacing, a wandering narrative that's not necessarily difficult to follow, but is tedious. Those scenes, such as the opening graduation, not only droned on at a length unnecessary to make their points, but the director had spent millions of dollars on elements which were irrelevant. I understand a director wanting to take his time to tell a story and immerse the audience into his world, but fucking come on already. There have always been harsh criticisms towards this movie, many by those who may have never seen it. I will say that some of those harsh criticisms are valid.
Aside from some questionable looking treatment of animals and a sad lead actress choice, I can't quite understand why this film did not do better. It's gangbusters! I've seen way shorter films that seemed a hell of a lot longer, I kid you not.
There's one thing I can't forgive to Michael Cimino, it's his uncontrollable persistence of stretching things with no reason, in the end that was what condemned him to ostracism. This film was cursed as the one who took legendary studio united artists to bankruptcy and was also mutilated on the editing room. despite all, the film has epic scope, breathtaking visuals, good performances and beautiful emotional moments.
There are no approved quotes yet for this movie.