Though unnecessarily long, this film has merits: wonderful scenery and cinematography, above-average acting (though Kristofferson can get a bit wooden), and an interesting storyline. But it's justifiably panned because Cimino got lost in and enraptured with his own screenplay, leaving him unable to make the crucial edits that would have let the movie flow instead of getting bogged down time after time. I'd welcome an aptly-edited 2-hour version instead of this failed attempt at an epic.

Lots of storylines, but short on stuff to care about. The vibrant vistas that were so striking in Cimino's first two efforts are still there, but this time they're kind of ruined by the sepia tone. The period setting was convincing enough without all the brownness. But the more I think about this movie the more I like it. I just don't know if I'd ever want to sit through it again.Also, the graduation is necessary for the development of Hurt's character, who is heartbreaking if you think about it

Passes the time.

There's nothing wrong with epics or sepia tones. But there is something overblown and self-indulgent about this movie. It's desperately in need of an anyone-but-the-director's cut. It's all beautifully shot and certain scenes, especially the dances, are fine inclusions even if they don't do much to support the story. But a lot of it is just filler. Still, it's not an awful movie, and the story itself is a reasonably compelling anti-Western, exploring ugly episodes from our nation's history.

With all of the baggage associated with Heaven's Gate, it's almost hard just to look at it as a movie. In all honesty, it's not really THAT bad. It's not great, but for all of its faults it does have some positives. Although there's a bit too much smoke and dust, some of the shots are gorgeous. The acting is all competent, and the story at least has an interesting premise. The execution doesn't always work, but it's far from the worst thing ever made.

593

3 hours of my life i'll never get back.

Flawed but so beautiful and with such rich content that I couldn't help really liking it. Cimino is obviously indulging whims everywhere, I don't think there's a single scene that couldn't use some cutting and there are quite a few times where everything just grinds to a halt, but underneath it all is a really compelling and dark western struggling to get out and impress.

#617

This is huge. Huge failure. Huge beauty. Huge boringness. Huge huge.

# 466

It's not a flawed masterpiece; it's a masterful flaw. Not as bad as everybody said it was when it came out -- after all, all that money and talent and perfectionism yields *something* -- just remarkably not meaty or rich

If I could I would give 48516547325643873463

This film opened to some of the most disastrous reviews any movie ever received. It was said to have "sunk" a major studio, United Artists, and the career of its director, Michael Cimino. Today, however, there is a second wave of critical reaction to Heaven's Gate - much kinder, more forgiving of the film's (real) flaws, more aware it's (real) strengths. To understand today's more sympathetic viewing of the film, check out the excellent user's reviews on www.imdb.com.

Bad, but not that bad. The Boondock Saints was worse.

Great story but unfortunately poorly executed. Pity.

So bad it's not good, it's just really really bad. At least Christopher Walken is cool in it.

This is not a "bad" film. It is a horribly miscalculated one. Cimino thinks his characters are multi-dimensional enough to flesh out a 3 hour long movie. He is wrong. Cimino thinks that his movie can not stand one more minute, nay, SECOND of editing. He is wrong. He is wrong about a lot of things. There IS an interesting story buried in here, and some of his compositions are genius (sheet with the bullet hole, for one) but the director is too in love with his vision to bother with telling it.

Beautiful filmmaking.

600