Name That Movie!

[Joe Guy]

Must admit though, it's got me wanting to watch it - if just for seeing so many decent actors stoop so low.

Was it a short movie?

[MajGenl.Meade]

No, silly! But this one was:

[BoSoxGal]

Heaven's Gate was digitally remastered and re-released in a 216 minute version which captures Cimino's original vision for the film; it was featured at the 69th Venice Film Festival and a couple of others in 2012. It's now considered by some critics as a masterpiece of filmmaking. I think it's a pretty amazing film - I've only seen the Criterion Collection re-release, never the 1981 box office bomb version.

[RayThom]

Another short film:

[Big RR]

Heaven's Gate was digitally remastered and re-released in a 216 minute version which captures Cimino's original vision for the film; it was featured at the 69th Venice Film Festival and a couple of others in 2012. It's now considered by some critics as a masterpiece of filmmaking. I think it's a pretty amazing film - I've only seen the Criterion Collection re-release, never the 1981 box office bomb version.

I saw both, and the 2012 version is much better than the 1981 version (around 2 and a half hours as I recall); not a masterpiece IMHO, but the length addresses some of the problems with the 1981 story. this has happened with a number of movies (Once Upon a Time in America is a good example), but Hollywood believes 9and they may be right) that the average moviegoer will not sit still that long no matter how good the movie is.
Perhaps, in these days of 8-10 hour binging on series, we may yet see a return of movies longer than 90-120 minutes.

[Bicycle Bill]

Hollywood believes (and they may be right) that the average moviegoer will not sit still that long no matter how good the movie is.
Perhaps, in these days of 8-10 hour binging on series, we may yet see a return of movies longer than 90-120 minutes.

The eight films in the 'Harry Potter' series averaged 147 minutes each (150 minutes if you count the extended versions of the first two films)

• Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone - 152 minutes (extended: 159)
  Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets - 161 minutes (extended: 174)
  Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - 142 minutes
  Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - 157 minutes
  Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - 138 minutes
  Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - 153 minutes
  Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 - 146 minutes
  Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 - 130 minutes
     (and if you combine the last two they took 276 minutes — over 4½ hours — to cover the entire story)

And all of these films made a boatload of money.

So it seems that at least on some occasions, people have no problems with parking their butts in the seats for two hours or more.

-"BB"-

[Big RR]

Every one of them was in a series directed at only a segment of moviegoers--the same could be said about the Ring Trilogy (I'll leave the Hobbit out of it--2 parts?). Sure, there are exceptions, and some do quite well, but the average length of released movies is far closer to 100 minutes than to any of those.

Returning to Heaven's Gate, I think the biggest problem many had with it was that it was the anti-western--no beautiful panoramas, just dirty dusty towns and dirty dusty/scrubby plains. It was not inviting, more off-putting (which is why I liked it even in the 3 hour version), but it is one of the reason it was not an audience favorite (even The Deer Hunter had its scenery.

[BoSoxGal]

You have an entirely different perception than mine.

I just rewatched it the other night after replying to Meade's post, and spent the entire time enthralled with the stunning beauty of every scene - not just the sweeping vistas of northern Montana where it was filmed (the mountain peaks were very familiar to me as Glacier and surrounding ranges, and Cimino captured on film the many glaciers now gone forever), but also the exquisite lighting and color of every single moment in the film. It's really an incredible work of art - and it's obvious why Cimino, a painter by training and natural talent, was able to overrun the budget by 4x and the completion date by a year - he was clearly obsessed with perfection in making the film, and the UA executives gave him an open contract, then blamed him for the entirely predictable result. I've read articles wherein cast and crew reported he required something like an average of 30 takes for every single scene! And apparently he kept nearly the entire cast and crew waiting an entire day for just the right light and scudding of clouds across the Big Sky in one scene.

I think the movie is even more relevant today than upon release, considering the focus on prejudice against immigrants and socialism v. capitalism.

And oh, that glorious roller skating dance scene! And the Harvard waltz! His vision was really brilliant, I think. Clearly he was a genius in both the best and worst senses, and it's very sad that all the controversy over his budget overruns and production delays ended up basically sinking his career - I really do think the movie is visionary, and I wish he'd had the opportunity to make Malraux's Man's Fate, it was a favorite of my comparative literature studies and I'd love to have seen his vision of it. That's on my bucket list for things to see in heaven, if I find there is one.

Here's a good piece about the film and its controversy, for any unfamiliar:

How Heaven's Gate killed Cimino's career


I've got 5 hours left on my rental, I'm going to watch it again - for all the breathtaking Montana scenery and the exquisite direction and cinematography.

[Big RR]

BSG--it has been a while, but I recall a lot more dust and sand than snow or glaciers, kind of like the way the town looked in the photo first presented in the attached article. Yes, there is beauty in that, and there were also scenes of the type you describe, but this was not the romanticized west of John Ford, it was the real west, with all types of people including immigrants and those who blamed them for everything, good guys and criminals, and people just doing what they have to do to get by.

And you're right, I loved the Harvard and the roller skating scenes, but then I think it's scenes like them that can show movies at their best. I just think some people cannot jus tsit still and experience something, they always want to be jumping ahead to where the narrative is going instead of enjoying the journey--which is why I maintain a lot of people don't like to watch long films.

[BoSoxGal]

Oh I agree - and a lot of the series that people binge these days are fairly action packed, or have a great deal more dialogue and character 'action' than Heaven's Gate, which is basically an art film on a massive scale.

I do think that 100 years from now it will be widely considered a cinematic masterpiece, not only for the visuals but for the 'real' West and real 'American Dream' it depicted.

Last night I watched a beautiful film that draws a comparison; Jane Campion's Bright Star. It depicts the last few years of John Keats's life and the love he shared with Fanny Brawne. Keats died young, indebted and believing himself a failure - yet he's now considered one of the greatest poets who ever lived. I highly recommend the film, it's just lovely with terrific acting all around. It's only a 'chick flick' if one has no appreciation of poetry.

[Lord Jim]

Datsun, I think the time may have come to pull the plug on this one, and go with a new flick...

The first quote about the six shooter was familiar to me, I could recall the film's stars and the plot, but I couldn't place the title and had to look it up...(I actually saw the movie in a theater when it came out)...I get the impression that everyone else here who now knows the title also had to look it up....

[Econoline]

Yeah, I looked it up, too. Apparently it had two different titles? (I'd never heard of either one.) It sounded interesting and I started to watch it (on YouTube, for free); I found it funny enough that I'll probably go back and finish it soon.

You do have to remember that it is basically a live-action version of a Roadrunner cartoon, with Kirk Douglas in the Wile E. Coyote role. Lots of slapstick, sight gags (some of them borrowed directly from the Roadrunner cartoons) and silly, sophomoric dialog. Besides it being a spoof of an old-fashioned western, every actor is spoofing himself (and herself).

Oh, and Jack's horse, Whiskey, turns in an absolutely hilarious, Oscar-worthy comedy performance!

[Lord Jim]

I think the commercial idea behind the movie was to try to capitalize on the success of Blazing Saddles, (which had come out just a couple of years earlier.)

[Econoline]

I guess I can see that, too. So besides it being a live-action version of Roadrunner vs. Wile E. Coyote, it's also sort of a cartoonish version of Blazing Saddles. Of course it suffers in comparison to Blazing Saddles, but if you ignore that, well, I think it's pretty funny. (Stupid, but funny. YMMV.)

[RayThom]

Yikes! Now these lyrics are stuck in my head:

Cactus Jack will get you high tonight
And take you to your special island
Cactus Jack will get you by tonight
Just a little push, and you'll be smilin'

[datsunaholic]

It was known as "Cactus Jack" outside the US.

Of course, its US title was "The Villain".

[datsunaholic]

Try something newer:

P: So I was sitting in my cubicle today, and I realized, ever since I started working, every single day of my life has been worse than the day before it. So that means that every single day that you see me, that's on the worst day of my life.

D: What about today? Is today the worst day of your life?

P: Yeah.

D: Wow, that's messed up.

[Crackpot]

Office space.

[Crackpot]

Surprised that hadn't been done before.

[RayThom]

Try something newer:
P: So I was sitting in my cubicle today, and I realized, ever since I started working, every single day of my life has been worse than the day before it...

This is so obvious...