Alien

Earlier this year, I saw and liked 2012's Prometheus a lot....if I was a little confused. From director Ridley Scott, it was a quasi-prequel to his 1979 sci-fi classic Alien. I'd never seen Alien in its entirety in one sitting, having seen pieces here and there. Well, apparently I wasn't the only one trying to catch up with the 1979 film. Netflix had it on 'Long Wait' for the last four months. I waited it out, finally catching up with it this weekend.

In the near future, the Nostromo, a deep space towing vessel, and its crew is returning to Earth with an immense shipment of ore mined on a far-off planet. The crew, including Captain Dallas (Tom Skerritt), Kane (John Hurt), the executive officer, and Ripley (Sigourney Weaver), the warrant officer, are awakened from a deep slumber. The Nostromo's computer has sensed a message -- possibly an S.O.S., possibly a warning -- from a nearby planet. Following orders, the ship sets down on an Earth-like planetoid, but one of the search party brings something back aboard the ship. The crew debates what to do, but it's too late. The creature is free and loose. With improvised weaponry, the Nostromo's crew now finds itself fighting for survival.

This is a movie that is hard to review. Why's that? Well, for one, that's a compliment. Released in 1979, Alien has basically influenced every horror-science-fiction-thriller made in the 30-plus years since its release. Having seen Prometheus just a few months ago, it's obvious how similar the "new" movie was to the original. We're talking spot-on. So through no fault of its own, this 1979 original does feel -- for lack of a better word -- familiar. It doesn't take away from the quality, but some of the scares and twists are somewhat predictable. Still, it's a gem. Anything that influenced so many movies since is worth a recommendation.

Directing just his second feature film (and three years prior to another classic, Blade Runner), Scott does an admirable job here. There's nothing quite as scary as deep space for me. Who knows what kind of horrors are out there? Oh, and there's nowhere to run...not quickly at least. Scott's vision of the future is just that, very visual. The Nostromo is both well-lit and furnished, but in its depths is claustrophobic, dank, damp and hiding all sorts of fear. In other words, plenty of space for our Alien to hide in. The scares are slow-burns, long scenes with little movement or sound suddenly broken up by quick GOTCHA! bursts that will have you jumping (okay, I did). While it is scary, it's more importantly smart scary. Most of the scares from the unsettling mood; the quiet and foreboding. At its best, this is an underplayed scare fest.

The focus is on the scares and the Alien that starts to dispatch members of the crew. 'Alien' doesn't have time or room for anything else. We're introduced to the characters, but know nothing about them more than what their duties on-board are. It strips away everything superfluous and maintains that focus on the survival aspect. The crew -- fodder for the Alien -- include the always cool Tom Skerritt, the similarly cool John Hurt and Weaver. Also included are Yaphet Kotto as Parker, the engineer, Harry Dean Stanton as Brett, the assistant engineer, Ian Holm as Ash, the medical officer, and Veronica Cartwright as Lambert. There really isn't a weak performance in the bunch, Skerritt, Kotto and Holm especially standing out. The real standout though is a young Sigourney Weaver as Ellen Ripley, the intelligent, reasonable-thinking heroine, a part that would help make her a star. A female star in an sci-fi movie was something new, and Weaver is a great lead.

Did I love this movie? No, but I liked it a lot. Seeing it in 1979, Alien would have no doubt had a different impact on me than it does now. It did influence countless movies since -- a credit to its power -- but viewing it now, it does affect the viewing. The surprises are solid, but they're not completely out of left field. If you're paying attention, you'll see them coming. On the other hand, it's still a gem 33 years later. A very pointed story with no dead weight anywhere in sight. Still well worth a watch.

Alien <---trailer (1979): ***/****

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)

I love reading, always have and hope I always will. So when I saw a trailer this past summer for a spy movie based off a book from English novelist John Le Carre, I wanted to check out the book before seeing the movie. I can't tell you how much I struggled through the book, forcing myself to finish it because if a movie was made, the source novel has to be good, right? Thankfully, 2011's Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was infinitely more enjoyable than its source novel.

When a mission is badly botched in Budapest, Control (John Hurt) and his right hand man, George Smiley (Gary Oldman), are forcefully pushed out the door at MI6. A new power system rises to the top, and most of a year later with Control dead, Smiley is approached with an important mission. More and more intelligence points to a high-up official in British intelligence being a mole working deep, deep undercover for Russia. The suspects have been narrowed down to four key individuals, but none of them seem any more likely to be the mole than the others. With the help of a younger but very capable agent, Peter Guillam (Benedict Cumberbatch), Smiley is tasked with exposing the mole. Can they do it in time?

Le Carre's book is something else. Countless characters, seemingly endless passages of dialogue on top of dialogue, and a non-linear story that I for one had trouble keeping up with. I hate calling a book dull or boring because it sounds very high school, but I struggled to maintain an interest in the very slowly developing story. Even when things were revealed, I had to re-read and double check just to make sure I'd read right. It defines a low-key, subtle spy story with little sense of urgency. Thankfully the movie streamlines the characters, the dialogue and the story, all the while remaining true to Le Carre's novel. It certainly isn't a movie for everyone, and it has its flaws, but 'Tinker' is quite the thinking man's spy movie.

Let's start with the tone and look of the movie. Like the novel, it is incredibly low-key, almost comatose in its development. For a story revolving around a high-level mole, no one seems particularly worried. The story utilizes flashbacks and bounces around constantly, throwing new characters in and out of scenes as needed. You know, just know, they're somehow related, and for the most part they do fit together in the end. It is a self-assured movie, and will probably lose some viewers with its leisurely pacing. The look of the movie is incredible from the sets and costumes to the camera work. The spies all wear suits and ties, constantly smoke cigarettes, and always have some liquor close by. This was the Cold War fought by gentlemen, not the gung-ho, shoot 'em up James Bond and Jason Bournes. These spies did their best when not seen by their opposition, slinking in and out as quickly as they arrived.

My biggest motivation for finishing the book was the cast assembled in director Tomas Alfredson's spy drama. I'll begin with Gary Oldman as George Smiley, a part that has already started to earn the actor some Oscar buzz for Best Actor. Like its story, Oldman is understated beyond belief as Smiley, a veteran agent with years of experience under his belt. He's experienced more than most can dream of, and the wear and tear shows. Pushed out of a job he was damn good at, his Smiley holds some earned resentment at the government and superiors that turned their back on him. Above all else, he is a professional though. He's a dogged investigator, able to piece together clues and information as needed, always thinking how the pieces fit together. I love Oldman as an actor -- playing good or bad guy -- but it's great seeing him truly acting, not just hamming it up. Great lead performance.

That's saying something considering the rest of the cast. The treacherous suspects include Alleline (Toby Jones), Haydon (Colin Firth), Esterhase (David Dencik), and Bland (Ciaran Hinds), both Jones and Firth making the best impressions. Cumberbath too holds his own at Oldman's side, an agent with a possible secret of his own, and Hurt is Hurt, legitimizing his small part because he's John Hurt. One of my new favorite actors, Mark Strong, has a solid supporting part as Prideaux, an agent who's stumbled into a botched mission and must pay the consequences. Another favorite of mine, Tom Hardy plays Ricki, a "scalphunter," an agent usually relegated to the more sinister missions, this time trying to move up a level with some info he stumbled into. Kathy Burke and Stephen Graham have key parts as former Intelligence members Smiley investigates. Not a false performance in the bunch, an ensemble working perfectly together. Not showy at all, just professionals doing what they do, seemingly effortlessly.

The movie isn't perfect though, but I did enjoy it considerably more than Le Carre's novel. Problems persist though. We learn little to nothing about the suspects so even when the mole is revealed, it makes little impact. A throwaway line explains the reasoning in a weak wrap-up. I would have liked some reasoning, some background on these men, allowing us to connect emotionally in some way whether it be hatred, respect, whatever. The story drifts at time -- like the novel -- in an 127-minute movie. Still, it's almost a must-see movie because it is so rare to see a movie of this quality, especially among the spy genre. The ending especially is a winner, a montage set to French song La Mer, later Americanized by Bobby Darin's Beyond the Sea. Style and acting to spare, just know what you're about to watch.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy <---trailer (2011): ***/****

Midnight Express

I honestly have no idea how to even start a review of 1978's Midnight Express, one of the more uncomfortable movies I've watched in recent memory. Now granted, it is supposed to be an uncomfortable viewing experience, but where do you even start?  A movie about a young American jailed in Turkey for attempting to smuggle drugs out of the country isn't going to be much of a gut-buster now, is it?  It is an odd movie, one that has gained a sort of cult status over the years since its first release.

Might as well start big picture here.  The movie makes me appreciate a legal system in the United States that at least gives all involved in a case the benefit of doubt, the privilege of being innocent until proven guilty.  Based on the true story of American Billy Hayes and his arrest in Turkey for drug smuggling, 'Midnight' is a brutal, downright dirty depiction of an appropriately brutal and dirty story. The screenplay takes some liberties with the actual facts of Hayes' stay in a Turkish prison, embellishing some of the incidents portrayed. I keep coming back to it above else, an unsettling story no matter what details are accurate and those exaggerated.

Traveling back to the United States with his girlfriend, Susan (Irene Miracle), a young American, Billy Hayes (Brad Davis) is attempting to transport two kilos of hashish out of Turkey. In a search at the airport just feet away from boarding his plane, Billy is caught and arrested, thrown into a brutal, corrupt Turkish prison and receiving a four-year sentence for possession as opposed to a harsher sentence for smuggling.  Nothing could prepare this 20-something for what awaits. Conditions are barbaric, guards are sadistic and revel in inflicting pain, the same for other prisoners doing whatever they can to survive, and a corrupt system that relies on greed, bribes and power. Billy wants nothing more than to survive, contemplating escaping but ultimately deciding to ride out his relatively short four-year sentence. When a new ruling comes down though -- a much longer one at that -- will a struggling Billy change his mind?

In his most well known role in a career shortened by AIDS -- he died in 1991 -- Davis delivers an incredibly emotional, physical performance as Billy Hayes. A naive kid who sees a chance to make an easy buck lives to regret it, caught with two kilos of drugs on his person in a country looking to make an example out of him.  You see the transformation he goes through as Billy survives over four years in this prison. The hell-like conditions wear on him, taking him down as a person, making him question everything he thought he knew. There are chances for Davis to lash out and really take over the role, but I came away more impressed with the quieter moments. In those scenes, Davis is able to do a lot with just a look, just a glance, his eyes expressing more than words ever could. A great talent and a great role for the young actor.

But with Davis playing Billy Hayes, a key plot point comes up. The script resorts to pandering at a certain point, and in my mind, the movie on the whole loses some credibility because of it. Yes, the conditions are horrific that Billy finds himself in. The guards are one notch short of the Devil, reveling and enjoying torturing prisoners with physical beatings, emotional torture, and sexual assaults.  But you know what? The character BROKE the law, stupidly trying to smuggle drugs out of country. Are we supposed to feel bad for him because the Turkish prison is such a God-forsaken place?  I certainly didn't, and I resent the story and script trying to convince me otherwise. At a court hearing, Billy delivers an impassioned speech ripping Turkey, its court and legal system, the Turkish people, and basically anything associated with the country. Watch it HERE. It's forced and unnecessary. Billy breaks the law, and he thinks he should just be forgiven? Give me a break. Man up. You did something mind-bogglingly stupid. Be ready to pay for the consequences.

Okay, I've stepped down off my holier than thou soap box, but I had to get it off my chest. From director Alan Parker, 'Midnight' is an incredible dose of mood-setting and atmosphere, a dark, dank look at prison life. Filmed in Malta, Greece and Turkey, it is one of the most visually depressing movies I've ever seen. You feel worn down just watching the movie, much less living it.  There is little hope in this world, and the need and want to survive takes preference over everything else. Giorgio Moroder's musical score is a key ingredient -- listen to the main theme HERE -- sets the mood immediately with its electronica base. All the little elements working together here for the greater good.

If I can say anything though about the story, it would be that more is shown as opposed to just talking about it. We hear about the corruption, the brutal guards, the horrific conditions, but we don't see all those things enough. Hearing can be enough at times, and I'm not one who needs to be bashed over the head to understand a point, but the first hour as Billy slowly loses his mind and his bearings goes by too quickly. The movie as is now is particularly hard to watch so I'm not sure, maybe it's good as is.  But that thought kept running through my head; SHOW the brutality more, don't just talk about it.

The casting is interesting behind Davis as Billy Hayes, highlighted by supporting parts from Randy Quaid, John Hurt, and Norbert Weisser as his fellow prisoners. Bo Hopkins makes a quick appearance as Tex, a shady American supposedly working with the Turkish police. Paul L. Smith plays Hamidou, a bear of a guard and the most brutal of all, one of the most genuinely scary villains a movie has ever introduced. Mike Kellin is heartbreaking in a small part as Mr. Hayes, Billy's Dad so desperately trying to save his son. These are performances that could have gotten lost in the shuffle of the power and emotion of the story, but instead all manage to find a way to shine through.

A flawed movie, but one that overall is able to rise above those flaws. Definitely know what you're getting into watching Midnight Express because otherwise you might turn it off about 12 minutes in. It's worth it though to stick things through.

Midnight Express <---trailer (1978): ***/****         

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

First released in 1997 from author J.K. Rowling, the Harry Potter franchise in both literature and film has taken the world by storm. The seven Potter books have sold 450 million copies -- actually think about how many books that is -- and the films to date (I'm writing this before the final film is released) have grossed six billion dollars worldwide. Now partially because I don't like being told to read/watch something, my only experience with the Potter books comes from reading the first story during a college English class.

While there was nothing about the series that turned me off, I just wasn't pulled in like so many of the devoted fans that love everything about the character(s), the series and this whole new world. I enjoyed the first book -- Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone -- but got through it more because I needed to for the class as opposed to wanting to read it.  So now 14 years later as the final movie is about to hit theaters tomorrow, I finally looked into the first movie, watching 2001's Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. Better late than never, right?

Growing up with his aunt, uncle and cousin after his parents died when he was a baby, 11-year old Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) has always been a little different, but he has no idea why. As weird things start happening around him, he gets a strange visitor, an immense man with a gigantic beard, Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane), who tells him he should get ready to travel to Hogwarts, a school for young wizards. Not sure what to make of everything, Harry goes along, thrust into a world of oddities, magic, and spells where everyone seems to know him, but he has no idea why. He meets Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), fellow first year wizardry students, and starts to learn the ways of being a wizard. As he learns all he can though, Harry begins to see that there's more to his past than he knows, and he may be destined for bigger and better things.

A whole new crazy wizard world aside, I think a big selling point of these movies/books is actually the simplicity of the Harry character. He's a young kid trying to find out who he is and what he should do to grow up. Granted, he's going to a wizard school and not just grammar school, but what person in the audience can't appreciate that feeling of butterflies as you step into something new?  Over the last 10 years and all the movies that followed, Radcliffe has grown up in front of our eyes, and as a 12-year old here in the opener, he shows what a great actor he can be.  Child actors are incredibly hit or miss, but he shows off his impressive talents.  The same goes for Grint as Ron, Harry's best friend and partner in crime, and Watson as Hermione, the know-it-all who wants to be the best wizard ever. It's this friendship among the three youngsters that keeps the movie grounded in the coming movies because through all the craziness, they're still just three good friends.

On to bigger and better things though, a whole world devoted to being a wizard. Director Chris Columbus has the unenviable task of turning a hugely popular book into a movie that fans will approve of, and more than that, live up to expectations.  Visually, the movie is a stunner, a beautiful story to watch all the way through. Hogwarts looks like an English castle from the Middle Ages as the wizard students are separated by house. It's a clean slate though to create this world because Rowling creates everything from the ground up. We're introduced to the game of Quidditch, a cross-breed of hockey and soccer on brooms, school houses with names like Griffindor and Slyterhin, a school that literally moves around in its architectural form as needed, teachers and professors with all sorts of specialties, creatures and objects that are unique and interesting in their weirdness. It's fun to watch and easy to keep up with, the movie almost serving as a guide for what is to come in the series.

Credit goes to the child (and now adult) actors in Radcliffe, Grint and Watson for making the series what it is over the last 10 years. But one of the things that helped legitimize the series in its film form was the ridiculous talents involved in filling out all these great supporting roles.  Ready to get some serious acting chops dropped on you?  Start with Richard Harris as Professor Albus Dumbledore, the head master of Hogwarts and wisest of all the professors. Some of the other professors include Maggie Smith as Minerva McGonagall, Ian Hart as the squirrelly Prof. Quirrell, John Cleese as Nearly Headless Nick, and Alan Rickman as Severus Snape, head of the Slytherin House. Coltrane is a scene-stealer as the gigantic, somewhat dim Hagrid who is almost Harry's guardian angel, and John Hurt even makes a one-scene appearance as Olllivander, a wand maker. What works though is that these don't feel like unnecessary cameos, instead being little parts brought to life by immensely talented actors and actresses. They're characters, not movie stars.

Having not seen the rest of the movies -- yet -- I've still kept up with the series over the years. It was hard not to keep up even by accident with the wave of media attention devoted to Harry Potter. The series has changed quite a bit in the years since its debut, and mostly for the better. I read a surprising amount of critiques that ripped this movie pretty good because it was aimed so much at kids while the later movies went to a darker, more cynical place. This is the movie that had to be made to introduce the series though, a fun, exciting adventure that introduces all the players and puts everything where it needs to be.  I've tried to keep the review tight and know I missed a fair amount of stuff that I could have mentioned.

What's worth knowing? It's a good movie, and a great introduction to an extremely popular series that has gotten bigger and better since.  A very good start.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone <---trailer (2001): ***/****

10 Rillington Place

Growing up, I was introduced to a lot of movies that I love to this day.  One of those is The Great Escape -- I'll get around to reviewing it sooner or later -- and it remains my favorite movie some years later.  In a cast full of stars, one of the best was Richard Attenborough as Big X, the leader of the POW escape.  So from there on in, any movie with Attenborough in it, I can't help but see him as that character.  Usually it wears off at some point during the movie because he was too good an actor to be typecast, but it's always there in the back of my head.

So heroic British prisoner of war as the base, and how about a British serial killer as an adjustment?  That's 1971's 10 Rillington Place, a drama based on the life of British serial killer John Reginald Christie with Attenborough playing Christie.  It's a remarkable part for the British actor that earned him tons of critical praise.  Playing a historical figure is one thing on the intimidation meter as an actor because there's little room for personal interpretation. But what about playing a killer?  There's a certain amount of respect for playing an Abe Lincoln or George Patton.  But a killer?  Directed by Richard Fleischer, 'Place' doesn't try to present Christie in any sort of positive light -- thankfully -- and just tells the story as accurately as possible.

It's 1944 London and John Reginald Christie (Attenborough) welcomes a woman into his house to treat her for an ailment.  He kills her and buries her in the backyard of his home, an apartment building at 10 Rillington Place.  Fast forward five years to 1949 and  Christie welcomes a young couple who are moving into the building.  Timothy Evans (John Hurt) and his wife Beryl (Judy Geeson) have an infant daughter and are struggling to make ends meet. Worse news for Beryl, she's pregnant and there's no way the young couple can afford a second child.  With some medical background, Christie offers to help perform an abortion, but the Evans' have no idea what the landlord is up to.

Beyond the acting, Fleischer films a movie light on style and heavy on characterization and doom and gloom.  The movie was actually filmed at 10 Rillington Place -- where Christie is believed to have murdered as many as six women -- and gives the story a real sense of macabre and death.  Plainly put, it's creepy knowing these things actually happened in the locations we're watching.  The London as presented is dark, gloomy and plain with no sense of life or color at all on the streets or in the dank, little apartments.  All smart choices in putting this together to make a stark, depressing and unsettling movie.

On pure acting skill, this has to be one of Attenborough's best parts.  Reading through some Christie bio information, it looks like he clearly did his homework on the man's behaviors, speech patterns and mannerisms to bring this serial killer to life.  He kills his victims with a variety of carbon monoxide that basically knocks them unconscious and then strangles them.  We only see this in any sort of detail once, but that's plenty. Bringing this character to life though, we're not taking Jason or Freddy Krueger.  He's quiet, keeps to himself, typically very polite, but all these things hide moments where his true self comes out.  Those scenes are incredibly unsettling to watch, especially a prolonged abortion procedure.  On top of that, it doesn't hurt that he physically resembles the real-life Christie. Safe to say, this is unlike any other Attenborough role I've come across.

Along with Attenborough, the screen is dominated by Hurt and Geeson in a smaller cast.  Hurt's Timothy Evans is an illiterate factory worker prone to exaggeration in his stories and a little too much drinking.  His character isn't exactly sympathetic, but compared to Christie, this guy's a lamb.  His stupidity in not seeing what's happening around him is frustrating because you want him to figure it all out, but Christie just keeps pulling the strings and pushing his buttons to get him to do what he wants.  Geeson is the sweet young wife trying to make the best of an awkward situation.  She takes the best possible alternative -- which isn't all that great to begin with.  Both parts are well-acted and could have easily been overshadowed by Attenborough's performance, but Hurt and Geeson hold their own.

There's something about the movie I'm struggling to put my finger on, but it's definitely a positive.  As near as I can figure, it's the honesty in which the true story is told.  A majority of the story focuses on this one specific incident between Christie and the Evans with the aftermath rushed to a certain extent.  It's not bad rushed though, just fast paced.  The ending is a blink and you'll miss it.  Overall, the storytelling is a highpoint just in terms of its pacing, honesty and briskness.  It doesn't try to whitewash anything, and the movie is that much better for it.

10 Rillington Place <---TCM clips (1971): ***/****

Heaven's Gate

After winning Best Picture and Best Director for 1978's The Deer Hunter, Michael Cimino spent the next two years working on his next project.  It was an epic that would debunk many of the myths about the west in the latter half of the 1800s that many people took as an absolute truth.  Titled Heaven's Gate, it infamously became known as the movie that derailed Cimino's career and destroyed United Artists in the process.  The production did create one of my all-time favorite lines when the studio wanted to know how far behind schedule Cimino was on the sixth day of filming.  The answer?  'We're five days behind schedule.'

Released in 1980, Heaven's Gate has its fair share of similarities with The Deer Hunter.  How to put this nicely?  Cimino loved a very natural style (i.e.: slow, very slow) with stories that were in no rush getting to their destination.  And if they didn't get to that destination?  No worries.  Working with cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond, Cimino creates a beautiful movie that completely utilizes the beauty of Montana.  But at a cost because the story is thrown by the wayside.  Long, lllllllong scenes of a rider approaching a cabin in a mountain valley drag on. For me, it got to the point where I got sick of looking at nature.  Just tell the damn story! 

After visiting St. Louis, Wyoming marshal Jim Averill (Kris Kristofferson) returns home to find a conflict brewing. The wealthy landowners/cattle barons are fed up with the poor farmers and settlers -- most of them immigrants trying to start a life -- who keep stealing their cattle and destroying the land.  One man, Nate Champion (Christopher Walken), serves as their enforcer, killing anyone believed of stealing cattle. At first, Jim doesn't seem interested in the problem.  He tries to convince his girlfriend Ella (Isabelle Huppert), the local owner of a brothel, to leave with him, but she refuses.  Champion is also interested in Ella, leaving her conflicted as what to do.  Her problem is solved when the landowners (led by an evil Sam Waterston) go the government for help and a list is circulated of 125 farmers who will be killed.  A small army of gunmen descend on the county ready to wipe out anyone who stands in their way.

This is now the longest movie I've ever seen at 219 minutes, replacing The Seven Samurai, and at times it felt longer.  God forbid, there's rumors of a 5-hour version out there somewhere.  It's easier to judge this movie in two segments; pre and post intermission.  Pre-intermission is awful and a painful experience.  Two scenes rival Deer Hunter's wedding scene, a Harvard graduation in 1870 that serves no purpose, and a dance scene that goes on and on.  Cimino is one of the most self-indulgent directors I've come across, seemingly wanting to show off what a great director he was. His budget was around $11 million, but it went $30 million beyond that.  Apparently, he shot almost 200 hours of footage.  He clearly went all out to show the reality of the developing west whether it be sets or costumes, but its almost overkill by the 2nd hour or so.

These scenes could have served a purpose in a shorter way, but instead they bring the already stagnant story to a halt.  That's the whole movie too, long, extended shots that don't do anything other than look good.  I'm curious about the 149-minute version because in a condensed form, the movie might be worth watching.  On the other hand, I have little interest in seeing this one again.

The one slight saving grace of the movie is post-intermission when Waterston's army of gunfighters goes on the hunt.  Parts are still too slow, but this nameless, faceless villain is a great choice.  Walken's Champion has a change of heart when he sees the tactics being used and goes out in a blaze of glory.  The farmers/settlers finally decide to do something and in a bloody battle take on the gunfighters.  Both sides take heavy casualties, but we know nothing about these people.  In several scenes, these foreign settlers yell at each other at meetings and then the battle comes along and they get blown away.  It's a remarkably well-done sequence (start HERE with SPOILERS of course) but on an emotional level does nothing, and isn't that the point of an epic scene like that?  To make any sort of emotional connection with the viewer, but that's this movie in a nutshell.

Filling out his cast, Cimino assembles an incredible list of actors including the already mentioned Kristofferson, Walken, Waterston, and Huppert.  There's also Jeff Bridges, Mickey Rourke, John Hurt, Brad Dourif, Geoffrey Lewis, Joseph Cotten, and Terry O'Quinn.  But with all that talent assembled, Walken and Huppert are the only ones to really distinguish themselves.  Kristofferson mumbles his way through all his lines, Hurt is required to be drunk, Rourke and Lewis show up, get introduced and are killed, and Cotten has a one-scene cameo.  I'll add Bridges to the list, he's solid as a saloon owner working with the farmers.  It seems like such a waste to bring all these talented actors together and then not give them much development.

I think I gave this movie a pretty fair shot from the start.  But my objections from The Deer Hunter rolled over to Heaven's Gate.  There are just too many plotholes you could drive an 18-wheeler through that are never resolved.  Like how/why did Kristofferson move west, apparently leaving a wife behind?  It's confusing at times, boring at other times, and generally a mess of a movie.  Tons of potential, TONS, but it just isn't a very good movie. 

Heaven's Gate <----trailer (1980): * 1/2 /****