Stagecoach (1986)

Released in 1939, John Ford's Stagecoach is one of the all-time great westerns. It was hugely influential in countless westerns that followed, and of course, is famous for helping make John Wayne a huge star, one of the biggest movie stars of all-time. So what's the biggest form of flattery? A remake! And unnecessary ones! Ford's western has been remade twice, first in 1966, and with today's review, a 1986 TV western, Stagecoach.

In the small town of Tonto, a stagecoach is set to leave and keeps its schedule in making it to its next stop in Lordsburg. It is far from an easy ride though across the desert, especially when reports of Geronimo and his Apache warriors being on the warpath start to hit the town. An already dangerous ride is that much worse. The driver, Buck (John Schneider), intends to do his job though, taking the coach through, Apaches be damned. So with a full coach of passengers, Buck leaves Tonto with a cavalry escort hoping to avoid Geronimo and his warriors. His passengers, all of them, have reasons to undertake such a dangerous trip. Some are trying to get somewhere while others are simply trying to get away, but to a person, they believe they're right. Are they? Can they get to Lordsburg safely without coming under attack?

Okay, No. 1. Something that needs to be said. There's no reason to remake Ford's film. NO reason. It's about as perfect a western as you'll find out there. So to remake it in different formats twice? Unnecessary to say the least. I haven't seen the 1966 version -- I'd like to, the cast is pretty crazy -- but I feel safe saying the original is better. The same here. Why bother remaking a movie that didn't need to be remade? Well, the answer isn't one you might easily come up with.

Any ideas? This TV western actually puts a country music spin on the original formula! Didn't see that one coming now, did you?!? The cast includes Johnny Cash, Willie Nelson, Waylon Jennings and Kris Kristofferson in major roles. Now even as a non-country music fan, that's an impressive pairing of talent! The biggest difference between the '86 TV flick and the '39 original is the re-working of certain characters so the Big 4 Country Stars are actually given something to do. Cash is Marshal Curly Wilcox, on the hunt for Kristofferson's Ringo Kid, with Nelson as the Doc Holliday (quite the change!), and Jennings as Hatfield, a talented gambler (some would say cheater) looking for some redemption. Take the original characters/story, add country stars, lather, rinse and repeat and you definitely get some tweaked stories! That's not a bad thing, giving a refreshing new look at a familiar story.

Of the four, I thought Cash and Nelson come out the best. Cash isn't the greatest actor, but he's very natural, and his scenes with John Schneider's Buck are excellent, two experienced trailhands discussing what their best plan is and should be. Nelson too is excellent as maybe the most famous dentist ever, Doc Holliday (not any old Doc like the Ford version), philosophizing and smoking a cigar and generally having a good time. Obviously he's having some fun with the part. Jennings is okay as Hatfield but nothing crazy. I'm a big Kristofferson fan, but it's a bit of bad casting here. Maybe it's because John Wayne's take on Ringo is so iconic, but Kristofferson is too old for the part and his scenes with Dallas (Elizabeth Ashley), an aging, disillusioned prostitute, lack some chemistry. It kinda feels like a western Last Vegas or Grumpy Old Men, four aging stars getting together and having some fun. Nothing wrong with that, right?

Who else to look for on the crowded stagecoach? Also look for the always welcome Tony Franciosa as Gatewood, a corrupt banker getting out of town with his bank's latest deposit (some $30,000), Anthony Newley as Peacock, a traveling whiskey salesman, and Mary Crosby as Lucy Mallory, a very pregnant young woman traveling west to meet up with her husband, a cavalry officer.

So while there are some changes along the way -- some major, some not as significant -- mostly this TV western sticks with the original's story. The soundtrack isn't entirely country (featuring some solid uses of guitar), and the locations are solid but don't register like Monument Valley does -- I know! Go figure in that department. The biggest changes are saved for the end in a finale that feels somewhat disjointed and/or rushed. It's not an especially good flick, but it is entertaining from beginning to end. The novelty of the country casting is just enough to give it a recommendation. It ain't on par with the 1939 original, but few are. Still....it's not bad.

Stagecoach (1986): ** 1/2 /****

History's Texas Rising

I am a self-admitted, fully nuts, obsessed Alamo nut. I grew up watching Disney's Davy Crockett episodes and John Wayne's The Alamo and have been reading and watching everything I could find in the many years since. A few years back, I found out I was even related to one of the Alamo defenders who died in the infamous 1836 battle. So when I discovered that History was doing a TV miniseries about the Texas Revolution following the battle of the Alamo, I almost lost my mind. Here it is, the recent five-part TV miniseries, 2015's Texas Rising.

It's March 6, 1836, and Mexican forces under president and dictator Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna (Olivier Martinez) have wiped out the Alamo garrison in a brutal, bloody massacre. Some miles to the west, Texas forces under General Sam Houston (Bill Paxton) are trying to build an army to combat Santa Anna's troops that severely outnumber the Texans. Much of Houston's staff and many of his men want to turn and fight the Mexicans, avenge the Alamo massacre, but Houston knows -- even though it's difficult -- that he must pick and choose his spot to fight, even if it means retreating much to the chagrin of his men. So as Houston's men move east across Texas, Santa Anna's forces chase close behind, both sides waiting for their moment to strike. Many will be impacted, from a former slave, Emily West (Cynthia Addai-Robinson), to a deaf Texas Ranger named Erastus Smith (Jeffrey Dean Morgan). In the process, a whole bunch of history will be made.

Much like the western genre, the TV miniseries has gone the way of the do-do bird. Basically, it's extinct. History (formerly the History Channel) seems to have found a way to revive it starting with Hatfields and McCoy and more recently the so-so but generally well-received Sons of Liberty. This recent venture is a five-part miniseries, covering about eight months in 1836 following the massacre at the Alamo. It's a daunting task taken on by director Roland Joffe and his cast and crew with tons of moving pieces from real-life historical figures and events, an immense backdrop, characters covering the entire gamut and so much more. The verdict? Pretty good but not great. I think Joffe and his screenplay writers did a pretty admirable job assembling this whole story into something digestible for casual fans and diehard fans of the time and history.

Maybe the biggest thing going for 'Rising' is that the history just isn't as well known as what precedes the story we see. It starts with an effective scene that takes place maybe an hour or so after the end of the Battle of the Alamo. Most Texas Revolution-themed movies use the following history as an afterthought, but here, it's the guts of the story. Plain and simple, it's cool to see the Runaway Scrape with some detail. Houston and Santa Anna are at the forefront, but we also see Colonel James Fannin (Rob Morrow) and the disaster he causes at Goliad. We see President Andrew Jackson (Kris Kristofferson) back in Washington, keeping tabs on the ever-escalating conflict in Texas. We get a genuine picture of the history and the bigger picture of the time and its impact. I won't bore with the history details, but there's also cool parts for Jeff Fahey, Crispin Glover, Chad Michael Murray while also meeting real-life figures life Alamo messenger Juan Seguin and Mexican officer Juan Almonte. Some cool parts.

The focus of course is on two things, Houston vs. Santa Anna and then the early development of the Texas Rangers. Paxton and Martinez both have some fun with their parts, generally avoiding cliches that could have gone really badly. Paxton's Houston speechifies too much, but in the quieter, more personal moments, you feel like you get a picture of the man who became known as the Father of Texas. Martinez is okay but the script has Santa Anna portrayed far more as a straight villain, a bloodthirsty dictator and ruler. By all accounts, this portrayal is at least somewhat accurate, but it plays too much like an over the top Bond villain.

My favorite part of the movie though was those Texas Rangers, led by Morgan's Erastus 'Deaf' Smith. A hero of the Texas Revolution, 'Deaf' (pronounced 'deef') finally gets his due, and Morgan gives the miniseries' strongest performance. He's dying of tuberculosis but he's going to play out his hand as the revolution heats up. A very strong part for an underrated actor. His men include Brendan Fraser as a white man who lived with the Comanches, Christopher McDonald (Yes, Shooter McGavin) as Karnes, Smith's right-hand man, Jeremy Davies as cowardly Knowles, Rhys Coiro as ladies man Vern, Joe Egender as goofy Beans, Stephen Monroe Taylor as outlaw on the run Gator Davis, and Trevor Donovan as Kit Acklin, a good rider, good guy and a trustworthy partner. The scenes focusing on the Rangers were the movie's strongest I thought whether it be on the trail, in camp or during battle. Some fun parts with Morgan, Fraser and McDonald especially standing out.

It's the rare miniseries that is able to juggle so many balls in the air, and 'Rising' has its flaws. For the most part, the historical accuracy is pretty decent with a few liberties taken here and there. Not much is known about the real-life Emily West so the script fills in the holes by adding a love interest with Sam Houston. It feels forced although Paxton and Robinson do have some chemistry. There are too many plotlines, as simple as that. Thomas Jane and Sarah Jones play the Wykoffs, a family moving into Texas with a story that never gets much development. Robert Knepper's evil empresario is too evil for his own good venturing into caricature as well. Things move around a lot to cover so much ground so it's understandable to get mixed up if you're not familiar with the history. History also aired quick mini-movies about a subplot that seemingly got cut for time. Face it. There's a TON to be dealt with, and 'Rising' I thought did an admirable job juggling it all.

What else to look for? I especially liked Ray Liotta's especially dark turn as Lorca, an Alamo defender who though badly wounded survives the massacre and goes on the warpath, murdering all the Mexicans he meets. I also liked the subplot between two real-life rangers, Jack Hays (Max Thieriot) and Bigfoot Wallace (Robert Baker) as they ride across Texas toward the fighting.

I very much enjoyed this History venture into a known part of history that definitely needs more spotlight. It's cool seeing these people and stories so often brushed to the side in the portrayals of Texas history. From the Alamo to Goliad to the Runaway Scrape to San Jacinto to the fallout following as Texas becomes its own republic, 'Rising' tackles a lot and comes through pretty well. I look forward to seeing this one on DVD again soon. Definitely worth giving a shot, especially if you're a history/Texas/Alamo buff!

Texas Rising (2015): ***/****

Vigilante Force

My history with 1976's Vigilante Force is a little checkered, going back a couple years. "History" is a little strong for a bomb of a movie that still manages to be entertaining I suppose. I saw the end of the movie on a Spanish TV station one time, forgot to record the rest a second time, and recently managed to sit through the entire thing. What a mess of a movie...if entertaining.

The peaceful California town of Elk Hills is in trouble. The oil workers called in to drill the oil fields have basically taken over the town, killing, robbing and stealing on a daily basis to the point where no one in town is safe. Single father and business owner, Ben Arnold (Jan-Michael Vincent), is asked by the town's committee if his brother, Aaron (Kris Kristofferson), would agree to come in and clean up the town. A Vietnam vet who survived three tours, Aaron agrees, bringing in a four-man mercenary crew to help him get the job done. The problems get cleared up, but Elk Hills has bigger problems now. Aaron and Co. are on a power trip.

Stumbling across this 1970s cheapie on late night Spanish television probably says a lot about the quality of the movie....for those who were wondering about it at least. Granted, there is a certain nostalgic memory from the movie as I spent a couple years tracking it down. There was more of a 'so bad it's good quality' that stuck with me since watching the last 15 minutes of 'Vigilante.' The picture of Kristofferson and his "gang" decked out in band uniforms shooting it out with an overall-clad Vincent and his crew of fed-up townspeople was too much to even consider forgetting. So what's the verdict now that I've seen the whole movie?

It's a dud, and overall a pretty lousy movie, but it is entertaining. Directed and written by George Armitage, 'Vigilante' has that cheap, low budget feel that I often think of as synonymous with the 1970s. Clearly not made with much of a budget, it has the look of a studio backlot with characters, story and gunfights thrown into a blender. Whatever sticks, that's what makes it into the final version. Top it off with an oddly-toned soundtrack heavy on a light banjo theme, and you've got a winner.

So many years later, the ending is by far the best thing going for 'Vigilante.' And I don't mean that as some sort of backhanded compliment like 'The movie's over...that was the best part.' The build-up to that final confrontation can be a tad on the slow side, but Armitage must have decided he'd had enough. A power-hungry Aaron has gone too far so brother Ben must stop him no matter the cost. Automatic weapons, bazookas, grenades, and did I mention Kristofferson dressed up as a band leader, complete with red and gold braided outfit. On the oddity scale, it's close to a 10, especially with Vincent chasing him wearing overalls. I guess they were comfy and meant for a good chase/gunfight.

If you're looking for great acting, first off a movie titled 'Vigilante Force' should have been a clue you were watching the wrong movie. Second, it's fun to see Kristofferson and Vincent play off each other. Kristofferson's Aaron is the cool Vietnam vet who with the snap of a finger basically goes insane. No explanation provided, he just wants money. He spends most of the movie shirtless standing around being shirtless. Not an actor with the most range to begin with, Vincent is a bit stiff with his delivery, but let's face it. I can't rip him too much. The script doesn't exactly give him much to do or work with. Also look for Bernadette Peters and a pre-Dallas Victoria Principal as the love interests, Brad Dexter as the Elk Hills mayor, and Judson Pratt as the can't win sheriff.

Mindlessly dumb movie, but one I still enjoyed for what it is...a mindless dumb movie. Nothing more, nothing less so don't expect much, and you'll moderately enjoy it.

Vigilante Force <---trailer (1976): ** 1/2 /****

Planet of the Apes (2001)

So within the last few weeks I reviewed Rise of the Planet of the Apes, this summer's movie that is attempting to reboot the Planet of the Apes series/franchise.  As I reviewed, it was a surprisingly good effort, taking a concept that didn't need to be remade and finding something new and interesting about it.  What the 2011 film confirms is how truly bad 2001's Planet of the Apes was, a straight remake of the original 1968 classic.

My curiosity got the best of me on this one. The original five 'Apes' movies are some of my favorites, and the newest entry was highly enjoyable. I've avoided director Tim Burton's addition to the series for years for a couple reasons. The biggest reason? I thought it looked like a pile of awfulness. More than that though, it looked like a dumbed-down, mindless remake that didn't need to be remade. I was in the right frame of mind though to watch it, hoping my enjoyment from 'Rise' might boost the 2001 version. Long story short? It didn't. The 2001 version is everything I was afraid it would be and more...or less I guess depending on how you look at it.

An astronaut/scientist on a U.S. space station in 2029, Leo Davidson (Mark Wahlberg) is working with a large staff, exploring all space has to offer, including studies with chimps. As the station moves through space, an electromagnetic storm is discovered in front of them, Leo following one of his test chimps into the storm which turns out to be a wormhole. His pod crash lands on a strange planet full of jungle and deserts. Just minutes after crash landing though, he makes a bizarre discovery. The planet is ruled by a war-like tribe of apes, and the humans are slaves. Leo is caught almost immediately so what can he do? An ape general, Thade (Tim Roth), is suspicious of this more intelligent human, leaving Leo to come up with a plan. Can he get free and then get off this planet? 

This next part is going to sound stupid, but I can't come up with a smart, semi-intelligent way to say it. You're watching a movie called 'Planet of the Apes,' right? It's clear at some point a human main character will discover he's on a planet ruled by intelligent apes, right? With the 1968 original, there's a sense of mystery, and when the apes are revealed in the human-hunting scene, there is a genuine shock and surprise...even knowing it's coming. That is a fundamental problem of Burton's 2001 remake. Wahlberg's Leo crash lands, runs, sees intelligent apes and never seems to question what's going on. He just goes along with it. To a point, Burton and the script seem to take that element for granted, assuming the audience just isn't going to be shocked/surprised and throwing that chance aside.

As I brought up in the 'Rise' review, there was a cheese-ball charm to the original, humans dressed up as apes. 'Rise' went the other route with computer-generated apes (<---that sounds cool). 2001's 'Planet' is somewhere in between, but the effort falls short. The apes, gorillas and chimps are both too human and too simian-based. At times, they are like skittish cats, and other times are far too much like humans. Also, monkeys apparently can leap hundreds of feet into the air from a stand-still. Who knew? Roth's Thade is too over the top as a villain, finding a way to be both unintentionally funny and not intimidating at the same time. Helena Bonham Carter is Ari, a sympathetic monkey, Michael Clarke Duncan is the angry army ape, Paul Giamatti is a finnicky slave-trading monkey, David Warner is a monkey senator, and even Charlton Heston himself -- star of the original Apes movie -- makes a quick appearance.

Now as much as I like Mark Wahlberg, I think he is not the right choice here to play the lead, U.S. astronaut Leo Davidson.  Some of it is his fault as he doesn't bring a whole lot of charisma to the part, brooding and growling through his situation. He also never seems to question anything. If it's me, and I crash land on a planet ruled by apes....I don't know...maybe I ask some questions. In the matter of hours, Leo becomes this heroic human who all the slaves are drawn to, and I'm thinking....really? That's all it took? Punch an ape and lead a poorly planned escape? The script gives him absolutely nothing to do though so it's not entirely on Wahlberg. Also wasted in human parts is Kris Kristofferson as Karubi, a chief of a fleeing tribe, and supermodel Estella Warren as Daena, a young, babely human girl. I imagine at some point the script called for a random hot girl who had to do nothing except look good. She nails the part in that sense.

There is something missing in this movie that I can't put my finger on.  The look of the movie isn't quite right, appearing like it was shot on a poorly-built studio set. The ape village/town certainly looks pretty clean as does the whole movie. Jungle, village, expansive desert, it feels faked.  The whole movie is boring though on top of that. There is a certain B-movie campiness to it, but basically nothing happens, Leo becomes a hero, leads a revolution, and then there is a brief ape vs. human fight. The original explored in some depth the idea of what was happening, animal mistreatment, fate and destiny, bigger issues. Not so much here. Dumbed-down was pretty spot on, the final product a mindless two hours that doesn't even touch its predecessors.

And how about that ending? The 1968 original was a gem, one that still is remembered for its shock value. How about this one? Shock value, yes, but it makes absolutely no FREAKING sense. Burton has said in interviews he left it up to the audience to make up their mind, and that a possible sequel would have explained things clearly. That's a weak excuse on the part of a director. It certainly goes for a surprise, and it is that...surprising. But nothing is explained, and no logical, reasonable explanation comes to mind. You've got to watch it yourself though, and revel in the badness.

Planet of the Apes <---trailer (2001): */****

Convoy

Novels, short stories, memoirs, plays, comic books, journals.  Movies can be based off of just about anything, but one that never crossed my mind was a novelty song, one that briefly rose through the charts before it became a trivia question for all time.  The song is a 1975 gem from C.W. McCall that spent six weeks in the No. 1 spot on the country charts and three years later was turned into a feature length movie, 1978's Convoy.

The transition from popular song to feature length movie seems like quite a stretch to me, but maybe that's just my crazy opinion.  But as long as a studio is making a ridiculous jump from a 4-minute song to a 110-minute movie, they might as well push the pedal to the floor and hire an equally crazy/ridiculous director, Sam Peckinpah.  And big picture, it isn't as much a movie as it is a series of scenes with 18-wheeler semi-trucks driving around, a folksy soundtrack, and a lot of the cast spending most of their time reciting dialogue through CB radios.  If that's not a recipe for a successful movie, I just don't know what is.

Driving into Arizona, 18-wheeler semi drivers Rubber Duck (Kris Kristofferson), Pig Pen (Burt Young) and Spider Mike (Franklyn Ajaye) are pulled over by a local sheriff, Dirty Lyle Wallace (Ernest Borgnine), with a bone to pick. They bribe the crooked cop to get away but end up meeting him down the road in an off-road diner where a knock-down, drag 'em out brawl ensues, Lyle handcuffed to a stool at the bar.  Duck and Co. head out on the road hoping to reach the state lines before the law can get their hands on them.  With a friendly-looking hitchhiking photographer (Ali MacGraw) along for the ride, Duck takes the lead, but that crooked sheriff isn't going to let them go so easily.  But as the chase wears on, news spreads and Duck's little convoy continues to grow and grow.

Wikipedia (an always reliable source for info) points out that Convoy was part of a string of movies released in the late 1970s at the height of the CB radio/truck driver popularity.  Who knew?  That's what the movie is too, an excuse for a long line of 18-wheelers to drive in formation down the road, a lot of CB talk with far too many 'Breaker...breaker...10-4 good buddies' and Borgnine at his over the top, obnoxious best.  What I did enjoy was the stunt work done while driving the huge semi-trucks.  Doing dangerous stunts in sports cars and race cars is one thing, but these trucks are huge and the drivers handle them as if they were much smaller cars.  High speeds and sharp turns never looked so impressive.

As much as anything though, this is a very 70s movie about refusal to go along with the system and not trusting anyone in any power through the government, police or any sort of establishment.  Peckinpah's portrayal of this is less than subtle too, not helping matters.  As Duck's convoy grows bigger by the hour, government officials conclude that this is some sort of mass protest, and even when told the truth, they ignore the otherwise obvious truth in front of them.  Seymour Cassel plays the governor of a southwest state, I think Texas, who sees an opportunity to appeal to a wide range of voters by supporting Duck's "protest." But with Cassel's clueless governor and Borgnine's insane sheriff, it just gets to be a little much.

No matter the quality of the finished product -- and more often than not it was high quality -- Peckinpah always worked with some impressive casts.  Convoy's isn't the best assembly of talent, but it's a solid if not spectacular cast.  Working with Peckinpah for a third time, Kristofferson is as always very likable in his lead part as Rubber Duck.  You could say he's not acting in most of his movies, typically playing a laid back, easy going, drawling good old boy, and I'm not going to dispute that, but he's cool, I like him as a star, and that's that.  So there.  This is Borgnine that I don't like.  So ridiculously over the top, screaming his lines, those huge bug eyes glaring at you.  He's the bad guy you love to hate, but it's too much to take seriously. MacGraw, never a great actress to begin with, is here for eye candy with one of the oddest looking hairstyles I've seen.  Other than these three, none of the cast really jumps out for good or bad.

The story dawdles along for most of an hour, hour and a half and then the message comes out.  The establishment isn't going to just let Duck drive off into the sunset.  The solution is a little much though as he makes a break for 'ole Mexico, but if nothing else, for a split second it works.  If the movie ended there, it could have been a solid send-off.  But then there's another five minutes or so with a twist that negates everything the last scene just accomplished.  I don't really know what to make of the movie overall, but it's certainly a doozy. If nothing else, HERE is the song the movie's based on.

Convoy <---trailer (1978): **/**** 

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 /****