El francotirador

Three steel workers from a small town in Pennsylvania prepare to go to war in Vietnam. The night before they go, Steven is married, sparking a large celebration. The next morning they go deer hunting one last time in the woods before they leave. Time passes and the three meet up again in Vietnam as prisoners of war. Brutal mental torture affects them in different ways before they escape and are separated again. Back in Pennsylvania Michael realises the extent to which the war has not only affected him but devastated the lives of his friends in different ways.

I have seen this film several times and I'll admit that I always assume that it is a classic film mainly because I saw it twice when I was in my early teens and was blown away by parts of it. I say this because I want to acknowledge that it may not be as great a film as many critics lists believe it to be, but at the same time I still watch it occasionally as I find it to be a moving story and a good film. The plot is moving if it is viewed on it's surface as a tale of three men whose lives are deeply affected by the war. Going past that to deeper themes I always feel that the film doesn't manage to be as deep as it thinks it is, so I try not to linger too long on these.

The breakdown of the film gives significantly more time to events in the home town rather than Vietnam. This is as it should be – for many people the war was a fleeting thing that has stayed with them for much longer than they were actually involved. The wedding scene is a little overlong but it does serve as a chance to get to see the characters in their setting before we quickly move to the events that changed them and the people they become. The time in Vietnam is quite short but very memorable (many people who have never seen the film will still know these scenes) and the final hour or so of the film is moving even if it takes things to an extreme to make it's point.

The cast make the film work as well, if not more, than the material itself. De Niro is the rock on which it all stands and is pretty good. The only weakness in his performance was that he was the one who had to be `the hero' type who does what he can. Walken gets the lion share of praise for his is the role that changes the most significantly throughout the film. It is easy to forget that he was not anywhere near as famous as De Niro at this time and it is amazing in that regard to see him hold his own. Savage gives a good performance and support is strong in the form of such actors as Cazale, Dzundza and Aspegren. Even Streep gives a performance refreshingly free of sentiment or forced accents.

The film is a little overlong and could easily have lost 30 minutes (although not all from one place) to give it a tighter feel. Some scenes feel stretched beyond their useful duration leading to the feel that the film wanted to be 3 hours long, rather than being cut back to 3 hours long. Despite this though I still think this is a good film that is a powerful story at it's heart. I personally don't think it would make my top 50 (were I ever to do one) but I will watch it again.

No, this is not the best film about the Vietnam War; it's hardly about Vietnam at all. The vets who don't like it have it wrong, as do the Vietnamese who found it racist. It could be any war, with any combatants. But because the (primary) victims here are recognizable American archetypes, Americans will feel this in their gut more than any other war film I know of. This is one of the very few post-war Hollywood films that shows a sincere reverence for the lives of small town Americans.

After seeing it in a very high quality theater on its initial release, I walked out thinking it was easily one of the best movies I had ever seen - and that I never wanted to see it again. But I looked at it today on cable and found that not much had changed about it, or me. I don't want to see it again...but I want you to see it.

Even now, the Russian Roulette scene (in context, people: watch all that comes before it first) is the single most intense sequence I've seen; it makes the end of "Reservoir Dogs" seem like a cartoon. Best Walken performance, period. Meryl Streep glows, DeNiro has seldom been more affecting. A unique classic...it is not surprising that Cimino didn't have another movie in him after something this wrenching.

The Deer Hunter is a masterpiece of life among a community before and after three friends get drafted to fight in the Vietnam War. The tragic events that take place in the jungles and the adjustment back into the drinking and hunting life of steel workers in Pittsburgh shook my life forever. Bobby, Chris, and John all give fine performances with an outstanding supporting cast comprised of George Dzunda(Crimson Tide, The Limbic Region) Meryl Streep(Kramer vs. Kramer, Out of Africa) and of course the late John Cazale(The Conversation, Dog Day Afternoon). The scenes are lavishly created to pull us into the magic and to strike horror into our dreams. The themes of a powerful movie such as this applies across all generations even to now with all that is happening with our soldiers in the Middle East. If you only have "one shot" to see an outstanding movie that will make your heart sing and make your soul weep, make it this movie.

The Deer Hunter (1978)

**** (out of 4)

Michael Cimino's masterpiece about three friend (Robert DeNiro, John Savage, Christopher Walken) whose lives we see before, during and after the Vietnam war.

THE DEER HUNTER ended up winning five Academy Awards including Best Picture, Best Director and Best Supporting Actor for Walken. The film was a hit at the box office and won all sorts of critical acclaim but I still think the film is quite underrated as it's one of the most draining and emotional films ever made. It's certainly not a fun or pleasant movie to watch but there's no question that Cimino made something incredibly powerful and at times shocking.

The film might have been praised but some threw a lot of criticism at it including some of the Vietnam scenes dealing with the Russian roulette. Many have said that the most powerful scenes in the movie were nothing more than a work of fiction but I find this to be a rather silly complaint because this was a movie and not a documentary. These scenes are some of the most powerful moments in film history so to say the film would have been better off without them is rather stupid. The scenes in Vietnam with the solders being forced to play against one another are among the most intense scenes you will ever see.

Another bit of criticism is aimed at Cimino and his decision to make the wedding sequence last for fifty-two minutes. Personally speaking, I think this was a great decision and the other two-thirds of the film wouldn't have been as powerful without such a long opening. Not only do we get to know all of the characters involved but a lot of the stuff that happens here pays off later in the movie. One of the most powerful and telling scenes deals with a soldier who comes to drink at the bar and is confronted by DeNiro. I'm obviously not going to spoil anything but this plays an important part later in the picture on the mental state of his character.

Speaking of DeNiro, he once again delivers a marvelous performance and especially since he's the main character in the movie and must play so many different emotions. The actor perfectly nails the character and really brings a lot of heart and soul to the picture. The ensemble cast really does a remarkable job here with Meryl Streep showing what greatness was to come with her. Walken deserved his Oscar for his heartbreaking performance. Savage, George Dzundza, Chuck Aspegren and John Cazale are all equally wonderful as well.

Technically speaking the film is quite flawless with some masterful cinematography from Vilmos Zsigmond as well as a haunting and incredibly moving score by Stanley Myers. THE DEER HUNTER is without question one of the most depressing and emotionally draining movies that you'll ever see but it's also a masterpiece and one of the greatest films ever created.

A comment re the other comments: A lot of the comments criticize the first half hour as being too long. In my opinion, these comments miss the point of the movie.

Of course many of the scenes in the first hour don't advance the narrative. They're not supposed to; they're for character development.

The whole point of the movie is to show us how the various characters were affected by the war. It wouldn't have worked nearly as powerfully as it does had the first hour been trimmed down. We have to sense the careless and frat-boy-like immaturity of these young men. That's why the scenes all revolve around frivolity and seemingly senseless boyish behavior; it creates such a stark contrast to the devastated characters of the three who went to war (and the relatively unaffected personalities of those who stayed behind, like Stanley).

The strong points of the film are the outstanding performances of nearly every actor in the movie. Yes, there are technical deficiencies in the sound, but it hardly matters. This is nitpicking compared to the overall construction of the film.