Voyage au bout de l'enfer

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.

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.

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.

Eight stars. The seeds of Cimino's downfall were sown in his greatest triumph.

His Heaven's Gate was the disaster that ended the Hollywood auteur era of the 60s and 70s. And one needs look no further than the first act of The Deer Hunter to see why. Maybe Cimino thought he really needed three one-hour acts for some sort of symmetry. I don't know. What I do know is that act one was about twice as long as it had any business being. It dragged. Painfully so.

Now, once we leave Clairton for Vietnam, the film elevates to brilliance. Acts two and three are masterful. Cimino's work here is glorious. And the acting is splendid from the first scene onward. DeNiro and Walken get most of the cred, but Streep and Cazale are both monumental here. Savage and Dzundza also turn in splendid performances. Dzundza's is the easiest to overlook, just as Savage's is the easiest to discount. But his work is needed for the whole tragic tale to hang together. Nick and Steve are both shattered by their experiences. And, for all his love and effort, Mike really can't save them.

This is a great film. If Cimino had cut half an hour from act one, it would be a transcendant one. 14 August 2023.

Nothing prepares us for a life in the so called modern world but we partake in the traditions passed on to us through family, friends and colleagues, at home, out socialising and in the workplace. It's called culture and, for the most part, it keeps us safe and secure, as the bonds we develop make us feel a part of the fabric but it's still psychologically a challenge to the hunter gatherers mind - increasingly so today.

Put that mind into war, battles, conflict, abuse, threat and it's anyone's guess what might result. Put that mind into the events portrayed here, albeit quite extreme, and you have the basis for a fascinating insight into the cultural and social destruction that conflict can reap through individuals, as well as entire populations, and continue to do so long after the truce has been declared.

Mix into the portrayal some of the finest actors of their generation, perhaps of all time, and you have a genuinely timeless anti-war reflection that, in itself, should be enough to dissuade the most sabre rattling politico, who genuinely cares about their citizens, to put their swords away and resolve any differences peacefully. Unfortunately, recent history suggests otherwise.