Finally get around to watching this beast of a movie and I’m at a loss. I had heard all the stuff about the movie backrupting a major studio, the critical drubbing, the director going psychotic on set and having his career destroyed by the film’s reception. However I have to say that I quite liked it and I can’t understand why everyone considers it to be such a dog. Its no masterpiece but it is a beautifully shot, well acted movie. Why did this movie get such a bad drubbing? Granted the director did kind of go off on one. If it was me I would have cut the entire opening scene at Harvard which was totally pointless and just plain silly, the whole scene makes you think you are watching another movie entirely and not a stark western. Similarly the ending had me perplexed…there was no need for Ella to get shot at the end it was just as sad with all those towns people being massacred! Also Cimino could have made more of the friendship between Nate and Jim, it just wasn’t as developed as it should have been.
On a side note, Christopher Walken is one of those actors that can never give a bad performance, granted he has been in some really shit films, but some how that shit never manages to stick to him…just thought I would throw that out there…