I love movies. It's pretty obvious, as this blog is dedicated to my thoughts on movies. If there's a movie on TV or Netflix that looks remotely interesting, I'll watch it. I love it when I see a movie that resonates with me, and the ones that resonate with me the most are usually the most highly regarded movies, especially the ones that get Oscar wins/nominations.
However, I will admit that there are movies I try to avoid watching. There are movies that have so many things going against them, that I don't even give them a chance. Prior to seeing it, The Deer Hunter was one of those movies. Despite winning five Oscars, there were so many reasons why I didn't want to see it.
Firstly, it's a three hour long movie from the '70s. The Godfather is a three hour long movie from the '70s, yet it's considered by many as the greatest movie ever made. I think The Godfather is a cinematic masterpiece, so don't assume that I don't like long movies. If anything, I love it when I see a three hour long film that warrants such a long running time. My favorite movie is Magnolia, which is three hours long. I just don't want to see a bad three hour long movie. That amount of time should be reserved for seeing good three hour long movies.
The fact that The Deer Hunter came out in the 70's made it less appealing. Movies were so much slower back then. The first Mad Max film came out in 1979, and despite being only 93 minutes long, it's ridiculously slow paced (and brilliant). The sequel, The Road Warrior, came out two years later in 1981. It's only three minutes longer than the first Mad Max, yet it's ridiculously fast paced (and brilliant too). I assumed that The Deer Hunter was the kind of film that could have been two hours long and still be able to convey the story and emotions without losing any of the emotional impact it had on audiences. So I knew I needed to be really patient to be able to watch The Deer Hunter from start to finish. And that's only one of the reasons why I didn't want to see it.
The second reason why I didn't want to see it was because Mark Kermode - one of my favorite film critics - said it was one of the worst films he ever saw. I don't always agree with Mark Kermode, but he always has a good point. He said Robert De Niro's performance in The Deer Hunter was "In not very good form." There was some bad acting from De Niro in The Deer Hunter (which I blame Michael Cimino for) but for the most part, I thought his performance was great. Obviously his performances in Taxi Driver and The Godfather Part II were superior (because the characters he had to portray in those films were way more interesting), but he still had a great performance in The Deer Hunter. He was incredible in the Russian Roulette scene, which really is one of the greatest movie scenes ever. It's the only scene in The Deer Hunter that's memorable and worth seeing. It's the only scene where I thought Michael Cimino's direction was Oscar worthy. Speaking of which...
Michael Cimino. This fucking guy. He's the main reason why I didn't want to see the film. All you have to do is research the making of Heaven's Gate to see why I wouldn't want to watch any of his movies. The point is, he made one highly regarded film, yet the rest of his films were critical and financial failures. How could a director go from winning two Academy Awards for one film, to making shitty films for the rest of his career? I know why. It's because The Deer Hunter had a politically correct agenda which made it so highly regarded at the time of its release. I'll elaborate on that later.
Despite having so much going against it, I saw it anyway. After all, it's a five time Academy Award winning film, so it must have some redeeming qualities. Even if the film is as bad as I thought it was going to be, at least I have grounds to criticize it because I actually saw it. It has an amazing cast, including the late John Cazale, who's famous for having the greatest acting filmography ever. Some would argue that his acting filmography is perfect, but I disagree.
He was in The Deer Hunter, which is the antithesis of perfect.
NOTE: From this point on, there are spoilers in case you're actually interesting in watching this terrible movie.
I saw the first 15 minutes of it. By that point, I already wanted to stop watching. All those scenes, with the steel working and the scenes at the bar, went on for so much longer than they should have been. The Deer Hunter actually won the Oscar for Best Editing. Why would anyone vote The Deer Hunter as the most well edited film? Whatever. I carried on watching it anyway, because it deserves a chance. It'll probably get better soon. Then I got to the wedding segment...
Look, I respect people's opinions. I recently read an article where Simon Pegg said he has no respect for people that like the Star Wars prequels, which pissed me off. Saying you don't respect a person's opinion just because you disagree with them makes you a fucking douchebag, regardless of what the opinion is on whatever subject. Simon Pegg can go fuck himself. He's a good actor and screenwriter, and I understand that he grew up with the original films and felt heartbroken upon seeing the prequels, but only an asshole could have no respect for an opposing opinion.
With that being said, I thought the wedding segment was fucking horrendous. It could have been told in half the time, without removing any important information. If you actually think the wedding segment in The Deer Hunter is better than the wedding segment in The Godfather, then please explain why. I don't understand how anyone could think it was better, but it won more Oscars than The Godfather, so there must be someone who thinks it's better.
I've seen people defending the overlong first hour of The Deer Hunter, saying "It's all about character development. If it was shorter, the film wouldn't have had the same impact." That's fucking bullshit. There are films that make you care about the characters within the first 5-10 minutes. Look at the wonderful Pixar movie Up. Michael Cimino could make at least 5 three hour long movies that convey the same information as the opening montage in Up, yet he couldn't match the emotional impact. Michael Cimino relies on making five different scenes with information that could have easily been conveyed in one scene. Beating the audience in the head with the same scenes over and over again doesn't make them care more about the characters, nor does it give the characters more depth.
I know The Deer Hunter is a character driven film, yet it fails on that too. I don't mind a slow paced film as long as it's centered on interesting characters. That's why Lost In Translation is one of my favorite movies, because the characters were interesting and relatable. The characters in The Deer Hunter, on the other hand, were assholes. I know why they're assholes: Because they're supposed to chance over the course of the film. The problem is, I didn't like them at all, so I don't care if they change.
At this point, I've dedicated my criticisms to the characters and storytelling, so now I need to criticize the "Oscar worthy" directing. There were moments in the film that didn't work, like the music used when Michael is deer hunting. This is the scene that plays before the Vietnam scenes start. The music didn't match the tone of the scene, which could have broken my suspension of disbelief if I actually liked this movie. Another 'odd' moment was during the Russian Roulette scene between Michael and Nick. It's definitely an intense scene, but the Vietnamese characters have the most over-exaggerated cartoonish evil laughs you'll ever find in an Oscar winning movie. I know I'm nitpicking here, but for a film that has so many flaws, even the best scene has a stupid aspect to it.
The villains of the movie don't even laugh like human beings, because they aren't human beings. This is a racist, one-sided film that portrays the Vietnamese as evil scumbags. The Deer Hunter was made a few years after the end of the Vietnam war, which is why it got so much praise. So many American soldiers had Post Traumatic Stress Disorder from fighting in the Vietnam War, and The Deer Hunter came out while the Vietnam War was at the peak of its relevance. If you made a film about soldiers suffering in the Vietnam War back then, it would have been highly praised, even if the film isn't that great.
I already mentioned that there was some bad acting from Robert De Niro. The scene I'm referring to is the final Russian Roulette scene, when Nick shoots himself in the head. Maybe it's just me, but I thought the acting in this scene was so overdone. It's pretty ironic, because he gives this brilliant piece of acting advice in this video.
I blame Michael Cimino for this. I bet when they were shooting this scene, De Niro gave a far more nuanced performance when reacting to Nick's death. Michael Cimino, being the asshole that he is, probably thought he should have given a more obvious performance, and they shot several takes of this scene. Eventually, De Niro thought: "Fuck it, I'll just be melodramatic. God, I fucking hate Michael Cimino. Never working with this guy again." This is just a theory though, so it probably isn't true. The thing that is true, however, is that nobody wants to work with Michael Cimino.
It's impossible to make an Oscar winning film that has no redeeming qualities. With that being said, The Deer Hunter isn't completely bad: The acting is great (most of the time), the Russian Roulette scene was intense (I don't care if that never really happened in the Vietnam War. The scene was dramatic, intense, and almost perfect in its execution), and I thought The Deer Hunter had a good concept. The concept of characters being arrogant before they fight in the war, then they get traumatized during the war, and they change completely after the war is really interesting. If the film was well executed, I would have loved it. But I didn't.
I should point out that I've only seen the film once. I didn't want to see it again because of how much I hated it the first time, but I'm sure I will see it again. I'll probably post a new review if my opinion has changed on the film.
Who knows. I might love the film the second time I see it.
I doubt it, though.
3/10
No comments:
Post a Comment