Rating: 
Summary: The Best Vietnam Film?
Review: The Deer Hunter ("TDH") Basic Plot: 3 'best friends' steel workers go to Vietnam and come back in various states (dead, alive, maimed, etc.). This is a war movie, yet with only a small portion of combat action. This is much more of a "get inside your head" film about the effects of war. It is brutal and unforgettable. If you like the intensity of 'The Killing Fields', this film is much the same. One particular scene, the infamous Russian Roulette scene in the river hut, is arguably the most intense scene ever filmed. It is very difficult to watch, and helps explain why some people who go to war literally are never, ever the same. Having lived in Pittsburgh during the era when this film 'took place', and knowing people not unlike the steelworkers in the film, the first thing viewers need to know is that Pittsburgh scenes are accurate (although not all filmed in Pittsburgh). What first comes across as a way-too-drawn-out and overly-stylized opening scenes of the wedding and hunting, is actually quite like the robust and rough lifestyle of these All American workers, and serves well to contrast with the chaos of 'Nam. For younger people who do not quite relate to the Vietnam era, this is film is a must-see. Other goods 'Nam films are 'Coming Home' (for relationships), and 'Hamburger Hill' (for combat action). 'Platoon' is probably the most 'balanced' on the Vietnam films, although the mental and artistic side of TDH, I feel, is better. The photography and music of TDH is superb, as is the casting and the on-location filming. The one odd bit of 'license' in TDH is the hunting scenes. There is no place anywhere near Pennsylvania that has mountains like those shown in this movie (these scenes were film north of Seattle, where there are glaciers), but TDH 'mentality' is very much a 'religion' in this part of America (as well as some other areas, such as Michigan). This film is better on DVD than VHS as it has panoramic scenery, and the higher fidelity of the DVD makes the soundtrack more realistic. This is no lightweight movie, and like Titanic, leaves you numb for a while after watching it. I would rate this film as easily in the Top 10 war movies ever made, right up there with 'Patton', 'Paths of Glory' and 'Private Ryan. A final tidbit, Streep has a supporting role and does a superb job. Her lover at the time was John Cazale (Michael Corleone's 'dumb' brother, 'Fredo', in 'The Godfather') who plays one of the threesome's friends who does not go to war. Casselles died shortly after TDH was made, and TDH was among Streep's earlier roles that really got her career rolling ('Kramer vs. Kramer' and 'Out of Africa' were in the same time frame).
Rating:
Summary: A Brilliant Emotional War Movie About Friendship
Review: The first time I watched this extraordinary film, I didn't like it as much as I would later on. At first it seemed a little sloppy and slow, with some very intense and memorable sequences. This is definitely a film that grows on you, and come to love after a few viewings. Robert DeNiro stars as Michael, an ambitious guy who loves to shoot pool with his buddies and go hunting. Their world suddenly changes when Michael and his two friends Nick (Christopher Walken) and Steven (John Savage) go off to war in Vietnam. This film shows the brutal intensity and reality of war and what the main characters are forced to go through. When they finally get back, their social and home lives have changed...mostly for the worse. We then see how each character copes with the effects of war, and loss of friendship. One thing I've learned about some great masterpieces, is that they always seem to have a song before a huge event occurs. For example, in Pulp Fiction "Girl, You'll Be A Woman Soon," before Mia overdoses. In "The Deer Hunter," there is a scene early on in the film where all friends sing and dance to "Can't Take My Eyes Off You" with Christopher Walken leading. This scene sticks out in my mind as brilliant. While watching this scene, you become absorbed in the film and become close friends with the characters. It's really powerful, and a last good time before going off to war. You may start watching this film and find the picture to be too grainy, or the plot too boring, but trust me...stick with it. It will most definitely be a film that will stay in your heart for some time.
Rating:
Summary: Underlying theme of film not undermined by script flaws
Review: The Deer Hunter was a very important film in that it, if nothing else, served as one of the first studies of the effects of the Vietnam war on the average American citizen. While film and television had dealt with the Vietnam conflict to some degree previous to this (John Wayne's The Green Berets [1968] and Rod Serling's Twilight Zone episode entitled "In Praise of Pip" [1964] come to mind), serious efforts in depicting the war realistically, as well as the war's effects on its participants, had simply been avoided, presumably for political and social reasons. With the release of "The Deer Hunter" (as well as with "Coming Home") in 1978, the topic of Vietnam was presented to the public in the form of gritty, realistic productions from major studios. These 2 films certainly must have had an impact on an audience which may not have had a personal, non-distilled understanding of the Vietnam war prior to their release. In fact, graphic scenes such as the Russian Roulette sequence of the Deer Hunter may have (erroneously) informed many on what the everyday GI in Vietnam had to endure at the hands of the VietCong. In this respect, I can understand the distain that reviewers such as Yisrael Harris ("Fantasy Masquerading as Reality") have for this film. As one of the first dramatic studies of Vietnam ever committed to celluloid, it could be said that the narrative of The Deer Hunter had a responsibility to portray events according to historical truths. This would insure that the structure of the film would faithfully inform a public that may have been getting their first glimpse of war-time atrocities. That being said, I think it is wrong to condemn the film based upon the fact that the historical accuracy of a key sequence is unfounded in the record books. Certainly, the atrocities committed by both sides of the Vietnam conflict were unimaginably cruel (ex: My Lai). When one considers this, is it that far-fetched to ask the viewer to believe that a gang of Vietcong could ruthlessly force US POWs to engage in Russian Roulette for their sick enjoyment and financial gain? I think it is a perfectly legitimate concept and, in the midst of so much war and bloodshed, what makes it inappropriate, other than the fact that it is undocumented? (In a far more legitimate criticism, one could make the argument that the Vietnamese soldiers are unfairly depicted as one-dimensional, innately cruel, soulless dregs). Nothing portrayed in that sequence would be considered 'unfathomable' in the pantheon of war. In Harris's review, he states that "I took it for granted, without even a second thought, that these [Russian Roulette] scenes portrayed a phenomenon that was a legitimate part of the Vietnam War experience". At no point does the film suggest that this type of activity was a widespread phenomenon within Vietnam. The film treats this as an isolated incident within one remote POW camp. To take for granted that this type of behavior was widespread is simply inappropriate and is not a product of a suggestive script, but rather an uninformed viewer. It is true that the Russian Roulette scene has more than a passing influence on the rest of the film, what with Christopher Walken's character becoming a willing pawn in an underground roulette gambling ring under a drug-influenced stupor. But this is an organized arrangement entered into by two willing parties, not an act of torture, as the previous scene is. Harris goes on in his review to ask "So what is the message of this movie?" and wonders how "to treat seriously a movie which takes such pains to build up a realistic group of characters... when a central pillar of the experience of the movie is total fantasy-land". Again, I hardly think that Russian Roulette is an unfathomable event within the scope of one of the bloodiest conflicts in US history, and the analogy of suggesting the similarity of a Russian Roulette sequence to a UFO invasion is utterly ridiculous. As they say, all is fair in love and war, and the idea that man's inhumanity to man could not include a cruel game of Russian Roulette is simply naive. The fact that there are no recorded incidents of this happening is irrelevant. This is after all, a fictitious account of ordinary people devastated by war, and in that regard it works on many levels. Besides, if the ultimate goal of the picture is to show the destructive power of war, both physically or emotionally, what difference does it make which vehicle is used to illustrate the destruction?
Rating: 
Summary: Deserves SOME credit......but...
Review: I am 32 years old and was just a kid when this movie was released. My whole life I have heard about how phenomonal this movie was supposed to be. I consider myself a bit of a movie buff and have seen many films regarding the Vietnam conflict and the resulting after effects. I would never by any means disrespect those who served in that ridiculous conflict, I have the utmost respect for our fighting men and women having served myself. But does this movie really deserve all the accolades it receives? Yes it is a good film. Good, not tremendous drop everything and kneel at the cinema alter. This movie is seperated into 3 hours, each hour documenting a different period in the characters lives. By far the most powerful and redeeming portion of this film (for me anyway) was the 2nd hour which focuses on the characters while serving in Vietnam. I don't think anyone can deny the second hour of this fim is powerful and well worth the praise it receives. But this alone does not make it a fantastic film. I LOVE Christopher Walken. LOVE him. But did he really deserve an academy award for his performance in this film? I can think of 5 other movies off the top of my head that Walken should have received Oscars, or at least a nod for. And did this film really deserve the best picture of 1978? I am asking this as a legitmate question. 1978 must have had some slim pickin's at the movies that year if these awards were rightly presented. Now I realize that possibly in '78 when this movie was released, it was worthy of everything it received. The conflict in Vietnam was just barely over and it probably touched a chord with many viewers. And many of us also have the benefit of many years of vietnam movies since then to compare this movie against. In my opinion no one can touch PLATOON for the raw emotion and power in that film. Hamburger hill is also a bit of an underated classic in that sense. I recognize that The Deer Hunter is much more than a war movie. I realize it touches on the charcters lives before and after their experience in Vietnam. I realize the director was trying to get the audience to connect and bond with the characters and help us understand and relate to them so we could feel something for them. But my God was a 35 minute wedding/reception scene really needed to do this?! I NEVER fast forward a movie when I'm watching it..almost never anyway....and I found myself trying to fast forward this supposed American classic so I could get to the meat of the story..it was embarrassing. I feel this movie would have been infinetly better if it was cut down to 2 hours, maybe 2hrs and 15 min. I just felt what ultimately wrecked this long awaited movie experience for me ( I actually waited to watch it until I got my new TV I was so excited to see it) was its unneccesary length. Some people feel this length was needed to tell the story. I completely disagree. Maybe I just dropped the ball on this one...I was really bummed after watching this movie because I had hyped myself for YEARS to see it...and who knows...maybe that's why I didn't think it was as great as everyone else. But I must admit, the performances by Walken and De Niro in the 2nd hour alone were amazing and brought this movie back out out of the depths of boredom for me.
Rating:
Summary: Real and Shocking but a very slow war/family drama
Review: The Deer Hunter is a very powerful movie and hard to describe without actually seeing it. During the late 1970s Hollywood put out a string of epics with a three hour + running time. The Deer Hunter was one of them. The Deer Hunter is not for everyone, although it does cater for all audiences. It has war /drama /romance /horror and mystery all rolled into one. Essentially the film is about friendship and how the Vietnam war ruined the lives of everyday people. But Platoon, Born on the 4th of July, Full Metal Jacket and Apocalypse Now have all told us this type of story before. What makes the Deer Hunter any different? The Deer Hunter works on the basis of realism. There is no Hollywood type plot here and it certainly has art house appeal even though it boasts an A-list cast. The story is sometimes linear and then sometimes not. The characters are not entirely fleshed out fully, their backgrounds a mystery and their psychological profiles left uncertain but there are connections and this is all relative to the storyline which is essentially about friendship, lovers and coping with the aftermath of war. It is often very shocking in parts, especially the infamous "Russian roulette" sequences which is played out in a hyper-realistic manner. Robert De Niro plays Michael Vronsky, a sort of quiet hard man who only speaks when he feels he has something to say and who has a soft spot for a girl called Linda, played by Meryl Streep. Linda agrees to marry Nick played by Christopher Walken, Michaels best friend, during a wedding between Steven played by John Savage, and his wife Angela played by Rutanya Alda. All of these three men are also celebrating enlisting for the army so that they can fight in the Vietnam war. Three of their best friends - Axel, Stanley and John are not going and will remain in the town of Clairton, Pennsylvania awaiting the return of the war heroes. All of the friends have a few things in common. They work in a steel factory, go deer hunting and like to drink beer together. The filmmakers build up an intimate relationship between the characters and again, realism, is the key to how the story is presented. There are lots of shots with nothing much going on and sequences that are simply not relevant to the plot, but all of it is used in a way to make the story much more believable. It is suffice to say the war wrecks havoc on everybody and friendships suffer. The good times are mostly lost and the war veterans are trying to come to terms with themselves. Michael is still trying to act the hard man, trying to fix things, make everybody better - but there is very little he can do about it no matter how hard he tries. He has gone through so much that he does not want to see it all in vain, but he can not do anything and this frustrates him. Nick has gone insane is virtually replaying his role as a prisoner of war for all the world to see... and bet on. Steven is a cripple and his wife has put him in a institution. Linda is confused and just wants a man to settle down with her. It is all very sad and played with absolute authenticity. The Deer Hunter is not a film that you are supposed to enjoy. It is more of an experience and you will have to be in the right frame of mind to sit through it without putting your finger on the fast-forward button. If you like it, like I and many others do, then you will enjoy repeat viewings. There is certainly something new every time you see it. For those of you that do not like slow moving dramas then avoid.... but you do not know what you are missing.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant movie - for the time, the place, and the people
Review:
Post-modern criticism teaches that all language and judgement is culturally relative. This film exemplifies that. It spoke to a particular people at a particular time and place. It won't make much sense to today's Iraq War generation.
The Deer Hunter was set near the end of the Viet Nam war when popular dissent against the war was starting to take hold in Main Street, USA. This movie is not about evil Vietnamese or American heroes. It's not about patriotism. None of the themes that sway today's generation made sense then. This movie is about people - American teenage boys - and their breaking points. These youung men were born into a place with no opportunity, and no choice but to follow a path laid out for them by forces much stronger than they. In a deeper way, this movie is about the poor people who have fought rich men's wars throughout history. The Deer Hunter was deeply anti-war - it was also deeply pro-American. Neither government hawks nor Jane Fonda Hollywood liberals liked this movie. One part of this movie is even more endearing today than it was in the 1970's - setting the heart of it among the Eastern European, Ukrainian, Russian Orthodox church people of Western Pennsylvania; a hard-working white ethnic area of miners and steel-mill factory workers. I don't know if I would recommend this movie to anyone who didn't live through that era. But I am richer for having seen it. It is a brilliant snapshot of an American time and place that is gone now.
Rating: 
Summary: Fantasy Masquerading as Reality
Review: Of course the acting, directing, cinematography, etc. of this movie are all, by near universal consensus (and I don't exclude myself), simply first-rate. The main point of disagreement seems to be how necessary those VERY slow wedding scenes were to setting the backdrop for the rest of the movie. My rejection of the movie as a thing of worth is based on one specific element: the Russian roulette scenes. When I saw the movie, I was extremely moved, indeed haunted, by as much as, if not more than, anything else in the movie, the Russian roulette scenes. They are so powerful: de Niro's character helping the others pull through, the daring escape, their effect on Walken's character, who by the end of the movie is completely emotionally numbed/scarred by them, etc. The movie portrayed these scenes so convincingly, and my own personal knowledge of the Vietnam war was sufficiently sparse, that I took it for granted, without even a second thought, that these scenes portrayed a phenomenon that was a legitimate part of the Vietnam War experience. And the thought that this was another of the horrors that U.S. soldiers had to face was very disturbing to me and lasted with me for a long time. I found out years later that the Russian roulette scenes were a total fantasy, a fiction, a fake, a fabrication. That such scenes rarely, if ever, took place in the Vietnam War. So what is the message of this movie? How I am supposed to treat seriously a movie which takes such pains to build up a realistic group of characters, sent to a horrible war that really did take place, come back and have to deal with real-life situations of apple-pie America, when a central pillar of the experience of the movie is total fantasy-land? It is as if, instead of having the Russian roulette scenes, the movie had portrayed the soldiers being abducted by UFO's for a time, and showing the impact such an episode would have on them. Sound ridiculous? Of course it is! But therefore so too is inter-weaving a bizarre, surrealistic experience of Russian roulette, which bears no more relation to reality than a UFO escapade. I object to the deception. I seriously doubt that I am the only person who was thus misled by the movie. It is simply lazy and manipulative to concoct such a fictitious scenario. Russian roulette, a forced game where the stakes are life and death and the outcome is dictated by the roll of the dice (so to speak), is a cheap, easy, artificial way to inject a sense of morbid tension and high drama into the movie. If the movie-makers wanted to show us a movie which portrays the horrors of the Vietnam War, then please show us a movie which portrays the horrors of the Vietnam War! not a movie which portrays the horrors of your imagination! Was there not enough material of what the U.S. soldiers went through in Vietnam that you had to fabricate this Russian roulette nonsense? I see one reviewer after another speak of the "realism" of this movie. In light of what I've written here, I just don't get it.
Rating: 
Summary: I feel a lot of distance
Review: Of a more than three hours long movie this is the line that drew most my attention, as I consider this movie to be about the war aftermath rather than war itself. The people who went to this war became its very victims, as they were used for the whims of others.
This flawed but yet beautiful movie is divided in three parts: before, during and after Vietnam war, the happy-go-lucky attitude, the horror and disillusion. Many have complained about the overlength of the wedding scenes, but I guess it was Cimino's intention, as he first allows the viewer to get to know the main characters in order to "make him suffer" more later in the movie.
What comes after the wedding and the last time the guys were hunting together is much more controversial. As to this movie's realism, some of the things that bother me the most are the morality of Michael Cimino's attitude to his story-telling, his one sided approach of the war and his politically correct treatment of the vietnamese: all the atrocities portrayed in this film are committed by the Viet Cong. As for the highly controversial russian roulette contests scenes, which by the way are some of the most dramatic and most beautiful scenes ever to be captured by a camera, although they never really took place, they can be justifiable. The whole thing can be viewed as a metaphore, trying to depict the absurdity of the Vietnam War, as the whole movie itself is not a realistic, but a surrealistic work. Even the landscape is surrealistic. But even so, the question remains moot.
The best thing in this movie is certainly the acting. De Niro gives one of his best performances ever, especially in the Vietnam scenes and later on. When he comes back home he feels a tremendous void: he has serious problems connecting to people, as the war experience was too mindboggling for him to even try to talk about it. He makes you feel the devastation that touched America and how this war scarred forever its psyche. Chris Walken deserved the best supporting actor academy award he won that year for his part in this movie: his portrayal of the one descending slowly into madness is at least memorable. Meryl Streep is fantastic too: the chemistry between her and De Niro is obvious, but what I liked the most about her performance is her quiet inner nervousness, her inner trauma as she struggles between her loyalty to Nicky and her attraction to Michael and her need for some consolation. Savage and Cazale are excellent too. The closing scene is one of the saddest I've ever seen in a movie, as they all sing a patriotic song in order to try and regain the natural feeling they once proved, all wrecked beyond repair, realizing that something has gone forever.
All in all a masterpiece, although a flawed film, but frankly, how many flawless masterpieces have you seen in your life?
Rating:
Summary: "Deer Hunter" is manipulative, but great acting
Review: While "Deer Hunter" was an important early movie dealing with the Vietnam War, it has its flaws which seem to magnify every time I see it. Like a lot of people, when I first saw it in a theater many, many years ago, I was shaken up, and believed that Cimino's movie was deservedly heading for the Oscars. After a quarter-century I now believe the movie was deliberately manipulative and distorted. Yes, it's good that "Deer Hunter" showed how ordinary Americans' lives were warped and shattered by the war, but so did "Coming Home." But this is a very one-sided movie, a triumph of rugged machismo individualism (De Niro's character) over faceless, mindless adversaries. Why were they sent to Vietnam? What did they do? The battle scenes make no sense. How did they get captured? Cimino's chronic lack of focus has been picked up by others. The Russian Roulette scenes are simultaneously classic and highly objectionable. I have yet to read of any documented instances of NVA or VC, who are depicted in this movie as soulless insect-like goons, forcing prisoners to do this. Likewise, I don't recall seeing anything about this catching on as a Saigon blood sport. This is a Hollywood conceit and artifice, and feeds American stereotypes and racial attitudes for the worse. The movie treats the Vietnamese as hopelessly alien sub-humans who inflict terrible things upon innocent Americans. It this is your bag, at least "Hanoi Hilton" tries to have some basis in fact. The best thing about "Deer Hunter" is the acting. The young De Niro, Streep, and Walken are superb. What the movie makes them do is not their fault. I will offend lots of people when I say that of movies that deal with the aftermath of soldiers' experiences in Vietnam, "Born On The Fourth of July" is a better and less objectionable movie.
Rating:
Summary: ...except it's not a "Vietnam" movie, folks
Review: The reviewer who gave it a rating of 1 probably experienced this film more fully than anyone who is viewing as part of the "Vietnam" pantheon. I think we need to be looking a bit more closely at what the filmmaker was trying to say and how he went about it. A little secret... this movie is about how human beings (who are complex even when they're poor!) deal with traumatic events. The first part of the movie sets up the characters and their respective situations and relationships, including the trauma of their current lives (in the good old US of A). The second part is the "event". Oooooh. Get over it, it's not the point of the movie. Really. From hospital in Saigon onward (when most people nod off) is where the filmmaker is getting to the point. This film is a treasure of themes and symbolism, probably too much so for most people. If you are interested in stories about real people, what symbols they can represent, and the intertwining of themes throughout a story, then you should not miss this film. View it at one sitting without distraction and you will likely come away profoundly affected.
| 
