The Deer Hunter

The Deer Hunter_360P

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.

This boring, overlong, implausible excuse for a story has psyched out a surprising number of people, thanks to a strong cast (Robert De Niro, Meryl Streep, Christopher Walken), phony but emotionally exploitive material, and American audiences desperate to demonize the winners of the Vietnam war. Any scenes that might have shown combat, snipers, or something that could have really happened in Vietnam are jarringly missing - it practically cuts from Pennsylvania to a POW camp. Then the famous "Russian roulette" scenes are utterly invented, and never happened to anyone in Vietnam (and probably not in any other war). Any honest viewpoint on any war would be preferable. Nam veterans aren't fooled; they hate this movie. Finally, they eliminate Walken's character in a twist that should logically have occurred many years earlier, but happens to take place just as his best friend arrives after ten years. Please! The most amazing thing about this movie is how many people say they loved it. Somehow the alternation of pretentious slowness and violence is manipulative. Its success so confused its director that he became delusional and made an even longer and far more expensive failure, so infamously bad it actually brought down United Artists studio. Still, I suspect I'd like it better than The Deer Hunter.

How did this movie get to be in the top 250? Why is it rated so high? If you have sat through this three hour movie you may be asking yourself this same question. Movies from this era tended to move a bit slower, take their time, and deliver some sort of message on the meaning of life. I have patience and can sit through many slower films. But what drags this film down is that the protagonist Michael (Robert DeNiro) does not hold your interest for 20 minutes, let alone 183. Long scenes such as the wedding reception where we watch the guests dance for 20 minutes leave you wondering, why? What does this have to do with Michael? Does he want to get married? Does he wish he had the life of his friends? Do they envy him? How does this move the story forward? In contradiction to the long scenes, there are several shorter ones that seem to have no point at all. Why was Linda (Meryl Streep) beaten by her father and what did this have to do with the story? At times the movie moved forward too fast, leaving the question, what just happened? I continually felt that I was being left out of some crucial plot points that would move the story forward, or at least keep me interested. Nick (Christopher Walken), would seem to make a far better protagonist than Michael. His character actually went through the most change and his story held the most interest. My guess is that this movie spoke more to the times of 1978 with Vietnam being not to far behind. In that way, one who saw it then might rate it higher. Seeing it today, however, one wonders, "8.1 stars?"

This is one of the best adaptions of the Vietnam War on film that I have seen. We have also "Platoon" that represented somewhat of the same thing that "The Deer Hunter" did as well, but this one came first and was a great version. It showed the intense horror and ultimate change effect on the men that fought in Vietnam. At first, I admit, I was a little bored because the beginning is a little long and felt unnecessary, but then I realized later in the film how much that developed the characters and understood their friendships and how they relate. Robert De Niro seems to be the strongest one of the group, his name is Mike. He has a lot of guts, but he also seems to care mostly about himself, he later on proves that after finally just letting go with his kept up emotions, he must take care of his friends as well. Christopher Walken, he's a baby in here! He's such a terrific actor and he did so well by portraying innocence in his role and the ultimate insanity of his character. He and Robert were amazing, they were just so believable and worked so well together. This was the best picture of 1978, so far I cannot really judge one wither or not it deserved the reward. But it is an awesome movie and I would highly recommend it for anyone. The lines are just F****** A! :D I mean memorable! This does deserve to be on the top 250, good job to other IMDb users! 10/10

This boring, overlong, implausible excuse for a story has psyched out a surprising number of people, thanks to a strong cast (Robert De Niro, Meryl Streep, Christopher Walken), phony but emotionally exploitive material, and American audiences desperate to demonize the winners of the Vietnam war. Any scenes that might have shown combat, snipers, or something that could have really happened in Vietnam are jarringly missing - it practically cuts from Pennsylvania to a POW camp. Then the famous "Russian roulette" scenes are utterly invented, and never happened to anyone in Vietnam (and probably not in any other war). Any honest viewpoint on any war would be preferable. Nam veterans aren't fooled; they hate this movie. Finally, they eliminate Walken's character in a twist that should logically have occurred many years earlier, but happens to take place just as his best friend arrives after ten years. Please! The most amazing thing about this movie is how many people say they loved it. Somehow the alternation of pretentious slowness and violence is manipulative. Its success so confused its director that he became delusional and made an even longer and far more expensive failure, so infamously bad it actually brought down United Artists studio. Still, I suspect I'd like it better than The Deer Hunter.

I cannot fathom the absolute horror that war brings to a persons life, but never has a film depicted it more harrowing than The Deerhunter. At 182 minutes, it seemed to fly by, leaving me wanting more and wishing this would not end. all facets are explored, all people's emotions are laid bare, not just the combatants. If we obviously did not know better, one would have to say this was a British film, as it has all the best elements that British movie making displays. i can eulogise for hundreds of lines, but this really is the ONLY American movie i can think of (others? apart from taxi driver) that is RAW. A strange word i know but the movie oozes a raw edge to it. Immense performances from all concerned, and if i had to say, i believe i have not seen Christopher Walken in a better role. One of the very few films i deservedly give 10/10. A must for any collection and a stunning example of every aspect of film making coming together, albeit for a sombre depiction of life.

I hired The Deer Hunter after a number of people recommended it to me. I thought they were serious. I honestly cannot believe this film is so highly regarded when nothing actually happens. There is three whole hours of nothing. I haven't been so full of hatred for a film since I was forced to watch "the Piano" (another very boring and overrated waste-of-space). Alright, it started out looking good and interesting, showing the very harsh conditions of a Pennsylvania steel mill. It captured my interest. That was in the first five minutes. Then, we are treated to about 55 minutes of a mind-numbingly boring wedding scene. God knows what happened to the editor, but he must have been drunk or on strike or something because what should have been a five- or ten-minute brief explanation became a drawn-out and long-winded dance scene! Next there's maybe fifteen minutes of the main characters going out into the wilderness and murdering a few animals for their own entertainment. Now we finally get into the "war" scenes. When I hired this film I was led to believe that it was in fact a "war" movie. No, it really isn't. Vietnam may be involved and feature part-way through the story, but this is definitely NOT a war movie. All we get is a few seconds of Viet Cong brutality, then a flamethrower and some American choppers dropping off a squad or two of well-equipped soldiers. All of a sudden, we are transported into some kind of Viet Cong mobile water torture station, where unfortunate American (and other Vietnamese, probably South Vietnamese) soldiers are forced to play Russian Roulette for entertainment and gambling purposes. They get slapped around, thrown into rat-infested, half-submerged pits and generally mistreated by the evil VC. Don't get me wrong, the first Russian Roulette scene was very tense and I did hope that Robert DeNiro would blow a hole in the head of the VC leader. However, this is all that happened in the film. After that, nothing at all happened. I gave up just before the two-hour mark. It was just too much tripe for me. I could not believe it was rated so highly. Nothing happened in two god-damn hours! A long-winded wedding, a boring hunting scene and a very poor attempt at a war scene. I stopped watching after two hours. The garbage was finally beginning to get to me. So, to all those who adore and blindly praise this film, I have to ask you: Did you actually watch it, or were you just jumping on the Every-Academy-Award-Winner-Must-Be-Good train? It may well have been a great cinematic work in 1978, but today it certainly doesn't stand up against other older war movies. If you haven't watched The Deer Hunter yet...don't bother. Instead go watch a decent Vietnam film - such as Platoon or Full Metal Jacket. Otherwise, you're just wasting three hours of your life.

Most young people today need to learn that Robert De Niro was not just the person in Meet the Parents or The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle, but he starred in films like The Deer Hunter, which got him to where he is today. Not only is he a great actor, he always picks good films to act in. And with a strong supporting cast, also, you can't really go wrong with The Deer Hunter. Michael (De Niro), Nick (Christopher Walken), and Steven (John Savage) sign up to go to Vietnam. They leave after a farewell party/wedding party for Stanley and Angela (Rutanya Alda). Once in the midst of the war, they are forced into playing Russian Roulette and eventually they escape, but none of them can forget the experiences from the war. It's sad to see that Michael Cimino fade from view, because his direction here is really memorable and it's what holds the film together. There's about 70 minutes in the beginning of the film that has nothing to do with the rest of the film, but it gets us to know these three main characters, and it seems like you wouldn't care if they even went to Vietnam, because you certainly were intrigued by these three people. And once they're in the perils of war, you feel enough for these three basic people to get through the war. The Russian Roulette scenes are harrowing, even when it's a complete stranger who has the gun to their head. I read that to get the tension on set, a live bullet was put into the gun, but it was checked to make sure that it wasn't the one about to be shot. And, since you've known these people for 90 minutes already, you obviously didn't want them to die, making them all the more nervous. The Deer Hunter is quite unlike another great Vietnam film, Full Metal Jacket. While FMJ just showed the immediate results, this movie showed the results immediately and in the future, back at home. This helped make everything seem more realistic, which it was. For each of the three main characters, the war has changed them greatly, and none for the better. De Niro is great, but the stand out here is Walken, who accurately takes his role and makes it into something memorable. Thankfully, he won best supporting actor. Meryl Streep was nominated as a supporting character, deservedly. However, this movie is not all about the acting, it's about the feeling you get. As one character says, 'I don't know how I feel.' That's exactly how you'll feel after seeing this tour-de-force. My rating: 10/10 Rated R for strong language and violence.

Clearly, there are many people who value this movie. I have no problem admitting that I just "don't get it" -- as long as those who like this movie are open to the idea that, just possibly, there is an elephant in the room that they are overlooking. Actually, from some other comments, it looks like some other people have seen the elephant, but think that it fits well into the room. My case rests on the fact that this is meant to be a "serious" movie, but I have had less trouble suspending disbelief with the X-Men than with this movie: if the main characters had escaped from the Vietcongs using their super-powers, that would have left me less uncomfortable than what I have seen in this movie. Some other IMDb reviewers have mentioned the extreme improbability of Nick making a living out of playing Russian roulette professionally. But the weirdness does not end there, because his buddy Michael returns to Vietnam to rescue him from his insanity. How? why, by playing Russian roulette with him, of course! You might think that this is the action least likely to bring the two of them back together to the USA -- and you would be right, because Nick shoots himself during the game. The way it looks to me is that Michael unwittingly ends Nick's successful career. The earlier escape scene is also absurd. It makes sense that Michael and Nick plan to escape by using the gun they are supposed to play Russian roulette with. It makes sense that they figure they need three bullets to escape. It might even make sense that, before starting to fire at the Vietcongs, they want to be sure that the next chamber has a bullet in it (although the way they make sure would mean a very likely failure for their plan, in real life). But why did the Vietcongs let them keep a gun with three bullets ready to be fired? The escape plan boils down to hoping that the Vietcongs will let them keep a loaded gun, if they survive Russian roulette. Nothing wrong with trying; but the scriptwriters should not have allowed them to survive both the odds of Russian roulette and the odds that at least one of the Vietcongs would use his brain. The Russian roulette scenes are surreal. Watching them, I could feel no suspense whatsoever, in spite of the characters screaming themselves hoarse: I simply could not suspend my disbelief. I had the uncomfortable feeling of missing something: perhaps they were playing some other game that looks a lot like Russian roulette, except that the person with the gun knows whether the next chamber has a cartridge in it. That might help to explain both the escape from the Vietcongs and Nick's survival as a professional player, but it would introduce other difficulties, such as Nick shooting himself. Now, all of the above comments are about the Russian roulette scenes, and it might be said that i am overlooking the rest of the movie: that this is not a war movie, but a movie about the trauma of war. Maybe so, but suppose that you had seen the movie without the Russian roulette scenes: would you think that the movie could be improved by adding a few silly scenes? For me, the addition of silly scenes means that i must take away one or two points from my rating. My rating is already pretty low because I "don't get" the rest of the movie, and in addition because I had high expectations for this movie and was disappointed; so i am giving the minimum rating to the movie as a whole.