1. kk10

   10

   A great movie. The movie has three parts, a wedding, the war and at last afuneral. In the first we discover the characters. In the second we fear for their lives and in the third we sympathize with them. It is a powerful movie. and also has strong performances.… Expand

   • Helpful? 1 of 1 users said Yes.
2. jalind

   8

   I agree with some of the criticisms about the pacing of the film, particularly the drawn out wedding scene. Perhaps it was done to subtly define details in some of the characters and the relationships with each other, which I would concede it does, but feel there might have been some less lengthy ways to accomplish this.
   
   I do not see The Deer Hunter as a "Vietnam War" film per se. So many either expect or want it to be just that, and therefore fault it for failing to "define" that war historically, politically or morally, and for not having a high level of historically factual accuracy. Those who want to see films about that would be better served by We Were Soldiers, Platoon, and Full Metal Jacket (these three have some flaws; take them in aggregation). I believe Deer Hunter is more a broader commentary about war in general and what it does to those directly or indirectly affected by it, either by having been in combat or in close relationships with those who were. The Vietnam War was the immediate societal and cultural experience of the time to use as a vehicle for it, and a number of aspects of the film are metaphorical. I do believe it captures with some insight, the (heavy) industrial, blue collar small towns in middle America that are much more heavily laced with provincialism and blindly unquestioning "zealous patriotism" compared to the more critical, cosmopolitan attitudes found in major metropolitan regions (patriotism without the zealotry).
   
   The most poignant of the metaphors are the deer hunting and the controversial Russian roulette. I don't believe the latter was ever intended to be historically accurate. It is an extremely powerful means to carry self-destructive aspects of PTSD and "survivor guilt" in particular with the seeming randomness of death in warfare, not knowing if one will survive from one moment to the next at times with each combat action being yet another round of Russian roulette. Instead of watching the film expecting it to portray "what" happened in Vietnam, view it from a perspective of how war indelibly changes those who were drawn into it, and their relationships with others as participants, family and close friends. As one of those who is part of the Vietnam War generation and served quite a few years in the army, I saw it when originally released. It was unsettling and took me a few days to realize this is what the film is about. Each viewing since then, including very recently, has confirmed it.… Expand

   • Helpful? 0 of 0 users said Yes.
3. BlakeJ.

   7

   Ask me: "Blake, does this movie stand the test of time?" And I will be forced to honestly say, "No, in my opinion it does not." The Deer Hunter is a serious movie, filled with serious ideas, and serious actors. In his most endearing performance ever on scree, Christopher Walken molds Nicky into precisely the desensitized warriror Cimino must have wanted, or at least dream about. The entire supporting cast adds to the movie's sparkle and gleam of greatness. But, it is in it's lack of cohesion, and it's, ultimately, slow pacing. There is a scene that will make your heart explode, but you wont make it to that scene if you have a short attention span.… Expand

   • Helpful? 1 of 1 users said Yes.
4. Lolcano

   3

   My expectations were high. I had heard so much about this film - THE defining Vietnam film. Gritty, unnerving, fearless and provocative, and with a wide scope that broached all the mores of the times...
   
   What a load of guff. I'm serious. Perhaps when the film was released in 1978 it was such a great achievement to even attempt a film about Vietnam that it got a by on artistic merit. Here's the lowdown (no spoliers): *An incredibly long wedding scene that has no particular bearing on the plot (including the memorable line "f**k it" which nicely defines the movie). *Lot's of irrelevant hunting scenes (is killing a stag like... killing a man? Am /I/ the stag?). *A combat scene in Vietnam that lasts 20 seconds (when we had to sit through the wedding scene for a half hour). *A lot of repetition of the Vietnamese word 'Mao' (and slapping) *An unrealistic firefight. *Survivor guilt *Lots more survivor guilt *A bit of amnesia and one of the characters who couldn't get enough of the Vietnamese word 'Mao' in the first place. It might seem unfair to sum up a movie like this - but the fact that the movie believes its irrelevance is portentous makes it merely pretentious. Besides some very good acting from De Nero and co. the film in reality has very little to say apart from the overarching theme of "f**k it". It does not look at America in any real way, and certainly makes a determined effort to not look at all at Vietnam. It comes in at the very tail end of the Vietnam conflict, makes some overarching gesture saying: well war makes you go mad, and then stands back at a distance marveling at the tragedy of it all. If you are going to have irrational characters, at least give their irrationality due cause. If you are going to make a film, hire an editor at some stage. If you are going to write a story about war, attempt to the utmost of your ability to feature that war. If you are going to make a film about deer-hunting, make a film about hunting deer. Do not give it an hour of screen time just to facilitate some tenuous symbolic meaning.… Expand

   • Helpful? 2 of 4 users said Yes.

See all 19 User Reviews