The Deer Hunter

Universal Pictures | Release Date: December 8, 1978

7.7	USER SCORE Generally favorable reviews based on 254 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

TheWaffleSep 29, 2017

A long slog in need of a good editor. There's a great movie in here about friendship, war, and the wounds that soldiers carry long after the battle is over. But The Deer Hunter spends a huge stretch on an overlong wedding scene at theA long slog in need of a good editor. There's a great movie in here about friendship, war, and the wounds that soldiers carry long after the battle is over. But The Deer Hunter spends a huge stretch on an overlong wedding scene at the beginning and then gives short shrift to critical dramatic moments. The war elements feel like vague flashbacks, we never see the characters' transformation through the war, just a kind of before and after. Hard video cuts also rob several dramatic moments of their tension. I feel that a good editor could make this film much better.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

FilipeNetoSep 20, 2020

I confess that I didn't really know what to expect from this film when I started watching it. I knew it was a prestigious film, considered by many to be one of the best films of the 1970s, and I knew the basics about the plot. In the end, II confess that I didn't really know what to expect from this film when I started watching it. I knew it was a prestigious film, considered by many to be one of the best films of the 1970s, and I knew the basics about the plot. In the end, I liked what I saw, but it doesn't look as good as a lot of people say it should be and what should be a film that won five Academy Awards (Best Film, Best Director, Best Sound, Best Editing and Best Supporting Actor) and was nominated for four another categories (Best Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Best Cinematography and Best Original Screenplay) in 1979!

The script is complex and you should pay attention as each character is introduced. The film focuses on three young Russian-Americans from a rural Pennsylvania community who go to the Vietnam War: Michael is the strongest and most charismatic, Steven is getting married and Nick leaves a girlfriend behind, for whom Michael has a crush. United by friendship, they end up separated by war.

Much can be said about the story told in this film, directed by Michael Cimino in the only successful film of his short and obscure career. The first hour cost me a lot: the film takes a long time to start and the introduction is overloaded with dialogues and scenes that could have been cut in the editing room. This part should be shorter, presenting the characters and their environment without bothering the audience too much with details that are irrelevant to the story (such as the details of the wedding and the party). Another problem I felt was seeing the main characters being so immature all the time. For the film to work, they have to win the public's sympathy and not their hatred!

After an hour of suffering and looking at the clock, the three boys finally go to Vietnam. And here is another surprise: the Vietnam War never took up so little time in a film about it! I won't be exaggerating if I say that I saw only half an hour of war scenes. I felt that Cimino wanted to quickly go over the war and developing that was not something he wanted to do. But if this is a film about the war and how it affected people it was a major theme and needed to be developed further! We only saw one attack! Was that damn marriage more important?

From that moment on the film improves substantially, with the development of a dramatic story around the fate of each of the characters. I have only two objections to make: I am able to understand the symbolism of the Russian roulette, and that Cimino had the idea of betting on it as a kind of… leitmotiv for his film. I understand that. But a question of logic and credibility arises: Michael plays the game about seven to ten times, not counting all the games that Nick will have played... unless he cheats in some way, it's impossible to stay alive so much time. Oh… and that ending, with the whole cast singing “God Bless America”, seems so absurd that it's even cynical.

Let's talk about the cast… and we have a cast full of heavyweights. Robert De Niro offers us an exceptionally restrained performance, but still full of charisma and intensity at the right time; Christopher Walken leaves us the best work of his career, which isn't to say little considering his longevity and the regularity of his work; John Cazale and his wife, the young Meryl Streep, are also in this film, which was the farewell of Cazale, famous for his part in “The Godfather” trilogy, and who entered this film very weakened by the cancer who victimized him, days after filming was ended.

Technically, it's a film with ups and downs. We have an excellent cinematography which knows how to make good use of light and shadow, create an environment and sensations in the public; the sets and costumes were very well-made and thought to detail, with special attention to the wedding and the jungle scenes. The choice of landscapes and filming locations was satisfactory but not always accurate, considering that Pennsylvania was portrayed and shown in a way that is more like Colorado. The editing is miserable and I remember that the film won the Oscar in that category, which is at least surreal and says a lot about the choices of the Academy. The sound effects are decent but the sound quality is below what we could expect. Much better is the soundtrack, especially the cavatina composed for this film by Stanley Myers.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

DaveC.Sep 24, 2005

Plodding, laborious and pretentious. It supposedly gave Heaven's Gate a high standard to live up to and while I would never rate the Deer Hunter as low as that five hours of agony, I fail to see what this film did to convince producers Plodding, laborious and pretentious. It supposedly gave Heaven's Gate a high standard to live up to and while I would never rate the Deer Hunter as low as that five hours of agony, I fail to see what this film did to convince producers that Cimino could be trusted with $40 million. It does however deserve four points for a typically superb performance from De Niro.… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful

TyranianJan 13, 2020

The roulette scenes are disturbing but the film doesn't really justify its exorbitant runtime.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

WillMarshallJul 8, 2017

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. "The Deer Hunter" is full of powerhouse performances, foremost among them Christopher Walken and Robert De Niro's war vets, and its Vietnam scenes are extremely intense and harrowing. BUT, the film is pushing three hours, and its plot doesn't support its runtime. It isn't some Apocalypse Now-style war epic - it's a very personal and psychological drama. Because of this, we're not jumping from set-piece to set-piece, but rather watching a collection of well-acted and simultaneously profoundly uninteresting characters meander about doing nothing-in-particular for several hours. The set-pieces it does have - the very long wedding sequence at the beginning, and the Vietnam segment that makes up the middle of the film as examples - are hit-and-miss. The wedding scene runs far too long, while the Vietnam segment is the highlight of the film, but nevertheless it is book-ended either side with the tedious "drama" of boring people being very quiet around one another.

The film does manage to be quite compelling up until Robert De Niro's protagonist returns home, perhaps two thirds of the way through the movie. The climactic game of Russian Roulette between Walken's and De Niro's characters is similarly very compelling. The problem is that what bridges this gap is an hour of pure monotony, with Meryl Streep's character doing so little in the film that her inclusion feels meaningless. That's the worst part of the film - you feel as though you've watched a really top-notch war drama and are about prepared to go, but then you realize, oh wait, there's still another hour to go. And that's the crime of this film. It's not in the performances, or in the direction really, or even in the story - the performances are deserving of the highest praise, the film is well, if coldly, directed, and the plot is sound, with parts of it very compelling. The problem is that this story does not support a three-hour epic, and so its runtime is enormously bloated, leaving the film a deeply personal psychological war drama masquerading as a very boring epic.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

jonslowJan 8, 2019

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. why don't he go home to meet their family and friend? It's simply as that..… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews