Days of Heaven (1978) movie review - Sneak Previews with Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 05. 2019
- This is the original review of Days of Heaven by Siskel & Ebert on "Sneak Previews" in 1978. All of the segments pertaining to the movie have been included.
- Zábava
One of my all-time favourite movies. 90 minutes of some of the most beautiful photography ever put to film. Most of Malick's body of work is phenomenal.
I agree, it's one of the best films I have ever seen. Majestic in its visuals and story-telling. I can think of only 5 better films (for me): Annihilation, Interstellar, Another Earth, Arrival, and Blade Runner 2049.
I've always read that much of the film was shot early and late in the day when the low-angled sun shades everything toward gold and red. This must have been stunning projected.
It was.
My jaw was on the floor when I saw it during its US premiere. I went to this movie based on Siskel and Ebert's review. We actually had a chain suburban theater near me that showed art films and foreign films. What an amazing time it was.
These are the first film clips I've seen of this movie. Makes me want to see it now.
Visually it is one of the most beautiful movies ever made. But it is very, very slow. So if you can appreciate the slow pace it is worth a view.
It’s quite a short film but at times like a documentary as so much scenery is shot. Have you seen it yet? If not , do!
Only saw it last week, sublime stuff. A companian piece to There Will Be Blood for me.
Still as beautiful a film as I've seen, and a fantastic score by Ennio Morricone..
Fun for me to watch this after all these years. I worked on it just out of high school. It was a life-changing experience.
What role did you play in this production? It's one of the top 5 films I have ever seen.
This was a great flick! Glad the boys loved it so much!!
1978 - "talented newcomer called Gere"...yeah decades down the road you got that right
Not according to the gerbil.
i watched it for the first time last night because of eberts recommendation. he was so right. the visuals are great and i could listen to that girls narration forever. she speaks like she should, not like an adult writer thinks she should
Linda Manz was in this. I'll have to give it a watch.
Ebert with the spoilers lol
Watched it yesterday
5:39 I don't like that response from Gene. Is it not possible a working class person could have wisdom? Does Gene take that personal as he believes he is smarter than the working class?
No Al, it's you who take it personal in the same way that when you tell somebody that they look like a retard, and they genuinely get upset, and then you realise that they're genuinely mentally retarded.
What people who aren't mentally retarded mean when they point out that something is too much "statement A", in this case "ain't the working class really smarter than the so-called smart guys", isn't that they disagree with "statement A". They mean that "statement A" has been turned into a cliche and that anyone repeating "statement A" at this point will not be seen as making a genuine and novel observation, but as simply parrotting the popular sentiment in order to signal their virtue and receive the approval of the public. The idea that working-class people have wisdom is so obviously true that anybody repeating it cannot be making a genuine observation any more.
Your comment is like replying "is it not possible that the Earth is round?" to "that's like saying that the Earth is round". It paints a picture of unimaginable mental impediment.
Gene detected the phoniness of the girl's narration and he was right. I felt the hand of an intellectual writer who wanted to insert his point of view via the grating, faux naive narration of a young girl.
@@ricardocantoral7672 Perhaps it's because I'm not American (or even a native English speaker), but I didn't find her portrayal to be grating or especially intellectualised. Nor do I think her age is at the centre of it, or at least not separately from her social background and position. You might want to recollect that many children at the turn of the century had been more exposed to the rigours of life than the vast majority of modern adults - and most of them generally had parents they could turn to (when these weren't capitalistically exploited or caring for the other 12 children).
Our heroine is a street child whose best substitutes for parents were other children. In this situation one's forced to grow up fast and see life for what it is. I don't think her portrayal is out of line with such background - if she seems way too wisened for her years, it's for the same reason the common man from that period would think that modern children are all mollycoddled genuises and magicians, and for good reasons - the adult who measured 100 IQ at the time would have measured about 75 today, the threshold for diagnosing mental retardation.
This is because most people back than had their brains wired differently (obviously in the neuroplastic sense as opposed to deterministically), resulting in a radically different way of thinking that we today associate with wisened old people - but they lacked our power of abstraction in return, a condition that today is associated with retardation. This is called the Flynn Effect.
The seeing-life-for-what-it-is effect is separate from one's mental abilities, but is simply imposed by circumstances - in fact foregoing abstraction might very well help seeing things for what they are. This is why we can think of people as stupid/inept, yet possessing a wordly wisdom at the same time.
@@ricardocantoral7672 the narration was not scripted. Malik showed Linda a scene then just asked her to tell in her own words what was happening. That is what ended up being the narration. There is nothing “phoney” about it.
😊
I do remember my parents (RIP) taking me to Days of Heaven. I was turned 12 in the summer of 1978. I was bored to DEATH!
The visuals are Terence Malick films are stunning but why does he insist on creating intimate episodes about people's lives ? The characters are always an afterthought in his films.
His characters are very memorable and the opposite of afterthought. Watch them again and try harder.
@@Lee_Forre I don't need to try because I have seen three of his movies. Malick is basically a poor man's Tarkovsky.