Given its sprawling, padded out runtime, it's not hard to figure out why this is one of the most divisive cult films out there. Did it have to be 3.5 hours long? No. Was there a ton of padding to draw out the film? Of course. Are these inherently problematic elements though? Not necessarily, no.
While one could certainly call the film slow (as much as I hate using that word), I prefer to describe it as patient. There are multiple ways to tell a story. Not every film should be required to follow the same narrative progression to get to the end. Having the pacing meander is another valid approach to storytelling. Is there a line where this could go too far? Probably. Am I one to determine what that line is? Absolutely not. Trying to come up with a set in stone rule for how long a film can be allowed to meander before it becomes a flaw (especially if you're trying to nail down an exact number of minutes the film has to commit to) would be ridiculously hard to determine, vary depending on the attention span and taste of the person deciding it, and quite frankly wouldn't be worth the effort of doing so.
While one could argue that this film goes too far pacing-wise, the more pressing question I ask myself when watching meandering films is whether they offer enough in the way of mood, style, feel, etc. To keep me engaged. All things considered, this film did an alright job at that. First things first, I think the main argument one could make towards its length is that it serves to paint a vivid portrait of the town's rhythms and give us a sense of what's going to be disrupted (the same argument could be made for the divisive first hour of The Deer Hunter). While I admired what Cimino did, I think The Deer Hunter handled this pacing style better. Since the threat of Canton's posse was made clear before the big chunk of padding, taking focus away from that and shifting to a more relaxed tone took me out of the film for most of the middle act since a significant amount of narrative tension was lost in the process. This wasn't an issue with The Deer Hunter as, while the first act had the inevitability of the Vietnam War, it mainly loomed in the background while the relaxed and rhythmic vibes of the town were at the forefront.
Still though, the prolonged middle act was able to keep me on board for a few reasons. For instance, with the exception of The Searchers, it's probably the most gorgeous Western I've ever seen (it's a shame the film wasn't on the Criteron Channel when I watched it). The landscape/panoramic shots are beautiful to look at and, with the abundance of flowers in some shots, bordered on fantasy at times. Given that Westerns are more reliant on the scenic qualities of their environments than most other genres, this is a big strength. A few of the side characters were also decently compelling. Nate Champion's arc is well-done, John Hurt gives his character enough humanity to balance out his pathetic aspects, and Ella Watson's able-bodied portrayal fit the action-centric second half really well. Jim Averill is perhaps the least colorful of those characters, but this didn't bother me much. The action scenes in the second half probably don't warrant much defending (aside from the unfortunate on-set animal cruelty). They're tehnically impressive, differentiate from each other significantly in terms of set pieces, and in the case of the wood wagon fight at the end (how did the immigrants even build all that in one night?), rather jaw-dropping given the amount of craft on display.
I originally gave this film a slightly lower rating, but in retrospect, I decided to bump it up a notch. I think the "too slow" criticisms levied at it aren't entirely fair or sound, so even though it's not without its flaws, I'm okay with giving it this extra bit of support. Really, if you loved The Deer Hunter, you should find plenty to enjoy with this film.
While one could certainly call the film slow (as much as I hate using that word), I prefer to describe it as patient. There are multiple ways to tell a story. Not every film should be required to follow the same narrative progression to get to the end. Having the pacing meander is another valid approach to storytelling. Is there a line where this could go too far? Probably. Am I one to determine what that line is? Absolutely not. Trying to come up with a set in stone rule for how long a film can be allowed to meander before it becomes a flaw (especially if you're trying to nail down an exact number of minutes the film has to commit to) would be ridiculously hard to determine, vary depending on the attention span and taste of the person deciding it, and quite frankly wouldn't be worth the effort of doing so.
While one could argue that this film goes too far pacing-wise, the more pressing question I ask myself when watching meandering films is whether they offer enough in the way of mood, style, feel, etc. To keep me engaged. All things considered, this film did an alright job at that. First things first, I think the main argument one could make towards its length is that it serves to paint a vivid portrait of the town's rhythms and give us a sense of what's going to be disrupted (the same argument could be made for the divisive first hour of The Deer Hunter). While I admired what Cimino did, I think The Deer Hunter handled this pacing style better. Since the threat of Canton's posse was made clear before the big chunk of padding, taking focus away from that and shifting to a more relaxed tone took me out of the film for most of the middle act since a significant amount of narrative tension was lost in the process. This wasn't an issue with The Deer Hunter as, while the first act had the inevitability of the Vietnam War, it mainly loomed in the background while the relaxed and rhythmic vibes of the town were at the forefront.
Still though, the prolonged middle act was able to keep me on board for a few reasons. For instance, with the exception of The Searchers, it's probably the most gorgeous Western I've ever seen (it's a shame the film wasn't on the Criteron Channel when I watched it). The landscape/panoramic shots are beautiful to look at and, with the abundance of flowers in some shots, bordered on fantasy at times. Given that Westerns are more reliant on the scenic qualities of their environments than most other genres, this is a big strength. A few of the side characters were also decently compelling. Nate Champion's arc is well-done, John Hurt gives his character enough humanity to balance out his pathetic aspects, and Ella Watson's able-bodied portrayal fit the action-centric second half really well. Jim Averill is perhaps the least colorful of those characters, but this didn't bother me much. The action scenes in the second half probably don't warrant much defending (aside from the unfortunate on-set animal cruelty). They're tehnically impressive, differentiate from each other significantly in terms of set pieces, and in the case of the wood wagon fight at the end (how did the immigrants even build all that in one night?), rather jaw-dropping given the amount of craft on display.
I originally gave this film a slightly lower rating, but in retrospect, I decided to bump it up a notch. I think the "too slow" criticisms levied at it aren't entirely fair or sound, so even though it's not without its flaws, I'm okay with giving it this extra bit of support. Really, if you loved The Deer Hunter, you should find plenty to enjoy with this film.