The Deer Hunter : Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

In my quest to watch all Best Picture winners, I just watched this movie for the first time, and I had no pre-conceived notions coming in. All I knew was that it had Robert DeNiro and some Russian Roulette in the Vietnam War.

I found myself getting bored 30 minutes in and wondering when things were going to pick up... 20 minutes later, I felt like I was watching someone's home movies, wondering when something interesting would happen. I stuck it out, and eventually it jumped from some of the slowest pacing in the world to the most intense scene I've ever seen: Russian Roulette in Vietnam.

Now, after looking back, I can't say I'm a fan of the first hour, but the contrast between slow American life and quick-paced war scenes is what really made this movie.

It's almost like the director is making you choose between the most boring small town life imaginable, and shooting yourself in the head.

A little surprised this won the Oscar for Best Editing, but I guess they nailed the contrast between the two settings of the movie so well that it couldn't be avoided...even though I found the slow pacing almost unbearable.

That said, I enjoyed the film overall, at least once it got out of home movie mode. The Vietnam scenes were some of the best I've ever seen in film.


Mirror inspector is a job I could really see myself doing.

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

I see where you're coming from. I myself find the first hour slow and painful to sit through, and I agree with your statement about the pacing. However, I think the home-movieness of it all was deliberate and in the end, necessary. The Deer Hunter isn't so much about Vietnam, it's about these guys in this town. The first hour, for me, is all about getting to love the characters, and see their camraderie. The wedding sequence and everything before it isn't about the story or plot, it's about the relationship between the guys. It's full of little moments between the friends, like Stan crossing himself and Mike looks at him like "what are you doing? are you religious now, or something?" All the little looks the guys give each other during the group photo is about getting us to love the guys. It's all a big setup, so we feel devastated and crushed when that camraderie is destroyed. Stevie is broken mentally, preferring to stay in the VA than be with his friends, and of course physically. Michael can barely get through the hunting weekend with Stan and the others. The town that he used to love feels like an alien world to him. "I feel distant. I feel far away." And of course, the most devastating thing of all is how the war has annihilated that joyful, calm, serene, and loving person who is the emotional core of the film, Nick.

In conclusion, I say the first hour was long, but Cimino uses it to set us up to love these guys and their relationship, so he can crush what we've come to love with the war.

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

Right... Knowing this now, perhaps I should watch the first hour again and see if I can pick up more on this relationship they were showing us... I guess I was too bored the first time to try and notice that's what the director was doing...

Mirror inspector is a job I could really see myself doing.

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

Well it all depends on "who was whom" at the Pittsburgh Playhouse and if the Mellon/Heinz family knew about such a place in Pittsburgh. Go over old "on site" records of settings used in and around Pittsburgh for the movie Deer Hunter and watch the Mellon/Heinz family come out of the woodwork.

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

Let's keep things in perspective here. Terrible is watching a Michael Bay's explosion fest for an hour.

The first time I saw Deer Hunter I admit I did start asking my Father, "So...we're still at the wedding?" Lol. But not once was I bored. I enjoyed watching genuinely gifted actors actually given the time to develop their characters as real people. It's kinda refreshing to see a 3 hour movie that is 3 hours for the sake of the actors, not the FX.

"Can it be that they are mad themselves who call me mad?"

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

I understand the film was longer then three hours. The cemetery officials at Versailles Cemetery in McKeesport state the film crew was at the cemetery and the cemetery owned funeral home for a week shooting. None of that footage was used.

By coincidence, a Cimino family is buried at Versailles Cemetery next to a Russian/Ukraine family with headstones in Russian.

Again there is some sort of connection to the Pittsburgh Playhouse and the Mellon/Heinz family who funded the Pittsburgh Playhouse.

Right now I feel three films are connected to Pittsburgh. Gone with the Wind, Deer Hunter, and 12 years a Slave all with roots in Pittsburgh, Buffalo NY and the Purchase of Alaska for 7.5 million.

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

Yeah, it's all about character development. Cimino isn't just rushing through a three hour movie, making it seem like it goes for an hour and a half. A story is being told, and that wedding is an important part of the story. Apart from the hunting scene, that wedding is The last supper for them. It is essential. And every time I watch the wedding, there's a lot of new details that I pick up, that I previously hadn't noticed, i.e. the possibility that Walken's character may have cheated on the bride subplot, the veteran at the bar etc.
The first hour is basically the last few days of their normal lives.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

From what I understand, this movie is not exactly supposed to be an accurate representation of the Vietnam war. In fact, all the Vietnamese characters are played by Thai actors. Russian Roulette supposedly never happened in the war either.

So, with that perspective, I kind of liken this movie to another Best Picture winner, Shakespeare in Love, which is basically just using the backdrop of Elizabethan England to make up a love story about Shakespeare. It's not even remotely historically accurate.

Both these stories tell a new story that's sort of set in a time period people are already familiar with... Everything else is made up.


Mirror inspector is a job I could really see myself doing.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

So you're telling us.... you loathed this movie, right?

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

my sentiments exactly

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

There is a phenomenal amount of alcohol consumed in the first hour. Certainly a contrast to the cold hard reality of the second part. I think this also reflect the nature of their small town life, helps explain a little bit why there will always be young men willing to fight in distant wars.

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

I love the first hour, as well as the whole movie.

I guess that it depends what you're looking for or expecting here. If you're after seeing just a war movie, then you might be disappointed.

It's more about the characters, interactions, and how they're affected by the war.

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

The first hour for me is essential watching. It makes the final 2 hours work. Without it it would be another war movie with characters being effected by war etc but who we know little about to care for them

The first hour is also just a good example of a film about a community and is good in itself for that. Not every film has to be fast paced with ablatant specific reason. I remeber enjoying Jacknife (de Niro and Ed Harris film about dealing with life after Vietnam War) and enjoyed the slowness of it.

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

I can understand why someone would be bored or flat out hate the first hour, but I loved it. I found it very engaging and it really made me care more about the characters in the long run.






My first feature: available here!
http://www.indiereign.com/v/c3c4d

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

if you grew up in that era, in a blue-collar ethnic community, the wedding scene is phenomenal. No scripted choreographed production of "tastefulness" - just a screaming grab-assing dancing-til-you-drop affair. No one can appreciate how good an old Polish wedding (or in this case, Russian) in a VFW hall really was.

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

I watched this yesterday for the first time in about two decades..in fact, I'm not sure if I ever watched it all properly before although parts of it are familiar. The wedding scene was even longer than I remember and I found it pretty excruciating.

So basically I agree with the OP, the wedding scenes could have been edited down and the Vietnam scenes were excellent.

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

Count me as one who enjoys the first hour at least as much as the rest of the film. As others have noted this is not really about the Vietnam War specifically as it is about what effect the War had on these young men. The film's approach requires the character development we saw in the first hour. We need to experience both the camraderie and shared experiences but also the growing alienation they experience. That includes an incipient recognition that they must grow up, even their going to Vietnam aside. In that connection the groundwork for the relationship between Michael and Linda in effect replacing Nick and Linda had to be established. Another plot feature was the nature of the marriage between Angela and Steven that also had to be established. The whole feel of the town, the sense of finding one's self as hte descendents of immigrants in the shared experience of serving America's military was also covered.

And of course perhaps most significantly the relation between the violence of hunting and the violence of war (which ftr i mean by comparison, not to say they are equivalent, but I digress).

Imo the first hour is essential to the film. I wouldn't change any of it.

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

Yeah, I find myself fast-forwarding through this movie 10 and 20 minutes at a time. It has sequences that go on and on forever with no dialogue, no plot development, scant character development.

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

You either love it or hate it, I guess.

This is this.

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

It was one of the most boring films I have ever seen. The most boring film ever to get nominated for X academy awards.

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

It sounds like you haven't watched many films. Have you seen Forrest Gump, Shakespeare in Love, Chicago, or The Artist yet?

http://imdb.com/user/ur2019270/ratings

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

I really really like this movie. This is my favorite Vietnam movie along with Apocalypse Now. I would put it in my top 20 ever. I will say though that the first hour is slow and the wedding scene is painful to watch. I know why it was shot like that, but it does not change my mind. The movie could be about 20-30 minutes shorter. Like I said I love the movie, but the editing at the beginning is bad.

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

The editing is not bad, simply because you don't like the wedding scene. That's how they meant it to be - not some mistake, attributed to bad editing.

You don't like that part - good for you - I do. But it's not due to some goof on the film-makers and their editing.

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

I adored the first hour; the pool table scene is one of my favorite scenes in any film, ever.

That being said, it's not for everyone. For me, growing up in a region of the US (the Rust Belt) filled with folks like the pre-Vietnam characters might have helped.

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

My reason for liking the first hour is that I grew up the daughter of a steel mill worker in the Pittsburgh area. I loved the realism of the wedding -- so familiar. The hunting -- the schools and malls in areas around Pittsburgh still close when hunting season opens. The malls hold special sales for the women and children left behind.

I married a Vietnam Vet and worked in a government office that tracked missing vets, so I realized the roulette scene was fake, but the imprisonment with rats was not. The godawful loss of limbs was something the men in my life still live with.

My impression was that Streep, DeNiro and Casale looked too old to be playing the parts they played. I thought Streep was married to the man who struck her; didn't realize it was her father. That being said, their acting was spot on.

I am very familiar with the horrors of the vets hospital -- that was totally realistic. There's a huge vets hospital just north of Pittsburgh.

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

I was never bored by the first hour, but I agree with you in your questioning its Best Editing Oscar, perhaps for entirely different reasons. I didn't like how Michael Cimino merged scenes. They often felt awkward and forced, especially when he was interlacing a large, grandiose shot depicting multiple people, and then cutting into a more select scene featuring intimate dialogue, or vice versa. Two examples:

- When the men first get out of work and Michael is commenting on the sky (the moon? I don't remember the specifics). His friends kid him about his strangeness, and then, suddenly, the rest of the workforce appears behind them in a wide shot. It's beautiful, but it feels forced, as though everyone was waiting at the door for the five friends to carry on with their intimate conversation, and then, once Cimino gave the ok, they all got released like an unruly chaotic torrent.

Oh wait...that is what happened.

You see what I'm saying? Cimino's trying to make an extremely realistic film, but he keeps accidentally drawing attention to himself.

- The scene outside Michael's house. Everyone is gathered around Michael's car, fooling around, being happy friends together, and then Linda (Meryl Streep) walks up and is greeted Nick (Christopher Walken). They walk away from the crowd together in order to stand directly in front of the house's window so that their every word and gesture can be perfectly framed and secretly observed by Michael who is inside the house. It feels incredibly contrived. Clumsy stuff.

I could go on and on with more examples, but I won't. As a whole, it's a powerful movie. Quite beautiful too.

My rating: 9 (in other words, a failure)

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

I wouldn't say it's terrible but I don't think it's that great either. I don't mind slow-paced films since that usually gives a film its strength, but this one was stretching it. It's was to detailed. Cimino really had to focus on everything as if it mattered. Not only the wedding but everything before it. And then the drawn out wedding process, reception and the hunting trip. But first the trip to the hunting trip which seems to go on forever.
Was it really necessary for the film to focus on everything? We get that the boys are really close with each-other and that the town is boring. We don't need dead scenes. Cimino should have either shortened the film to focus on the core, or made the editing more effective and fast-paced. I always fast forward the film due to this tedious tendency.

I am a bit surprised that it won the Oscar for editing, Like really?
I always thought the editing award went for films who had a noticeable editing, or something remarkable. The editing here is far from remarkable or note-worthy.It is quite ordinary in fact
I'm guessing 1978 was a really weak year editing wise so they went for the best of the weakest. But it could also be for the fact that Peter Zinner, the editor had a feud with Cimino during the production. Cimino wanted the film to be around 4 hrs long, Zinner disagreed. Maybe the Academy heard about this feud and went for the sympathy vote?
Either of the two is possible.

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

I'm guessing 1978 was a really weak year editing wise so they went for the best of the weakest. But it could also be for the fact that Peter Zinner, the editor had a feud with Cimino during the production. Cimino wanted the film to be around 4 hrs long, Zinner disagreed.
______________

These were the editing nominees:
Best Film Editing

WINNER
The Deer Hunter: Peter Zinner
NOMINEES
The Boys from Brazil: Robert Swink
Coming Home: Don Zimmerman
Midnight Express: Gerry Hambling
Superman: Stuart Baird

It would have likely won for prestige value, that had been attributed to the film. For the story, character's and style\tempo of the film, the editing was fine. In spite of any flaws, it was still an unfolding, profound and even searing drama. However, looking at some of the other nominees, I think MIDNIGHT EXPRESS, would have been a better choice; but that film, wasn't having to deal with an extra 60mins padded run time, compared to DEER HUNTER. Even SUPERMAN, has some unnecessary drawn out sequences and could have used some trimming. Films from this era, would have rarely utilized the same rapid fire editing techniques used today and even these films, can come over as flat and boring.

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

The first hour was my favorite because it basically set up all of the characters it introduced them all one by one. I felt though it was a little long and could have used a few cuts. Like the dancing at the wedding went on a little too long, but everything else was neccesary. It showed how the characters were going to act in the movie and if you watch the movie again it shows how much they change in the end.

You talk'n to me?

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?


It's almost like the director is making you choose between the most boring small town life imaginable, and shooting yourself in the head.


I had to speed up the movie for the same reason, I already know how ordinary lives are and expected the introduction to be pointedly instead of dragging.

The movie truly only starts after the first explosion in Nan, but like you, I avoided spoilers and had to deal with it.

Visually great with terrific acting by DeNiro, Walken and Streep, but the-horror-the-horror takes an hour to surface.

What we imagine turned Walken's character into the absolute nihilist and ascetic beyond an eastern monk is hair raising.

=======================================
🐋 Doggy dolphins? 💅Erection?

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?


I had to speed up the movie for the same reason,
In all seriousness, when did this practice become acceptable, assuming we're all wearing our big boy pants?

I'm not trying to pick on KSS specifically; other posters (in this thread, and elsewhere on these boards) have said as much.

And I don't mean from a moral or ethical point of view -- at least, not quite -- but presumably we're all members of the IMDb community because we have some kind of affection and respect for film, no?

What gets me is that these people don't pull up the tent poles and make tracks while the getting's good.


Movie X has the slowest, least interesting first hour I've ever seen. I turned it off.
See? Now this isn't the sort of pronouncement that's going to knock anybody's analytical socks off, but it's frank and to the point -- it is what it is.

But instead, these folks think they can have their cake and eat it too. They're openly lumping themselves into a group that is rather unsavoury, frankly -- one that's content to actually speed up the process until Movie X "gets interesting". This. Is. Bullshït. It should offend anyone who has even the slightest respect for film.

Nonetheless, behind closed doors and all that -- people can do what they're going to do, and it's not worth getting worked up about.

The real insult is that they show up on message boards and actually feel comfortable PROCLAIMING that they "had" to skip or speed through certain parts -- and yet they still feel qualified to render an opinion.

Is shame a human emotion anymore? I mean, it's not about whether this sort of person is impatient, easily distracted, looking for quick entertainment instead of high art -- we've all been there.

The problem is that you can't expect to be taken seriously at all -- AT ALL -- if you approach a film like The Deer Hunter as if it were something to be "gotten through", or rapidly mined for any possible worth. Next time, take the time you might spend writing about Movie X and, like, actually watch the damn movie instead.

Clearly I just can't stomach this board. Three years ago I went on a tirade about a similar topic. You can probably still find it somewhere on page 5. I just need to avoid this place.

But come on, people -- skipping parts of a movie? Next let's replace toilet paper with copies of Henry IV.

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

wtf did I just read?People will do whatever they like.It's none of your business. This isn't a fan board. People are entitled to their opinions. They have every right to mention their disappointment.This is a DISCUSSION borad ,not a fan page

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

I understand character development, but they over did it in this film. The could at least cut out 20 mins of the first hour. I believe 30 min would've been perfect. There was too many drawn out scenes. Unnecessary scenes that just doesn't add more to the movie. Plenty of unnecessary scenes in the wedding could of been cut out and they would've still achieved their purpose in showing the strong bond and camaraderie within this group of friends.

But they definitely had to keep that scene with Green Beret. It was like an omen to what will take place. And that smirk he gave to those guys was picture perfect.

So yeah a good half hour of character building would of sufficed imo.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

I love the first hour because it's essentially Foreshadowing- the Movie. Almost every scene in that first hour hints at or sets up something that's to come later in the film and beautifully sets up the characters- Michael is a risk taker but level-headed, Nick likes to gamble, Stan is an *beep* then you of course have some more obvious moments like Stevie and Angela spilling a drop of wine, Nick asking Michael not to leave him in Nam, the GI in the bar, the chemistry/tension between Michael and Linda... it all works to create both a brilliant contrast and warning with the horror and tragedy still to come in the film.

Also, when I rewatched it recently, I was surprised by how quickly that first hour seemed to go. Maybe it's because I noticed how much was actually happening, or maybe I just have higher threshold for this kind of things


"To me, absurdity is the only reality."
-Frank Zappa

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

I have no problem with the first hour. It helps that I grew up in Pittsburgh in the 60s and 70s; i was around people like the ones portrayed. As a sometime musician, I played at Italian, Polish, Bohemian & Jewish wedding receptions. You had to know all kinds of mazurkas, polkas, schottisches, even waltzes along with pop music of the time: Elton John, Stevie Wonder, Carole King, Bee Gees and Temptations.

May I bone your kipper, Mademoiselle?

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

My only complaint about the movie was how long and drawn out the beginning was. They could have gotten the same point across in half the time. There were some wonderful moments in the first hour that are essential to character development and plot but did we really need 20 minutes of drunk people dancing rather than say 7? At times I'm fairly certain the director just kind of gave them a vague idea of what he wanted in the scene and let them ad lib. "Ok now you're chasing Mike down the street as he takes his clothes off..." Resulting in "Mike what are you doing?" being repeated about 10 billion times. It really made it difficult for me to get into the movie and I ended up fast forwarding through the wedding and even considered turning it off and finding something else to watch, which would have been tragic because I just watched one of the most incredible movies I've ever seen.

Speaking of editing... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-s9dkPUWN0

"Is that your IQ or the number of dipwads your mother had?" - Car Pool Man

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

Put me down on the "terrible" side. Yeah, we all know Russians like to drink a lot and if you're not Russian you're not welcome in their community. Got it.

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

What the hell are you talking about?

"Is that your IQ or the number of dipwads your mother had?" - Car Pool Man

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

I agree, and like I said above: Cimino could have taken out most, if not all of the pointless scenes, and we would still have character development and insight.
Sometimes less is more

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

I think the first act of the film is brilliant. I can understand if you go into this film labeling it as a Vietnam War film, you may become impatient.

The Deer Hunter is a character-driven drama. The Vietnam War is just a subplot. The movie is about a group of small town characters and their relationships with each other.

The impact is powerfully devastating if you can go into this film with that mindset. What is realistic about this film is not the war scenes, it is about Michael and his personality, and his feelings about Linda. And about people in a small town and how they all know each other, and their action and decisions affect everyone else. It is about Nick and how his cockiness and confidence cannot carry on in a scenario where he has no control.

I am terrifically moved by this movie and I have no connections to living in a small town, nor being close to anyone who was devasted by war. This is a completely realistic film from a psychological and personality standpoint, more than Platoon, Apacolypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, We Were Soldiers... These are all great films that take a different angle on the same subject.

The Deer Hunter is an epic drama film about a small group of characters from a small Pennsylvania steel town.

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

I love the first hour, and i never felt boring. But the film went downhill since that.


Lovers of the world, unite!

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

I started watching this movie a couple of days before Cimino died.

I didn't even know that it was a 3 hour film. I knew the Russian Roulette was in the film and that's it.

I was sleeping by the 20 min mark. I tried again the next night. I usually watch a movie from start to finish, even if I've seen some of it, so I started it over. I realized mid wedding that the pacing of this film was going to be really slow and I decided to put something more upbeat instead and leave this film for an afternoon.

Cimino died and somehow I left the movie unwatched until yesterday.

I get people liking it, but to me, it drags it too much. I know all the info you get from the first hour, but this could have been made in a way that could be more effective. The use of the photo of Meryl Streep in the wallet tells me everything I need to know about how these characters relate to her prior to Vietnam. I don't think that the first hour is terrible, but it's too long and could be 20 minutes shorter. You would get the same movie if you erase the wedding and integrate the ideas in that scene in other points of the movie. It's too big of a scene that needs to be big because of it, but it is full of subtle elements that have nothing to do with a wedding, making it easier to put them anywhere else. There are a couple of thing I would save from the wedding. Their encounter with the veteran, but that could had very well been integrated in the bar scene, and the drops of wine, that would be the one thing I can't think of how to integrate as effectively as in the wedding scene.

I didn't like the movie that much. It's not a terrible film, but I don't like war films that much. I find "Combat Shock" to be more effective than this film.

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

I remember I first watched this behemoth when I was 14 in the hospital. I think I was expecting some sort of action packed war saga, not one brutal scene bookended by two godawful boring segments full of amorphous feeling sh*t and all the other adult nuances I just didn't bloody get at the shortbus age. Like Jesus, someone blow some sh%t UP already! Re-watching over the years I can say I honestly like the glacial build up of the first hour now, I got no yen for the schizo-MTV pace of today's stuff so a movie that takes such care to establish its scene, that dwells so lovingly on the minutiae can be refreshing. Also the fact that its a cozy small town mood, full of gritty throwaway details and by-gone period particulars makes it all go down easier for me. None of this seems boring just warm and personable. I love when movies focus on nature and small towns and quaint crap like that, so earthy.

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

You make an interesting point about the stark contrast between the start of the film and the point at which we see the characters in Vietnam.

All I want to say is that I too found the 1st hour or so of the movie very boring and hard to tolerate, but unlike you, I don't care to re-watch that part. The film is, however, very memorable for what we saw in Vietnam and afterward.

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

Great. Pure greatness. No doubt about it. I would like to say that it's the best part of the movie, but I cannot do that. In my opinion, the entire movie is the best part since it only works as a whole for me. But boy, does it work well!
Forget about the contrast between the Clairton and Vietnam scenes, and instead focus on the contrast between Clairton before Vietnam and Clairton after Vietnam.

The home movie aspect of this film is exactly what it's all about! It should be like watching old home movies. You're supposed to love the characters, despite their imperfections. You wouldn't relate to the characters and invest so much in them if you didn't show them in their natural habitat.
For instance, how much emotional impact would the finale or the POW scenes have if you wouldn't know the characters as intimately as the first act allows?

This movie isn't about the Vietnam War. It's about people, friendship and how life turns out. That's why, in my opinion, the Vietnam part is the least relevant of the movie. That specific act of the movie is incredibly relevant, but it could've been replaced by anything. The Vietnam war just happened to be very topical and very much in the zeitgeist at that time.
The point is that people get traumatized and change and life never ends up the same again.


P.S.
As I said, the Vietnam War in itself may not be the most relevant thing, but I am really glad that they went for it. The POW scene is probably the most grueling, intense and downright disturbing scene I've ever seen. Absolutely incredible acting and directing.
D.S.

Re: Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

Perfect.

I. Drink. Your. Milkshake! [slurp!] I DRINK IT UP! - Daniel Plainview - There Will Be Blood
Top