It’s a great film that does what it does principly through the cinematography and staging.
Music, images, ambient sound plus a precocious performance by young Linda Manz add up to a serenely unforgettable movie.
No, it is all perfect. Absolute perfection.
Needs more cowbell.
I think it’s fair to point out that not everyone loves Days of Heaven. Of course, every movie has its detractors, but it does employ a rambly, piecemeal approach to the narrative that some will find moving, others regard as pointless. I asked my wife to get this DVD for my birthday last year, thinking she’d like the rural setting and beautiful images (which she did – she grew up in the country.) But she found the story itself kind of exasperating. So there’s a chance you’ll be disappointed.
These IMDb reviews state the case against Days of Heaven. I’ll give it a 7.5 myself, but that may go up now that I have HDTV. :)
Oops, here’s the link to those reviews…
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077405/usercomments?filter=hate
7/10 for me. such beautiful photography overshadows its uninvolving narrative. I prefer The New World to DOH but I prefer DOH to The Thin Red Line…
I love this movie. Essentially, I don’t think the narrative is weak at all, or rather, because Malick was trying to capture a tone we’re really only supposed to be involved to a point. We’re supposed to feel. I think it does that very, very well.
Savvy
Linda Manz was the best narrator of Malick’s films, world-weary, wise and a kid (sometimes narratively there seems something off about older characters going on in a poetic fashion). This is also his best film
I just didnt love the film. I’d rather witness a emotionally forbidden romance set in an exotic landscape :)
They are two different films (20 years apart) but for some reason I find the recycled pocohantas plot more engaging…wierd I know :/
Sekz, well, that’s fine. There’s nothing wrong with that. If it wasn’t as engaging for you, then there’s nothing you can do about it! :D
Savvy
zach can u agree that Manz is a perfect narrator
when I watch Malick films and the heavy narration in them I often think who would talk like that except a child or a dreamer that is why the narration in Line didnt gel for me (tho I love the film) adults generally have a more guarded way of thinking and speaking; thats right I can read minds now.
or maybe its just that I was madly in love with that Pocahantas chick :P
Sekz, BAHAHAHA!
Den, I must agree about Manz. Her way of speaking, like she was retelling a story, but coming up with the words as she was speaking, is just so perfect. It really adds a lot, and you don’t get that from almost any other narrator I can think of.
Savvy
A totally unique and beautiful movie, u gotta see it. just an amazing film. If you can see it big see it big, see it projected
Every frame is gorgeous.
Best, most heartbreaking and weird voiced-over narration ever.
don’t be scared off by Richard Gere’s squint-y shizzle, he’s neutralized here somehow
Nato hit it on the head perfectly.
The Locust scene blew my fragile mind!!!!
It’s my least favourite Malick film, but it’s still a very, very good film.
The main problem with it, and what seems to irk a lot of people (as mentioned above) is the narrative structure. Apparently Malick threw away the script for more improvisation; maybe you could say TTRL and TNW have a slightly episodic feel as well, but I think Days of Heaven is his least focused film. I think it would have been better with a more defined storyline/characters.
On the other hand, it’s absolutely beautiful, great choice of music and bittersweet. The voice over is wonderful, and Linda Manz apparently came up with some of it herself. Just little soundbites of beauty and undiscovered wisdom.
The film really worked for me, but then again … I’m one of those people that prefers under-written emotional tone poems which rely more on evocative imagery and subtext. I think that some people see a movie and want a book, but cinema’s stock and trade is telling the story with images. I think Days of Heaven is a brilliant film, shot with a painterly eye, which tells a simple tragedy very elegantly – without having to resort to heavy-handed “structure” and instead, lets the tale unfold with the kind of organic chaos of instinct, emotion & action.
weak film
Even though I prefer Malicks last film DAYS OF HEAVEN is still one of the finest american films made in the 70s. Despite Malick wasn´t very happy with this film it is nevertheless a unique film and probably the finest piece of the whole New Hollywood Movement.
Beautifully filmed and not very mainstream (a good thing). One of the better 70’s films.
what a movie, I was impressed by its visuals as I was with Avatars.
it has loads of unforgettable images and mystical and haunting score.
a fascinating piece and one of the wonders of cinema.
Perfection, indeed. As a friend of mine said: “It conveys, through Malick’s masterful intertwining of words, images, and sound, enigmatically deep layers that the script can only approach.”
If it was just visuals, it’d be no better than, say, Avatar or the fun-looking Powerll/Pressburger films.
Days of Heaven is both really intellectual and easy to relate to. So it’s brainy with a big heart. That’s really difficult to do, ’specially in a movie about mostly crops and that deals with a reworking of the Abraham-Sarah-Pharaoh love triangle in the Old Testament.
Its use of voiceover, like David Gordon Green’s said, is probably the best use of voiceover, where “best” for once actually does mean “the very better than anything at all best.”
And the way this movie is tightly controlled (or, I guess, edited, given that most of the work at keeping this film together was done in post-production) and still spontaneous and alive in each moment is a testament to a really remarkable time/place when Malick had enough time/trust to make the film the way he’d wanted to, once he figured out what that was going to be.
For me it’s the lack of structure and the way the story is primarily told through images that draws me to it. It doesn’t take a lot of effort for me to get wrapped up in it, I just start the movie and I’m there experiencing it. It’s my favorite Malick film for these reasons.
Just re-watched this again. The visuals weren’t as good as I remember (but then again, I remember them as the most beautiful images on films I’d ever seen; this time I didn’t feel that way), but they’re still gorgeous.
Robaldo’s comment—“I think it would have been better with a more defined storyline/characters”—resonates with me. I know that Malick has a more impressionistic style of filmmaking (rather than a traditional narrative) and I think for TTRL and TNW, that’s fine because the themes and ideas are more important than the characters and story; these films don’t depend on the audience liking or caring about the characters for the film to work. I’m feeling like this film needed a more compelling storyline and/or greater emotional connection to the characters.
Then again, I’m not clear on what this film is about or what it’s trying to say. Here’s my take on the film for now: the movie is about how small people are, despite grand plans and ambitions; that we cannot cheat our ways into “heaven” (prosperity and comfort): there will be a day of reckoning. I’m not happy with this interpretation. Indeed, if this is what the film is about, I’ll be disappointed.
@Anthony
specially in a movie about mostly crops and that deals with a reworking of the Abraham-Sarah-Pharaoh love triangle in the Old Testament.
I’m familiar with the story from the OT, but I’m not sure what the significance of the story is (except for showing Abraham’s fear and lack of trust in God, perhaps; he did it more than once, too) or the significance in Malick’s version. I do think there are a lot biblical allusions in the film, and it would be good to hear some interpretations of them.
@Den
I liked Manz’s voice over—and her scenes with the other young woman (the one she runs away with at the end). There’s an innocence and a kind of simple-mindedness—especially toward harsher realities—that appealed to me. There was something American about this (Sissy Spacek’s character was sort of like that, too in Badlands.), and it’s not necessarily flattering. Yet, it still appeals to me for some reason.
Days Of Heaven on Criterion Bluray.
Proof there is a god.
Charlesdegaulle
Is it actually a great film? I have not seen it and was wondering if it is actually a great film or is known merely for its cinematography, because that seems to be the first thing people mention when the film is brought up.