Voyage au bout de l'enfer

Nothing prepares us for a life in the so called modern world but we partake in the traditions passed on to us through family, friends and colleagues, at home, out socialising and in the workplace. It's called culture and, for the most part, it keeps us safe and secure, as the bonds we develop make us feel a part of the fabric but it's still psychologically a challenge to the hunter gatherers mind - increasingly so today.

Put that mind into war, battles, conflict, abuse, threat and it's anyone's guess what might result. Put that mind into the events portrayed here, albeit quite extreme, and you have the basis for a fascinating insight into the cultural and social destruction that conflict can reap through individuals, as well as entire populations, and continue to do so long after the truce has been declared.

Mix into the portrayal some of the finest actors of their generation, perhaps of all time, and you have a genuinely timeless anti-war reflection that, in itself, should be enough to dissuade the most sabre rattling politico, who genuinely cares about their citizens, to put their swords away and resolve any differences peacefully. Unfortunately, recent history suggests otherwise.

The Deer Hunter is a masterpiece of life among a community before and after three friends get drafted to fight in the Vietnam War. The tragic events that take place in the jungles and the adjustment back into the drinking and hunting life of steel workers in Pittsburgh shook my life forever. Bobby, Chris, and John all give fine performances with an outstanding supporting cast comprised of George Dzunda(Crimson Tide, The Limbic Region) Meryl Streep(Kramer vs. Kramer, Out of Africa) and of course the late John Cazale(The Conversation, Dog Day Afternoon). The scenes are lavishly created to pull us into the magic and to strike horror into our dreams. The themes of a powerful movie such as this applies across all generations even to now with all that is happening with our soldiers in the Middle East. If you only have "one shot" to see an outstanding movie that will make your heart sing and make your soul weep, make it this movie.

"The Deer Hunter" is 32 years old. How extraordinary to sit through it now. Walking over the politics that divided , somehow, all of its admirers then. "Great film but..." How silly to think of it now. Michael (a sensational young Robert De Niro) is as extreme a character as Rocco was in "Rocco And His Brothers" His goodness, the one that was always there but that he discovers under the most horrendous circumstances, underlined by Stanley Mayers's "Cavatina" permeates the entire film. I remember thinking, when I saw the film for the first time, that I couldn't or wouldn't spend ten minutes with Michael and his friends, the ones we meet at the beginning of the film but by the end I thought of them as brothers and I loved them. I actually loved them. That in itself is a sort of film miracle. John Savage will break your heart, it certainly broke mine and Christopher Walken is absolutely riveting. How strange to tho think that Michael Cimino, still a young man, is nowhere to be seen. Is still a punishment for "Heaven's Gate" and "Indecent Exposure" or there is something else we don't know about. The Cimino behind "The Deer Hunter" is a true master.

"The Deer Hunter" is not a film about the Vietnam war, as it is wrongly said in many cases.

"The Deer Hunter" is a film tells the story of 3 friends within about 5-6 years, during which their friendship is repeatedly put to the test.

It is primarily a picture of the contemporary life of a group of people around 30 living in a small American town during the Vietnam war.

The first hour of the film portrays the every day life of three friends Mike (De Niro), Steven (Savage) and Nick (Walken), who look forward to Steve's wedding but at the same time have to prepare for their commitment in Vietnam. The main actors (above all De Niro and Walken) perfectly picture the character's inner conflict between their easygoing home town life and the forthcoming assignment in Vietnam. Despite this conflict the characters don't show their concerns to their environment.

Particularly Nick is worried about him and his friends leaving his home town and perhaps never coming back, but he only tells his best friend Mike of his thoughts, who is much more resolute and sees their engagement as a strong masculine act.

Cimino manages to show the simple irrationality of young men, going to a senseless war from which they might never return for the only purpose of glory and approval, and abandoning their settled and happy life for it. The spectator just can't understand why those young men voluntarily sign for the army and give up everything they have. The passage from the small-town-idyll to the war cruelty is greatly pictured. Cimino does not show the three friends' way to Vietnam or the training, he immediately switches from a happy get-together to the cruel war captivity of the Vietcong. This passage perfectly underlines the contrast and the inexplicability of the three men's actions.

Although the passage that is set in Vietnam is only about one third of the whole film long, the war is omnipresent at any time, which is probably the best benefit of the whole film, Cimino does not need to bomb the spectator with pictures of crying children, mutilated soldiers or desert battlefields in order to illustrate the cruelty of war. Far from it! The changed behavior of all characters after the friends' returns tell more about wars' capability of changing someone's life, than anything else.

And the fact that the many dreams that these three friends had before they went to Vietnam didn't come true, because of their longing for recognition by becoming an acclaimed veteran can even pluck your heartstrings.

Cimino's great directing and the cast's awesome acting provide for a touching and honest drama about the friendship of a group of young men, that is destroyed by the Vietnam war.

A comment re the other comments: A lot of the comments criticize the first half hour as being too long. In my opinion, these comments miss the point of the movie.

Of course many of the scenes in the first hour don't advance the narrative. They're not supposed to; they're for character development.

The whole point of the movie is to show us how the various characters were affected by the war. It wouldn't have worked nearly as powerfully as it does had the first hour been trimmed down. We have to sense the careless and frat-boy-like immaturity of these young men. That's why the scenes all revolve around frivolity and seemingly senseless boyish behavior; it creates such a stark contrast to the devastated characters of the three who went to war (and the relatively unaffected personalities of those who stayed behind, like Stanley).

The strong points of the film are the outstanding performances of nearly every actor in the movie. Yes, there are technical deficiencies in the sound, but it hardly matters. This is nitpicking compared to the overall construction of the film.