Notice the similarities to McCabe & Mrs. Miller. Both are "alt-Westerns set around the turn-of-the-Century. Same DP (Zsigmond) using the same gauzy available light technique, as well as the same "overheard dialogue" technique.
shareLet me start off in saying that "Heaven's Gate" and "McCabe & Mrs. Miller" are two of my favorite films. I think they are both wonderful films that although released about a decade apart show just how much the film world changed after "Star Wars". Why on Earth could a critic love Altman's film and hate Cimino's?
I remember Siskel and Ebert complaining about the cinematography of "Heaven's Gate" yet they praise "McCabe". You may say that Cimino was "attempting" Altman the way Paul Thomas Anderson most certainly has been accused (he freely admits his love), but how is this a bad thing? Styles change. Unfortunately by the time of "Heaven's Gate", critics were more interested in reviewing budgets than merits. Let's remember that the budget of "Raise the Titanic", also from 1980, was $36 million, the same as "Heaven's Gate", and yet the focus to this day has been on how much of a debacle Cimino's film was without ever calling into question Jerry Jameson's misadventure in film making...but I digress.
Yes, the similarities in technique are obvious to film buffs. Remember that outside of "MASH", Altman really had no big hits, and "Popeye" (the worst film that year, IMO), ironically also a Christmas 1980 release along with "Heaven's Gate" was somehow enjoyed by Ebert at the time. My conclusion is that Altman is loved by critics, seldom by audiences, and Cimino like Spielberg the previous year (with "1941")was the victim of undue criticism. Watching "Heaven's Gate", like "Barry Lyndon" or "Lawrence of Arabia" can be an endurance test, but for me the rewards are there for viewers with patience.