Days of Heaven (1978) - Drama, Romance

Hohum Score



A hot-tempered farm laborer convinces the woman he loves to marry their rich but dying boss so that they can have a claim to his fortune.

IMDB: 7.8
Director: Terrence Malick
Stars: Richard Gere, Brooke Adams
Length: 94 Minutes
PG Rating: PG
Reviews: 31 out of 219 found boring (14.15%)

One-line Reviews (157)

It offers us a chance to take in the absolutely breathtaking cinematography.

Of course Bill has to die - could it be more boring than getting shot in a pond by a pack of cops?

So this cons make this movie boring and boring.

I kinda' agree with that but I must say I found the story to be very compelling as well.

Even the meanest of critics eventually warm to its stunning tapestry of visual and poetic beauty.

It just dragged along to an abysmal ending.

Unless you're idea of a great time at the cinema is "Star Wars: Episode 2" or "Pirates of the Caribbean" (not to dis Pirates, Depp is a great comedic actor and its entertaining enough) then I doubt you'll regret it.

Days of Heaven is strange in how it goes about because its pacing gets crazy at times and feels disjointed.

In Days of Heaven I liked the slow and meaningful storytelling with solid acting.

The film has a simple narrative that is quite easy to follow, and executed well, but, overall, the films biggest flaw is that, quite frankly, it is very boring.

Director Malick creates the same poetic and listless tone he used in "Badlands" (one of the more understated and quiet "young lovers/killers on the run" films) and later applied after a twenty year absence to the over-long WWII epic "The Thin Red Line" (a film that for all its poignant and artistic moments was muddled and confusing and overstated its "war is hell" and "nature is heaven" theme).

Their existence is very tough and very drab and Gere especially wants a better life.

Slightly boring .

In my mind it wasn't the photography so much as the production and set design that make the scenes, and if you read about how the movie was made and the extremes that were taken to get certain effects, it's fascinating.

The outdoor shots were breathtaking largely because most of the film was shot during golden hour (the period during sunrise and sunset).

This movie being pretentious is just my opinion.

Very slow and very deliberate.

Beautiful photography, some of scenes are breathtaking and affecting.

Stunning, Beautiful And Original .

Then again, maybe the sum total is nothing beyond the visuals themselves, that stunning experience being more than enough.

Visually stunning.

I'm not sure what kind of a poetic statement Terrence Malick was trying to make with this film, but I found it rather boring.

The cinematography was attractive albeit disjointed.

The early morning and late evening scenes during the "twilight hours" are simply breathtaking.

The story, though at times swallowed up by the cinematography, is also pretty compelling.

And yes, if you've seen a Malick film before (like "The Thin Red Line" and "The New World") then its much the same style, slow, elegant, much of the dialog in voice over.

And The climactic (but cliché) ending doesn't save the film.

Because as a general rule, I get bored and will fast forward in a movie when there's no dialogue or action going on.

What he's delivered is far more than a dull story of love and intrigue, and more than just a picture postcard.

Terrence Malick gives us a visceral experience in film with this quiet, intense masterpiece.

I found the story engaging, the acting top quality, and the cinematography superb.

Going into this film (my first Malick film) I expected 3 things: little dialogue, underlying messages, and breathtaking cinematography.

That's because this Terrence Malick film is very slow to unfold and made with a very deliberate pace.

Pretty But Empty .

END OF SPOILERUnlike "the thin red line", "days of heaven" and " badlands" are short movies (less than 90 minutes ),slow-moving ,and even their violent scenes -more numerous in the 1973 work- are almost intimate .

Malick also has a very non conventional editing style, disrupting shots with unexpected close ups and inserts (particularly of wildlife, landscapes or mundane scenes).

It also conveys the slow pace of their lives.

The fire scene at the end was unexpected and played out well by Richard Gere, Brooke Adams, and Sam Shepard.

In fact, although many would probably disagree with me, I think that Terrence Malick films are the most engaging.

About that, I can't complain - the shots of the nature, surroundings, pastoral fields, animals and insects are really stunning.

No story line and SLOW.

Since the best parts are the cinematography, narration (by Linda Manz, in a New Yorker-like accent) and music, it's enjoyable to watch again and again, even though you know what will happen.

The work is difficult to be sure, but once the owner of the farm (Sam Shephard) notices Adams, things take an unexpected turn.

Though it's a languid film, there is an underlying tension throughout.

Every second of this movie is visually stunning, which is the strength of the movie.

It moves forward in a spacious way; it's not a thriller, but I nevertheless found it thrilling.

It was also a worthy effort but had too narrow of a focus to amount to something that was worth watching.

Simply breathtaking.

Stunning to watch and listen to .

It is energized, beautiful, gripping, and bold and gives an honest and insightful portrayal of the Industrial Age's American Dream.

The whole plot can be recounted in detail in a few sentences and, when you stretch it to ninety minutes, the story gets so indescribably slow and boring that I was on the verge of quitting a few times.

They complain that the film is ponderously slow.

Cinematographer Nestor Almendros' stunning visuals deserve to be witnessed on the big screen.

The vistas of the American plains in the early part of this century are breathtaking.

Beautiful CINEMATOGRAPHY, but a boring movie.

Yes, very beautiful but holy hell was this boring.

), the editing was choppy and disjointed, the storyline non-existent, the voice over was an incoherent ramble, the characters weakly developed, and the whole thing was uninvolving.

Terrence Malick's evocative film has his signature all over it.

Only this time, however, the color pallet of that shot is dull and gray, almost like the movie is warning us that the film will only go downhill from there.

To be honest it was too predictable a plot and too slow-moving to really get me excited.

Malick, always the consummate "motion picture" director, is more interested in the settings and the beauty of nature than in creating compelling characters and creates a truly engaging tableau of moving images here mostly involving wheat fields, wind and clouds, streams, dirty farmers, animals and insects, and various antiquated modes of transportation.

The cinema-photography is truly amazing and foreshadows similar efforts in the future, but the wooden direction/acting, stilted dialog, and uninteresting characters left me shrugging in disbelief.

Many scenes leave left me empty simply because there was not enough dialog, and the characters seemed passive.

The cinematography is some of the most breathtaking ever captured on film.

The images of the landscapes of the American West are incredibly evocative.

There is an intriguing story in here (scarcely using a one-person voice-over) set in the twenties (?

If it it ever comes to a revival house where I can see it on the big screen, I'll dash over the bodies of the slower-footed to buy my ticket.

It was even more fascinating seeing it in a double feature with 'Badlands,' an experience I highly recommend.

Only people who have goldfish span attention would find this film boring and pretentious.

The main problem with the film was that it didn't flow very well, the scenes seemed very alienated from each other and would make it difficult for the viewer to be immersed in the film's story.

The most reason why I continued to watch Days in Heaven was to watch the hunky Richard Gere (who is so mush more handsome the Sam Shepard), and to see the beautiful cinematography, which was breathtaking.

But every once and a while, I may want to participate in a truly unique and engaging movie experience.

Being a Malick film you know the "story" is actually going to be a very small part of the overall picture and like most of the director's films people are going to be put off by the slow pace and the lack of a clear story.

Empty film with pretty shots...

Still, it had a plot and characters with discernible motives, so I was able to somewhat reason away what I personally thought was a bizarre and pretentious style of making films.

Stunning landscapes, minute images of nature and incredible use of light.

And I will certainly agree that the cinematography is simply stunning, and the magic hour shots add a unique aura to the film.

It runs a fairly short 1hr 34 minutes (it feels longer), and I began to feel that these pointless moments were needed to increase the runtime and make it not too short.

This is a stunning film that "has it all", that is, a powerful story, unequalled cinematography, great performances, superior artwork, wonderful direction and a mesmerizing narration by Manz.

Terrence Malick's Days Of Heaven is a remarkable film achievement though it is mostly for its stunning, Oscar-winning cinematography by Nestor Almendros.

I do not believe "Badlands" used that technique, but his overall appreciation for how drab colors can be beautiful comes across, and both films are very much focused on the outdoors of the Midwest, far from the city.

I appear to have mistakenly based my comparison upon his gorgeous and engrossing meditative war drama "The Thin Red Line".

just lazy - the dialogue between the characters is short, empty and doesn't add anything to any kind of depth.

And lastly, Bonnie and Clyde was too mild, I had expected a stunning crime/robbery movie.

This is a visually stunning film and the musical score by Ennio Morricone is both haunting and beautiful as well.

It lacked the slow, lingering pace of Malick's future films, and, therefore, I was unable to really connect to any of the characters.

but also one that many people would find very slow.

'Days of Heaven,' however, is always intensely absorbing: Malick's meticulously composed shots, Nestor Almendros's gorgeous magic-hour photography, Ennio Morricone's sumptuous score, and Billy Weber's editing all contribute to a hypnotic viewing experience.

The cinematography is quite simply breathtaking.

Breathtaking Visually .

Many who NEED a film to move at a more 'Hollywoodized' pace will clearly give up on the movie--as the first half hour or so is very slow.

The slow transformation of greed to love and love to jealousy.

It soon becomes apparent that the real story here is the one of the characters' feelings, and as such it progressively becomes more compelling and affecting.

And I dig Tarkovski or Kubrick (and many others), who both did manage to blend together average stories with great cinematography with stunning results.

Audiences used to long pointless dialog may find this film disconcerting.

The cinematography alone makes this movie worth watching repeatedly.

The photography is stunning.

The score is also beautiful and of haunting quality, and again as is the case with Malick the visuals are breathtaking particularly in the cinematography and scenery.

The plot isn't that sophisticated, and the fire/locust scene goes on way too long.

As for the plot, this film drags along endlessly with no real plot twists or development.

No need to underscore the obvious, namely the stunning pictorialism of Malick's earth, sky, and crop abundance.

This film happens to be one of the best films of the 1970's thanks to the haunting story on love and loss, stunning cinematography, a beautiful score by Ennio Morricone (of course), and the wonderful direction of Malick.

Days of heaven is genuine, compelling and true to itself.

Most of this film was shot(by Nestor Almendros) during the breaking of dawn or the glow of dusk, and the vistas and settings are simply breathtaking.

If the acting had been more intense, "Days of Heaven" would have reached the heights of "East of Eden" by Kazan.

The movie uses this story as a backdrop for its stunning and memorable images.

While slow and simple, this is a totally stunning movie.

Days of Heaven is one of the most painfully boring and pointless films I have ever seen.

the cinematography element, but it's rather a clever and passionate unison of both that make great, exciting and everlasting masterpieces of cinema.

His next effort was "The New World", which was too long and too slow (seriously, had they trimmed half an hour it might have managed to be mediocre).

Slow-moving but deeply engaging, with a fair amount of social commentary.

Every scene is painterly and expands centrifugally to unexpected directions to reveal narrative possibilities that are closer to impressions and memory rather than things that do happen.

There is virtually no plot and the characters are not very well developed.

The second movie of Terrence Malick's filmography, Days of Heaven depicts a dreadfully boring love triangle on a Texas farm.

The film has a story, yes, a couple pretends to be brother and sister and start to work in a farm, but the lord falls in love with the woman, but the movie mostly consists of images and images and more images, no real plot, no enough words, no action (literally), no story development and no character development.

'Days of Heaven' (1978) Earlier today I told someone that they had given me inspiration to write movies again, through their stunning artwork, so I thought I would in turn write a review on one of the most beautiful looking movies of all time.

The stunning visuals are complemented with a haunting musical score by Ennio Morricone which only enhances the feeling of the film.

This perhaps the strongest and most believable love triangle ever put to film, and in my opinion, the most compelling.

Days of Heaven is an experience rather than a film, and the experience is so powerful and absorbing that the above mentioned flaws are hardly even noticeable.

This movie was a little confusing, a little slow, and a little boring.

As I watch the natural world around me being destroyed and replaced by roads, buildings and parking lots at an unbelievably fast pace, I am filled with intense longing as I gaze at the wonders of the world presented by this movie--a time before the whole country became "developed" and "technologically improved," when more things had to be done by hand and on foot--a much quieter and more natural world.

The visuals are absolutely stunning.

Too many b-roll shots of nature can make a film dull and a lot of voice-over can grow daunting.

Everything looks chopped up, every time a scene seemed to gain some momentum (or some character development) it would obtrusively cut to boring scenes of people doing boring things.

The characters are dull, even the acting is, in my opinion, very forced (I mean, their expressions are always the same throughout the whole film, which is indeed a very comic element), there's no evident reason why anybody should care about them.

Stunning Scenic Vistas .

Nearly every scene is breathtaking and naturally surreal.

As others have noted, the film is a visual achievement, but like most Malick movies he values an evocative shot more than I do.

I'd rewind and listen again only to discover that not only was it annoying, but it was also uninteresting and meaningless.

The film's first act is a meditative view of childhood, poverty and relation; the second act is a temperate human romance and drama; the third is an equally thrilling and terrifying exodus - all of them are beautiful and evocative with their visuals and sound.

Overall, Days of Heaven is a beautiful film, but it's held back by a troublesome first half, and very slow pacing, which will prevent me from revisiting it any time soon.

For it is the stunning visual beauty that carries this film.

Even the narrator with her exaggerated child's wisdom, a weary cliché, doesn't have anything actually new to say.

I find it interesting that such a stunning visual director can have such disdain and disinterest in plot and dialog.

What we have then is a stunning assemblage of visuals that look painterly in their composition and use of color.

The long locust invasion / forest fire sequence is one of the most intense and incredible set-pieces ever put on film and my mind boggles as to how they pulled it off (nowadays of course it would all be done with computer opticals).

Visually stunning minimalist story about love and deception in the Texas panhandle in 1916/17.

'Days of Heaven' is a slow and dream-like look at the lives of working-class people at the first quarter of the 20th century in the United States.

it maybe slow and disjointed...

After all, the one plot line, the love triangle, seems pretty trite as far as movie fare goes.

The cinematography is stunning, perhaps the most sumptuous of any film ever made and the complimentary musical score will stay in your mind for days after.

The real star here is the cinematography, which is absolutely stunning, and some of the best I've ever seen on film.

The slight redness of the skies not only made the film feel atmospheric, but it also immersed me into the backbreaking work which had to be done around the farm.

The images were also stunning so I think it would be hard to complain about the large amount of them.

Filmed in Canada, DAYS is a visually stunning film it could easily have been a silent picture because there are long gaps between dialog and when the characters do speak, they use few words to convey feeling.

Deliberately slow in pacing, though never less than lovely and evocative.

When the fields erupt into flame, quite literally from the broiling emotions of the film's conflicted characters, the viewer is confronted by the most intense manifestation of Hell-on- Earth since the burning village in Bondarchuk's 'War and Peace (1967).

Stunning piece of film-making, many, including myself, consider it to be one of the top films of all time .

Still, even though I was pretty bored and planned to bury it with the grade, it ended leaving me with surprisingly strong impressions and I don't believe I'll easily forget it.

This is one of very few movies where you can literally take any still at all and the lighting, framing and composition are just breathtaking.

I feel the characters did an excellent job playing very dull characters.

A must for widescreen-viewing (or rather on the big screen, where the empty vastness--practically a character in the proceedings--can properly work its magic), the picture is well-acted by Richard Gere, Brooke Adams, and Sam Shepherd and seems deeply felt and considered.

Especially in this one which I found much more compelling than Tree of Life for example.

This method of storytelling was not only unique, but it did a great job at engaging me.

The simple story is really just a framework with which Malick paints extraordinary landscapes and evocative themes - in every sense this is a timeless picture.

A quietly compelling movie .

Now that we all have access to a widescreen DVD version of this, the scenes are even more breathtaking.