Cold Heaven (1991) User Reviews

Testing your commitment and believes.

[lost-in-limbo · 6/10 · 27 August 2007]

Marie Davenport is an unfaithful wife who plans to tell her surgeon husband Alex that she is going to leave him for her lover Dr. Daniel Corvin. However strangely enough, her husband is conveniently killed in a boating accident. Then his body disappears from the morgue, and this is when plenty of unusual occurrences start to interrupt Marie's life.

Every time I watch a Nicolas Roeg, I always find it hard to put it into words. "Cold Heaven" falls somewhere in the latter end of his work, but still it manages to hold your attention because of its unusually haunting and broad ambiance. The unique handling of the metaphoric premise (lifted off Brian Moore's novel) seems to shift back and forth amongst many different moody fields (thriller, supernatural) to eventually play out like a spiritual journey of religious faith, guilt, fate, and redemption. Everything about it works off one's emotions and seldom thoughts, which go on to feel like a ponderously obsessive dream full of miracles. What starts off like torment due to infidelity can suddenly turn into relief, and it shows love doesn't have any boundaries. What seems like an enigmatic and fractured structure to begin with eventually is answered. But I was less impressed and satisfied with the revelation, and the final 10 minutes or so.

Roeg's sensual visual style and steady pace has a sterile, but brooding air that seductively pulls you in. His filming techniques like crosscutting editing of the surreal flashbacks and visions can get jaded, but only adds the blurry nature of what to believe. Even the monologues of Russell's character's inner thoughts are well done and at times can really alienate. Dim composition, shading and lighting is pulled of admirably well in displaying a darkly stark atmosphere. The set pieces provide symbolic traits and within the beautiful images are also eerie currents. The exquisite and ever-changing backdrop that's on show is handsomely framed by Francis Kenny's glossy photography. Stanley Myers' bold music score is a oddly lingering mixture of spicy and light n' breezy cues. The performances are strikingly inspired. Theresa Russell is amazing in a very demanding multi-facet role. Mark Harmon and James are equally fine with complex portrayals. There's also highly capable support in the likes of Will Patton, Julie Carmen, Talia Shire and Seymour Cassel.

Not one of his greatest, but an interestingly flawed piece nonetheless.

Miracle and Faith

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 4 January 2016]

Marie Davenport (Theresa Russell) is married with Dr. Alex Davenport (Mark Harmon) and is having a love affair with Dr. Daniel Corvin (James Russo). Marie plans to leave Alex and move in together with Daniel that has just left his wife Anna Corvin (Julie Carmen). Marie believes that the best moment to tell her decision to her husband is in Acapulco, Mexico, where he will go to a medical convention. While sailing with Marie, Alex swims and is hit on the head by a motor boat. He goes to the hospital but dies; however before the autopsy, his body disappears from the morgue. Marie returns to Carmel and out of the blue, she meets Alex alive in her hotel room. Marie, who was raised Catholic but is atheist, recalls a vision that she had one year ago when Virgin Mary pointed out to her the location where a sanctuary should be built and seeks out Monsignor Cassidy (Richard Bradford). Is Alex's resurrection a test of her faith?

"Cold Heaven" is a weird film indicated for religious people, more specifically to Catholics. The story about an adulterous woman raised Catholic but that lost her faith in God when her mother passed away is strange and has a moralist conclusion. The plot keeps the mystery until the moment that Marie discloses her vision to the priest. At least, the sexy Theresa Russell is worthwhile watching by her fans. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Desejo Selvagem" ("Wild Desire")

Entrancing if slow

[gridoon2024 · 6/10 · 11 December 2022]

Heady mix of erotic thriller, paranormal mystery and religious mysticism from the always interesting director Nicolas Roeg; it's entrancing (especially in the first half) if slow (especially in the second), and when the payoff (particularly the meaning of the "sanctuary") comes, you may feel that it was not worthy of all that build-up. Theresa Russell looks fantastic (she has filled out in all the right places) and gives another great performance; in a very small part, Julie Carmen explodes with a fiery sensuality that rivals, if not surpasses, that of a young Penelope Cruz. Will Patton is miscast as a priest; the friendlier he tries to be, the creepier he gets. **1/2 out of 4.

intriguing

[gpeltz · 27 March 2000]

This movie almost plays better in you mind, in retrospect. It tackles several complex themes, which it then twists and entwines. The results, while not always successfully resolved, none the less provide something rare today; Food for thought. Among other things, this film deals with, adultery, faith, and redemption. Beautifully filmed, we are introduced to a wife of a doctor, whose flirtations are actually killing her husband. The wife is a non believer, yet she somehow finds herself involved in something that she cannot explain. She is both a unwitting pawn, in a miraculous event, that tests the faith of a minister and a Nun, and challenges her to examine her own disillusion with her marriage and her husband. She comes to realize that her outside affair with a handsome young man, directly affects the health of her husband, (who comes back from the dead.!) she is confused. And then there are those visions of the virgin Mary....Not your usual shoot em up..... oddly paced, yet affecting.

Huh ?

[Theo Robertson · 4/10 · 14 July 2004]

Nicolas Roeg ? He directed the classic supernatural thriller DON`T LOOK NOW didn`t he ? Strangely the aforementioned movie was broadcast on BBC television at the weekend which did tonight`s screening of COLD HEAVEN no favours what so ever .

You see it`s impossible not to compare COLD HEAVEN with DON`T LOOK NOW since they both have the same director and the same structure and for the first third of COLD HEAVEN I thought they also had the same plot except a dead husband had been substituted instead of a dead child , in fact my mind was set on this movie revolving around a grief stricken widow seeing her late husband running around Venice wearing a red anorak . This doesn`t occur but about one third of the way through the running time there`s a massive plot twist and despite being an essential plot twist it`s not explained in any great depth . In fact very little is explained in COLD HEAVEN which ruins the movie

People have mentioned the rather poor production values of COLD HEAVEN and it`s impossible not to notice them . If I didn`t no different I would have thought this was a TVM since it`s got a made for television feel to it right down to white capital letters in the title sequence . Roeg also tries to inject art house pretentions via spoken thought processes but again this doesn`t help the movie at all . One can`t help feeling Roeg should have put all his effort into the plot twists which are totally flat on screen

Cheap production values , disinterested directing and a really bizarre premise and screenplay make for a bad movie

A pale shadow

[madmattuk · 4/10 · 18 July 2004]

Could this be by the same director as Don't Look Now or Bad Timing? Poorly

acted, clunkily edited. You only have to compare the various accident scenes in this with similar ones in Don't Look Now to see how much Roeg has lost his

touch.

Even the generally reliable Teresa Russell (looking a bit chunky these days, I'm afraid to report) cannot save this one. The plot is pure pseudo-religious hokum, the acting is wooden and Roeg's attempts at his trademark dislocation of time are pitiful.

Avoid this one like the plague.

Oh...

[TheShadow22 · 1/10 · 16 August 2003]

Just saw this movie on TV and I have to admit, I was a bit surprised it was even on. There were so many goofs, mess-ups, and bad editing that an old episode of Sesame Street would have been better to watch. The acting was OK, but please, you can really feel the "Straight to Video" feeling. The cast/crew made this movie a bad melodrama. Yes, there is a message in the movie, but just wait until ten minutes before the ending to hear it. Trust me, you wouldn't even tell the difference.

Found art

[ReadingFilm · 7/10 · 23 March 2024]

Its cinematic treatment of the dead coming to life is the most interesting take I've seen on the genre. He is like coming apart at the seams. Its job is to cast a spell around the rest of the movie. This is the stuff of high theater. It is both literal and symbolic at once, a very Japanese treatment. Every time I remembered it from my first viewing it was just that guy's portrayal of the undead.

Somebody said it's like a soap opera performance, but this is exactly it. He is performing a soap opera character except vomiting blood, hurling, and having Frankenstein meltdowns. Instead of using soap as a pejorative, we can say it is a high art treatment of a soap. But the average viewer might not realize it, somehow this might play straight to them.

There is something about the contrast of the cable TV movie, with a Nic Roeg film, that is both jarring and weird, but never operating outside the viewer and the screen.

The climax of the movie is a cross being burned into the hill by God, then she runs in his arms, the saxophone plays. The film is about her thoughts of infidelity haunting her, and her returning to live in service to God.

I was not sure if she would run into the lovers arm because that would be a valid reading of the film as well. To forget her husband, he was dead all along, to move on. It would be a tale of sexual healing and grief. But Roeg had made that film several times by that point. Instead, to elevate such a small human dilemma to the grandest stage is the power of melodrama, the power of art.

Some of the early Peter Weir films dealt with white guilt and aboriginal spirituality with some of these tones. Another review said with auteurs we don't watch their filmography expecting them to top themselves, we go for the small pleasure of how they have twisted the dial slightly differently. All that is interesting in his films are here, although it does a disservice to put them into words. So a Christian work is unexpected, but using his avant-garde eye becomes a spontaneous combustion; it is impossible to go wrong dealing with the very symbols of reality, life, death, love, morality.

The lightning bolt awakening becomes something in films; that enlightenment isn't just about that, but about the inverse, a complete intolerance toward immorality. This is why her awakening is triumphant. It brought him back, finally, for real. Roeg was the rarest thing, a western auteur, uncompromising and without commercial interests. But this, his most obscure work is somehow his most directly meaningful, but at the same time you sense that having such direct answers is kind of a problem for him.

Roeg Gets Religion

[rmax304823 · 5/10 · 13 November 2013]

It's atmospherically done but I don't know what it is that gets done.

Let me think. Theresa Russell is married to a likable doctor, Mark Harmon, but has been having an affair with the moody James Russo. He's also a doctor. Russell knows how to pick them. Harmon knows nothing of the affair.

There is a boating accident and Harmon sustains what is evidently a mortal head wound. Russell is broken up. He was a nice guy. But his body disappears from the hospital. Zip, just like that, after being pronounced DOA.

Russo is delayed in his assignation with Russell in picturesque Carmel, California. She enters the motel room, which she assumes to be empty, and, Lo!, there is a confused and amnesic and paranoid Harmon. Russo finally shows up and things get even more twisted.

Out of nowhere, Russell announces to a bored priest that she's had a vision of the Virgin Mary, tell her something like, "If you build it, they will come." Well -- not that, but it might as well be, since the message is so much nonsense. By this time she's going nuts and the even the most patient viewer will understand why. Will Patton, now an earnest priest, tries to comfort her and explain that God has dominion over life and death but everything else is our choice. A strange nun has recurring dreams of Russell meeting the Virgin Mary. The nun and Russell go to the place of the vision and something portentous happens but nobody knows what. A visiting priest blesses himself and stares in awe at The Spot, but it looks the same to me as it did before.

I swear I'm not making that all up. There's a love triangle and some sort of supernatural dynamics are forced upon it, where it all sits uncomfortably, like a tarantula on a piece of angel food cake. I love Raymond Chandler.

This one is exquisitely photographed. It's difficult to turn Point Lobos into a vision of hell but Roeg manages it. Will Patton, my able supporting player in the magnificent "Everybody Wins", is not a beneficent priest. He's a human sidewinder and nothing else. Boy, is he miscast. One glance at those staring eyes and fake grin and you think "pedophile." Theresa Russell does her best but nobody can conquer a confused script like this. Mark Harmon dies, goes crazy, and comes back to life so often it becomes boring.

I'd love to recommend this because I admire Nicholas Roeg for some of his earlier work, and for his hiring my little son as an extra in one of his flicks. But my artistic integrity forbids me. Try as he might, he is no Edgar G. Ulmer. But he at least passes Cedric the Entertainer.

A most incredible waste of time and embarrassing to watch!

[caj225 · 1/10 · 5 July 2011]

All the other reviews panning this flick are fair warning. It is so preposterous you won't believe you are wasting your time until the last 7 minutes. When the Mrs. walks down the hill with the young priest, the whole movie evaporates into a finalé not unlike a B-flat minor version of the Sound of Music. The wrap up is pap. Imagine watching Jaws but at the end, Jesus floats down and lifts everybody out of the boat and whisks them to safety, with the little town becoming the next Shrine to the Ascension. The end was so totally out of character with the story that has been told to that point. And it was as embarrassing to watch as Tammy Faye Baker.

A good film with a neat "punch line"

[robertllr · 8/10 · 13 February 2003]

After reading the other tepid reviews and comments, I felt I had to come to bat for this movie.

Roeg's films tend to have little to do with one another, and expecting this one to be like one of his you liked is probably off the mark.

What this film is is a thoughtful and unabashed look at religious faith. The only other film like it-in terms of its religious message-would have to be Tolkin's `The Rapture.'

I am astonished that anyone could say the story is muddled or supernatural. It is a simple movie about Catholic faith, miracles, and redemption--though you would never guess it till the end. It is also the only movie I can think of whose resolution turns, literally, on a pun.

As a (happily) fallen Catholic myself, I know what the movie is about, and I find a sort of fondness in its ultimate innocence about the relation between God and man. But if you are not familiar with the kind of theology on which the film is based, then it will go right over you head.

As a film-as opposed to a story-`Cold Heaven' it is not ground-breaking. While `The Rapture' is heavy with pictorial significance and cinematic imagery, `Cold Heaven' downplays its own cinematic qualities. There are no striking shots, no edgy effects, no attempts to fit the content to the form. It is workmanlike shooting, but subdued. Nor does it have dialogue or acting to put it in a class of high drama. It is a simple story that unfolds simply. It may seem odd; but at the end the mystery is revealed. It looks ambiguous; but with a single line the ambiguity vanishes in a puff of Catholic dogma.

In this regard, `Cold Heaven' has at its heart exactly the same sort of thing that drives a movie like `The Sting,' or `The Sixth Sense,' or `Final Descent,' or Polanski's `A Pure Formality.' All of these are films with a trick up their sleeves. They may frustrate you along the way, but they have a point-an obvious one, indeed--but the fun is, at least in part, in having been taken in.

Still, even if it seems like little more than a shaggy dog story with a punch line, it is worth watching for way it directs-and misdirects-you. Try it-especially if you are, or have ever been, a Catholic.

Simply about the sanctity of marriage

[Rpdsf · 4/10 · 29 July 2014]

This movie is simply about the sanctity of marriage although the script and direction make it hard to follow, especially with the excessive religious overtones, flashbacks and side stories. A cheating wife married to a doctor has an affair with another doctor. After about a year into their affair, they decide to leave their spouses for each other. Before the wife can tell her husband she's leaving him, he has an accident and dies. The wife shows no emotion over the event although confused about what she wants to do next. The husband's body disappears and it becomes increasingly evident that he's alive. The wife is suspicious, confused, worried....almost going through the whole spectrum of emotions throughout the movie. Realizing her husband is in fact alive or somehow miraculously risen from the dead, she is confronted by him. She continues her affair while seemingly looking for answers as does her husband who has several serious physical reactions to his wife's thoughts, words and interaction with her lover. Finally after completing a promise she made during an overly religious vision she had at the start of her affair with the doctor, her husband is miraculously healed and she realizes that she truly loves her husband and no longer wants to leave him. I rated this low simply because the script and director made it so difficult to follow the story and see it for what it was.

Visceral Psychological Cinema. Not your typical Hollywood Pap.

[gfilmscasting · 8/10 · 3 January 2011]

If you thought Titanic was the best thing since slice bread, then this film is probably not to for you. This is not your typical popcorn movie fare. When you watch a Nicholas Roeg film, you are walking into a dark world populated with individuals with fractured psyches, desperate lives and dark motives. Everything from his distinct use of visual metaphors to his trademark dramatic camera zooms to his choice of eclectic, but darkly dramatic subject matter typifies Roeg's cinematic universe. His long trajectory as a filmmaker goes back to the early 60's where he began as a camera operator and eventually became one of the most visually unique cinematographers in the business. He made his debut as a director in 1970, co-directing with Donald Cammell, the controversial film Performance, starring James Fox and Mick Jagger in his feature film debut. From then on, straight up to Cold Heaven, Roeg has maintained his eclectic cinematic style of filmmaking working outside of the studio system. This film stars Roeg's then, wife, Theresa Russell as Maria, the confused, conflicted yet unfaithful wife of Alex, played by Mark Harmon in an eerily understated performance. There are also supporting roles by Talia Shire as the mysterious nun and James Russo as Maria's lover. If you like your films to be a bit challenging, if you have some appreciation for the visually abstract, if you are keen on dark psychological cinema with a unique perspective in the vein of David Lynch or David Cronenberg, then Cold Heaven may be up your alley.

Okay, it's flawed, but don't let's get hysterical

[chrisandsammy · 8/10 · 1 December 2006]

Well, well....Roeg touched a bit of a nerve there, didn't he? He was a genius while he was cataloguing his various characters' descents into psychosis for a couple of decades, but as soon as he has the bad taste to suggest that redemption (or even some good advice) might be found in the bad old Catholic church, the hipper-than-thou alternative movie crowd gets extra vicious. Worse still, Theresa Russell's character - faced with experiences that nothing in her avowedly rationalist outlook has an explanation for, is unwillingly forced to deal with those experiences on another level - that of the spiritual. You know, the realm of the ignorant and superstitious, the sort of thing that the art-house cinephiles are supposed to be above. Oh, the horror... So she finds her marriage - the idea that it might be a uniquely important commitment - affirmed by what seems uncomfortably like divine intervention. People who find this idea prima facie offensive could maybe ask themselves why they instinctively jump into attack mode at being challenged to take seriously the idea of a spiritual dimension to their lives. But they probably won't. Sure, this film has some problems, notably Talia Shire's delirious hamwork as the overwrought nun, 1950s-style attire and all. And the dialogue between Marie Davenport and the young priest in their last scene is straight out of the Spellbound School of Glib Interpretations (though Hitchcock's movie escaped similar charges due to the source of wisdom having impeccably secular credentials as a Freudian psychoanalyst). But, sadly, Nicolas Roeg appears to have copped a critical mauling as much for even asking the question as for the possible answers this film presents.

another Roeg/Russell head-scratcher

[petershelleyau · 18 July 2002]

That the release of this film by director Nicolas Roeg and starring his wife Theresa Russell was delayed for 2 years says a lot about its perceived commercial prospects. The Roeg/Russell partnership's previous titles - Bad Timing, Eureka, Insignificance, and Track 29 - were a good warning, where Russell has been better served by other directors, and Roeg's interest in fractured narrative has left audiences in a quandary.

The material here is based on a novel by Brian Moore, which is an exploration of Catholic faith, but the screenplay by Allan Scott makes this seem ludicrous eg The Virgin Mary is seen by a convent, asking for the "building of a sanctuary", and the idea of a dead man coming back to life being a "demonic possession" is dismissed by a priest since "Life and death belong to God, but everything else is ours to decide". We can tell Roeg isn't really interested in providing an explanation to poor Russell, whose Los Angeles pathologist husband Mark Harmon, is supposedly killed in a boating accident during a holiday in Mexico (the book had the holiday in France), when the conclusion is weightless. Much is made of Russell as an unfaithful wife and how it is often the disbelievers that are visited by God, but when we are told of the real meaning of The Virgin Mary's message, it is laughably trite.

Roeg uses Moore's plot as a supernatural excuse to present his editing flourishes, with cross-cutting between sleeping Russell, her married lover James Russo, and Harmon in the morgue; Russell and Russo having sex cut against Russo and his wife Julie Carmen fighting; and Roeg's big one, Russell on a Carmel clifftop as The Virgin Mary makes an apocalyptic appearance whilst Russell rolls around in the dirt. The boating accident scene is pleasingly underscored with the music of Stanley Myers, though we get water on the camera, interiors are generally underlit with matching muffled dialogue and Russell's whispered thoughts on the soundtrack, Harmon wears pancake makeup and spits blood, and there is a subjective camera shot with a white veiling. However on the plus side is a scene where Russell is surrounded by butterflies, her Del A Dey-Jones hats, her willingness to appear overweight in a bikini, and the remarkably unmannered performance of Russo. An indication of Roeg's touch is when Russell tells a priest of her vision of The Virgin Mary, where Roeg undermines Russell's acting by cut-aways to the priest and long shots away from her as she paces.

I wanted to like this movie, but couldn't...

[vpoholek · 4 October 2004]

I wanted to like this movie, but couldn't follow it. It flashes back and forth and provides real time dialogue intermixed with whispers, which are the main characters thoughts. She thinks she is going crazy, and after listening to all the whispering, you will think you are, too. The husband, a role phoned-in by Mark Harmon, is either dead or alive or brought back to life, or never really got hurt. I can't figure it out. Seeing Talia Shire play an overzealous nun was just bad casting. And seeing the monsignor's face transform several times in a few seconds just made me queasy. I think it was supposed to be a metaphor for her new faith being tested. The premise of the story is impressive, too bad it didn't get the screenplay it deserved.

Starts well, gets dumb later.

[fedor8 · 16 January 2007]

In Roeg's "Don't Look Now", non-believer Sutherland pays the price by getting chopped up, and in this movie former-believer-but-now-non-believer Russell is "shown the way" by God and has her faith in God restored. She "sees the light", so-to-speak. It's a safe bet that Roeg doesn't think much of atheists: "Convert 'em or kill 'em" must be his credo, and also the message in these two films.

"C.H." is mysterious and quite ambiguous for quite a while, but then, unfortunately, more and more of the mysteriousness makes place for hardcore religious nonsense and the standard Christian stuff regarding the Virgin Mary. The message of the film is crystal-clear: God intervenes in Russell's life by saving her marriage and restoring her faith. Whether this wonderful God also saved Harmon is less certain; after all, the all-powerful Lord decided to kill him in the first place, and so bringing him back to life isn't exactly something that you can call an act of saving. (If you break a man's bicycle on purpose and then repair it, don't expect him to say thanks.) I at first thought that Russell was only imagining Harmon to still be alive (having perhaps stolen the corpse herself or imagined it being stolen), but once Talia Shire (the nun) tells Patton (the priest) in a confession booth that she has been having religious dreams about Russell for a long time, it then became clear that Roeg was going for a strictly by-the-numbers religious message, and not an ambiguous one free for interpretation.

Roeg is no intellectual. I assume that the chances are very slim indeed that Roeg ever did or will ever make a film in which a God-fearing believer becomes a non-believer. That much is certain.

I liked the thing Patton said to Russell at one point, and its obvious implications: he told her that Satan doesn't have the power over life and death, but that only God has it. Translation/Conclusion: Satan cannot do real evil, only God can. Now what kind of a God are they all worshiping then? They should pray that Satan takes over the Heavens and somehow gets rid of this God, which would mean that God wouldn't have the power anymore to cause all the damage that he does – using this logic. But then we'd have over-population. It's a strange dilemma...

Okay, so I am poking a bit of fun at the film's religious aspects and all the illogic and absurdity that they tag along with them, but the film is still solid. It would have been better had it not sought to hide like a coward in the religious corner, using tired old clichés like frantic nuns, philosophical priests, and that mighty thunder in the sky that seems to be an oft-employed method by God of relaying messages to his fearful flock.

Roeg in decline

[stephen-33 · 27 September 1999]

I fear that with this movie and the stultifying Two Deaths, that Roeg has slipped semi-comatose into semi-retirement.I just hope that he can produce one final great classic that will sit alongside, Bad Timing, Performance, Eureka,Walkabout and The Man Who Fell To Earth in his mighty cannon.