Revisiting this movie

Rating: Null/10 (12 April 2001)

When I watched this movie in 1978 I did not identify most of its quality. I was looking for action, shock and horror. I found it. What seems to have remained indelible in my memory up until recently when I revisited this movie were the 'russian roulette' scenes.(mainly and only)
On revisiting the movie I found it had many other deep and rich qualities: De Niro's dominant leading role, his (believable) solid leadership of his peers; Streep's nurturing role; the stunning mountain deer-hunting scenery; the beautiful music of John Williams;the incredible thickness of culture that was depicted in this USA township; the strength of friendships which emanated tacitly - as if the viewer was discovering it; excellently manufactured mayhem in Saigon.
My main criticism of this film, is in my belief a plot weakness of the scene where Michael (De Niro) goes back to try and bring Nick (Walken) back from Vietnam, and them then engaging in the russian roulett (shootout) and Nick's (Walken's) consequent death. It lets this movie down. It seems to me that Nick's demise might have been better scripted and served by a softer demise, say, with him dying of a heroin overdose...The film scene does hint of his extreme substance abuse (track marks all over his arms)......
Well, you see, this brings me to the question: How has he survived all these months/years of playing russian roulette whilst being so spaced out? Was it the very,very, very,Lucky Nick,or, was it more accurately, a bullshitty hollywoody plot? Did the producer/ directors sense the distaste that might be experienced by American viewers if they were to malign their fallen heroes as drug addicts. Perhaps they thought it better that Nick was seen to die in some form of twisted heroism with a gun in his hand.