^I saw excerpts from it in a film class I took in college, as a supplement to our screening of the original version of Apocalypse Now. Still need to see the whole thing.
Apocalypse Now
- Thread starter Danny99
- Start date
MeanJoePhaser
Admiral
It was dark and edgy for its day. No US produced war movie had been anything like that before.
I'm glad it was released, but REDUX has its problems, the heavy-handedness. The making out with the Playmates part is kinda worthless, too. I think the original theatrical cut is better overall.
I wanted to see Redux at the theater but the only place showing it was over an hour's drive away.
"Is that it?" might be an apt ending for any Vietnam War movie. Because that's how the war ended for the USA. We just left. "Is that it?"
I'm glad it was released, but REDUX has its problems, the heavy-handedness. The making out with the Playmates part is kinda worthless, too. I think the original theatrical cut is better overall.
I wanted to see Redux at the theater but the only place showing it was over an hour's drive away.
"Is that it?" might be an apt ending for any Vietnam War movie. Because that's how the war ended for the USA. We just left. "Is that it?"
Oddly, I saw "Apocalypse Now" when I was about 12 and didn't hate it but obviously didn't get a lot of what was going on. It seemed like it could use a judicious editor. That's not literally what I thought at 12 of course but it sums it up.
Later, I read "Heart of Darkness" of my own volition (it was curiously not in my HS English program) and absolutely loved it. This was probably at about age 16. I watched the movie again at that time and I've seen it a couple times since. Still didn't dig it.
I think that kind of narrative, presenting an existential hell for the protagonist (who is curiously not the same guy in the movie as in the book) is better told in prose than on screen. On screen you get all the stagnant brooding, but none of the inner monologue. It doesn't play as well for me.
That said, I still haven't seen Redux. I've been meaning to for years. Consequently, YMMV.
EDIT: It's been awhile since I've seen the movie but it occurred to me after posting that there might have been a Willard voiceover in there. If so, it somewhat negates my thoughts about inner monologue.
Either way, I thought it played better on the page, since my memories on the movie are fuzzy but my recollection of some wonderfully descriptive prose from the book are still fresh in my mind 10 years later.
Last edited:
I've seen the redux but curiously never seen the original.
We did the the book for my BA and that's what made me finally seek the film out. I thought it dragged on a bit especially around the french famaily, but all in all I like the movie and like others I don't like war movies that much. Maybe that's what it is?
We did the the book for my BA and that's what made me finally seek the film out. I thought it dragged on a bit especially around the french famaily, but all in all I like the movie and like others I don't like war movies that much. Maybe that's what it is?
It does drag a bit during the French plantation sequence, though to be honest, I felt that the addition of this and the scene where Kurtz reads the magazine article to Willard add some interesting points of view on the war. The downside is both are sort of expository, whereas the rest of the movie shows us its view of the war.
Thank you for this thread, canadaboy. You and I are kindred spirits. I hate this movie. Of all the movies I've watched in my life, it was probably the most disappointing. I was expecting a masterpiece because of its reputation and the fact that I loved Coppola's first two Godfather movies, but this movie was so boring it drained my soul. I watched it with my father and he fell asleep. The whole movie is building up to Martin Sheen's character finding Marlon Brando's character. If the whole movie is going to be a build-up to something, you better make damn sure the pay-off is worth it. And in this case, it so wasn't. Marlon Brando's scenes were a massive letdown.
I liked the book "Heart of Darkness" a lot. I know they made changes in adapting it into this movie by adding a Vietnam angle to it, but I don't think that improved it. I thought Dennis Hopper was funny and it was cool the way Brando whispered that famous line, "the horror, the horror", but overall I found the movie to be an unbearably tedious slog. There was a TV movie of "Heart of Darkness" with Tim Roth and John Malkovich that I found infinitely better. There's some good scenery/atmosphere in the movie, but as a story, for me it fails.
I liked the book "Heart of Darkness" a lot. I know they made changes in adapting it into this movie by adding a Vietnam angle to it, but I don't think that improved it. I thought Dennis Hopper was funny and it was cool the way Brando whispered that famous line, "the horror, the horror", but overall I found the movie to be an unbearably tedious slog. There was a TV movie of "Heart of Darkness" with Tim Roth and John Malkovich that I found infinitely better. There's some good scenery/atmosphere in the movie, but as a story, for me it fails.
I've watched it a few times, both the theatrical cut and redux. I've always had a meh feeling about this film. It just couldn't ever really suck me in. Can't put a finger onto why it fails to do so. That said there are two moments that I absolutely love in the film and it's why I will still watch it from time to time. One is the entire air cav sequence. The other is the entire opening, with sheen in his hotel room up till the end of the lunch sequence where he is given his orders.
This. If you go in looking for a "war movie", you're bound to be disappointed. It's a brooding meditation on the breakdown of societal constructs and normative psychology as the result of the chaos of war. It's a psychological drama with sociological underpinnings. If that's your bag, then it's brilliant; if not, then the film is not for you.
Oh, and about 25% of the material added in Redux was useful in helping to clarify the story; the balance was unnecessary and bloated the film horribly, especially the aforementioned French Plantation scene.
Good point. However, I meant more in terms of the movie's structure. The way it ended was rather anti-climatic.
I saw the redux first, and appreciated the film much more in the original cut. It flows much better, and a lot of the added scenes didn't add much (French plantation, Playmates extension)
The visuals in this movie are incredible, and the helicopter attack may be the best combat scene committed to film.
I also agree with all the other posters in saying this isn't really a Vietnam movie. Platoon is the best Vietnam movie, this is a psychological drama.
The visuals in this movie are incredible, and the helicopter attack may be the best combat scene committed to film.
I also agree with all the other posters in saying this isn't really a Vietnam movie. Platoon is the best Vietnam movie, this is a psychological drama.
Funny how opinions differ. Apocalypse Now is my all time favorite movie, but I found all of the Godfather movies dreadfully boring. I don't think I've made it through all of any of them. I know I'm in the vast minority on that.
I haven't seen Apocalypse Now since the original theatrical release. I don't think I could stand to watch either version now. First, the Phoenix program had absolutely no problem slaughtering large numbers of people without embarrassment. Which calls into question why they have a problem with Kurtz. Second, the movie requires that Kurtz be in some sense successful with his assassinations, when thousands of tons of bombs, mass internments, deforestation and millions of deaths didn't succeed in doing. The premises are no longer viable. Kurtz' Godlikeness was really too specific to the high tide of imperialism, i.e., Conrad's day to translate to another time period.
MeanJoePhaser
Admiral
One could argue that it's a "road" movie, and it's the journey, not the destination that matters.
Also, look at KILL BILL, two movies leading up to the Bride fighting Bill...a confrontation which is over very quick (in homage to Sergio Leone, who was more interested in showing what led up to the violence than the violence itself...), they spent more time talking.
Very true. I also thought it was because the "story" wasn't over, it was just a segment of his life. We came into his life in the middle of something and left it in the middle of something. There was no real start or end, just it.
There is indeed a voice over. It was written during post-production by Michael Herr (author of Dispatches) and it helps the film considerably.
stj said:
They have a problem with Kurtz because he's stopped following orders. He's amassed legions of troops under his total control and, given his insanity and violent distrust of the U.S. military, is a real threat.
Yeah, but I loved "Kill Bill Vol. 2" and found its pay-off satisfying because the dialogue and characters were so captivating to me the whole time, including in that scene. I don't need a big action climax to be satisfied. And the road movie is one of my favourite genres.
I love movies like "The Sure Thing" and "Rain Man" because the characters are so well developed and their conversations are so wonderful as they travel together. I didn't feel that I got any of that in "Apocalypse Now" (except in the Dennis Hopper scenes).
It works good as a "journey" movie, but as soon as they hit that plantation and then onto Kurtz, it becomes an anti-war movie. It's no longer a story about this boat of guys going to kill someone, it becomes a why war is bad movie. It completely switches gears.
It could've worked, but Brando's bad acting sealed it.
It could've worked, but Brando's bad acting sealed it.
