I just watched this movie for the first time last night on IFC and personally, i think it's just fantastic. The acting was great, the directing was great, the screenplay was awesome. what do you guys think of this movie?
what do u mean when u say "the directing" was great?
i mean Francis Ford Coppola did a good job.
I thought it was pretty boring and the best part was the ending when Brando's character made his appearance. The confrontation was classic. I know this opinion will probably be quite unpopular, as most people think the journey there through the film is brilliant, and the ending is the letdown. I have yet to see Redux in its entirety, though I have seen some of the plantation scenes, and they definitely look intriguing.
AN = Overrated.
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaI thought it was pretty boring and the best part was the ending when Brando's character made his appearance. The confrontation was classic. I know this opinion will probably be quite unpopular, as most people think the journey there through the film is brilliant, and the ending is the letdown. I have yet to see Redux in its entirety, though I have seen some of the plantation scenes, and they definitely look intriguing.
i have yet to see the original and it's editing, i saw the redux.
I'm surprised you didn't mention how hot the playboy chicks were in your review.
Quote from: MacGuffinI'm surprised you didn't mention how hot the playboy chicks were in your review.
you're totally right...i love when they rush the stage. but seriously, during the sex scenes, they're so hot. "susie q" is still in my head
sorry to beat a dead fat man here, so do u mean he did a good job putting the shots? telling ppl what to do? having a vision? telling the actors what to do? eating? shaving?
what i'm implying here is "the directing was good" doesn't mean anything.
Quote from: Pubricksorry to beat a dead fat man here, so do u mean he did a good job putting the shots? telling ppl what to do? having a vision? telling the actors what to do? eating? shaving?
what i'm implying here is "the directing was good" doesn't mean anything.
the choice of shots that FFC chose, some of them were just perfect. I think eating he's had enough of and shaving (from what production stills i've seen) seems to be out of the question.
spoilers are in dis bitch.and yes, its my new cathphrase.....
-the direction was great.. :wink:
-redux is much better....its the more "complete" film......why would i watch the abrigded one..?
-my second fav brando role..
-great music/score.....
-coolest characer has to go to the acid dropping surfer..
-the playboy scene is even better w/redux....
-i like the big sword that he kills brabdo with....
-its my second fav. war fiom next to the thin red line..so, yes...i have great tastes...
Quote from: the digital rape
-i like the big sword that he kills brabdo with....
brabdo? hmm..... and the big sword is a machette..what horror.
pointing out a spelling error to NEON is like saying Duderino replies to everything.
OWNED!!!
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgatekeeper.naphoria.com%2Fimagahs%2Fowned.gif&hash=00eeb081e48e75a03d24766db1bd22363d38f3ea)
saying Pubrick isnt an asshole is like saying Pubrick hates Bjork.
Quote from: Pubrickpointing out a spelling error to NEON is like saying Duderino replies to everything.
What would pointing out the spelling error of this thread's title be like?
done and done
Quote from: Pubrickpointing out a spelling error to NEON is like saying Duderino replies to everything.
..
Pubrick..thanks for grabbing a brotha's back.....
8) ..
duderinooooooooo.....i can't spell worht a damn.....i know this.......i'm actuallty surprised that sometimes peope can understand what i say in my posts.........
maaybe i should go back to my old sig. when i joined......
Quote from: El Duderinosaying Pubrick isnt an asshole is like saying Pubrick hates Bjork.
INTERACTIVE XIXAX PRESENTSChoose what pubrick can say next-
a) u gotta admire that comeback, using the same joke as me in the most awkward way possible. yes, it's admirable like a vietcong shaking his fist at the sky in the middle of a napalm carpet bombing.
b) asshole is a relative term, being OWNED is not.
c) the difference is what i say is true, and urs is just an opinion.
Quote from: MacGuffinWhat would pointing out the spelling error of this thread's title be like?
that would be like another cue for stefen.
i'm going with A.
Quote from: the digital rapemaaybe i should go back to my old sig. when i joined......
Maaybe you should go back to your old naame. We're aall gonnaa keep caalling you NEON aanywaay.
Quote from: MacGuffinQuote from: the digital rapemaaybe i should go back to my old sig. when i joined......
Maaybe you should go back to your old naame. We're aall gonnaa keep caalling you NEON aanywaay.
i just might do that.gotta wait till the newness wears off...i got tired alittle of the old one and wanted a change... :)
Sorry guys. All out of owned pictures.
i dont like the digital rape, or any sort of rape for that matter. change is bad, just be NEON. its like you went on MTV and said "i want a famous face" and they cut you to look like vanilla ice or something. and chest rockwell needs to go back to being forwards again too.
Wow. Is this the thread dedicated to Apocalypse Now?
*sigh...*
Quote from: StefenSorry guys. All out of owned pictures.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.griefers.net%2Fimages%2Fowned.jpg&hash=54d558416dc12bcc1b5edd21980b7d3e0137695a)
http://bloodrose.hektik.org/botd/owned.jpg
http://godd.no-ip.org/-=pics=-/forum/owned%20dog.jpg
I was split on posting those on the site, i didn't, you can click them if you like
The plunger is wrong in so many ways :P
I hated this movie. In fact, I think it to be one of the worst VW movies ever....
Quote from: Dottie_HinkleI hated this movie. In fact, I think it to be one of the worst VW movies ever....
Can you explain why? That would be great...
The movie bored me. The shots were nice and the acting was first-rate but the story bored me. I also hated Full Metal Jacket.... Give me Deer Hunter over both of them. I'm also a die-hard DeNiro fan.
Quote from: Dottie_HinkleThe movie bored me. The shots were nice and the acting was first-rate but the story bored me. I also hated Full Metal Jacket.... Give me Deer Hunter over both of them. I'm also a die-hard DeNiro fan.
Well if you found the shots nice and the acting first rate, while the story only
bored you then chances are, it really isn't one of the worst VW movies ever... it's just how you took in the filmmaking. I could accept you being a little bored if it was the Redux but regardless of that, I don't see any credibility in your comment.
The story didn't interest me but I enjoyed other aspects of the movie. However, I STILL think it is one of the worst VW movies. As far as you finding my statements lacking credibility....it's my opinion, A_hole. Who died and left you the authority?
When Robert J. Moskiwitz passed away in early '95, he left Cinephile in charge of good taste, with the final words:
"...be sure to defend Apocalypse Now to crazy people who don't realize it is brilliant".
Quote from: SoNowThenWhen Robert J. Moskiwitz passed away in early '95, he left Cinephile in charge of good taste, with the final words:
"...be sure to defend Apocalypse Now to crazy people who don't realize it is brilliant".
you forgot the "with extreme prejudice" part. to which Cinephile replied:
"Yes, sir. Very much so, sir. Obviously,
insane defend."
Quote from: Dottie_HinkleThe story didn't interest me
Do you like 2001?
Yes, I loved it. Surreal and excellent.
Apocalypse Now =
Quote from: Dottie_HinkleSurreal and excellent.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanQuote from: Dottie_HinkleThe story didn't interest me
Do you like 2001?
please don't try to reason with it.
By the way, I have GREAT taste.... Most of you seem like pretentious movie snobs but I still like to read your endless blabber.
Didn't you read the banner? We all came here with good intentions like you. But now look at us...
btw, am I now so old that liking Apocalypse Now constitutes snobbery?! damn....
Oh come one now, SoNowThen, we're all still playing, aren't we?
Yep.
Way to endear yourself to us! Just give us six months, Dottie. That's all we ask. That's our motto, y'know?
Quote from: Dottie_HinkleMost of you seem like pretentious movie snobs but I still like to read your endless blabber.
i like spielberg, hate fight club, and think ali: fear eats the soul is an overrated bore (fassbinder i like, by the way, of what ive seen) - does that take me out of the snob circle? :)
Quote from: StefenSorry guys. All out of owned pictures.
I'll contribute an original:
(https://xixax.com/files/jb/owned2.jpg)
Quote from: ewardQuote from: Dottie_HinkleMost of you seem like pretentious movie snobs but I still like to read your endless blabber.
i like spielberg, hate fight club, and think ali: fear eats the soul is an overrated bore (fassbinder i like, by the way, of what ive seen) - does that take me out of the snob circle? :)
I've discarded the word "snob," along with my other forbidden words: Things like "weird," "alternative," "mainstream," etc... words that have lost their meaning through mis/over-use. Yes, one of my very favorite lines ever spoken on
The Simpsons was, "Aren't 'paradigm' and 'proactive' just words dumb people use to make themselves sound important?" :)
Hating
Fight Club is promising, though... so you're one out of three by my count.
Quote from: godardianHating Fight Club is promising, though... so you're one out of three by my count.
I didn't know you were anti-Fight Club! :cry:
I think even the whole "just an average guy" approach to watching movies has gotten to be pretentious now.
Quote from: peteI think even the whole "just an average guy" approach to watching movies has gotten to be pretentious now.
:yabbse-thumbup:
Example: Richard Roeper.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanQuote from: peteI think even the whole "just an average guy" approach to watching movies has gotten to be pretentious now.
:yabbse-thumbup:
Example: Richard Roeper.
hey godardian, please add pretentious to your list
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanQuote from: godardianHating Fight Club is promising, though... so you're one out of three by my count.
I didn't know you were anti-Fight Club! :cry:
And I didn't know you were pro- :!: Let those who imagine JB and godardian always fall automatically in line with each other's opinions remember and cherish this moment. :)
Fight Club and
Moulin Rouge are two movies I strongly dislike that are embraced by many of those whose tastes I otherwise share.
I'll go prolly loner on this and say that Apocalypse Now is highly overrated. Loved the film in some respects, but the story of Sheen's character going from place to place, war zone after war zone, insanity after insanity, only seems to superficially really grab the terror he is talking about the entire time. As much as I cherish Robert Duvall, his character and purpose of his entire scene is a ploy to match the oddity of someone in love with war and surfing, nothing more. Same deal with the Playboy bunny scenes...to combine two things on the surface feel the most unlikely of partners. Then the rest of the scenes filter out into their own interest...unrelated to each other and only able to accomplish so much. For the best narrative, I think the film should have grappled one situation and explored that into what I think would have better conveyed a "heart of darkness". What Apocalypse Now does is just sketch with some interesting scenes without really matching them into a whole identity and yet the film seems to think it has one coherent, continually provactive, film. Too disjointed for me.
But, thats to speak on the negative parts of the film. Still a very rich experience of locale used with filmmaking to really grab the mood. I just think the story lacked.
GT, I remember you wrote this on the Cold Mountain thread.
QuoteGetting past the bland romance that suffocates the first half of the movie, I couldn't help but feel the second half (Law's odyssey home) was the dramatic equivalent of Apocalypse Now and how it tried to encapusalate every controversy of the Civil War, like Apocalypse Now did for Vietnam. Every stop by Sheen's boat in his journey to Kurtz wasn't just another stop, but a new avenue of perspective on the insanity of the Vietnam War and some large doses of symbolism in some very minor scenes. The heavy symbolism was the problem because many scenes seemed to hinder on just whether you got the implied meaning or not, cutting away from the flow of the journey and making the the scenes drag more after the first viewing.
Quote from: cronopioGT, I remember you wrote this on the Cold Mountain thread.
QuoteGetting past the bland romance that suffocates the first half of the movie, I couldn't help but feel the second half (Law's odyssey home) was the dramatic equivalent of Apocalypse Now and how it tried to encapusalate every controversy of the Civil War, like Apocalypse Now did for Vietnam. Every stop by Sheen's boat in his journey to Kurtz wasn't just another stop, but a new avenue of perspective on the insanity of the Vietnam War and some large doses of symbolism in some very minor scenes. The heavy symbolism was the problem because many scenes seemed to hinder on just whether you got the implied meaning or not, cutting away from the flow of the journey and making the the scenes drag more after the first viewing.
I'm glad I reread that and still agreed and liked everything I said. I forgot to mention the superficial symbolism here, but thanks for resurfacing that!
I've just started reading "Heart of Darkness"
I love Apocalypse Now.... Both versions. I know some people that hate redux, I like it, the extra scenes are very good an dI'm glad that I saw them, specially the bunnys in the helicopter scene
Quote from: Dottie_HinkleThe movie bored me. The shots were nice and the acting was first-rate but the story bored me. I also hated Full Metal Jacket.... Give me Deer Hunter over both of them. I'm also a die-hard DeNiro fan.
....... :bs: ......apocalypse now=boring???........like the valley girls say" what ev.".........i just don't see how its could be boring ..seriously....thats like saying black hawk down was boring and didn't have enough action in it...maybe i can vouch for an argument .by saying redux was a tad long...bu tnot boring.......(i personnaly liked redux better).......but if you want to talk about a boring overated war film.....or something of the like..The Deer Hunter is boring ..you could skip a large chunk of the middle and certain parts at the begining and still get the point...the only scenes worth mentioning in TDH..would be war scenes and the infamous roulette......but thats it......
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI'll go prolly loner on this and say that Apocalypse Now is highly overrated. Loved the film in some respects, but the story of Sheen's character going from place to place, war zone after war zone, insanity after insanity, only seems to superficially really grab the terror he is talking about the entire time. As much as I cherish Robert Duvall, his character and purpose of his entire scene is a ploy to match the oddity of someone in love with war and surfing, nothing more. Same deal with the Playboy bunny scenes...to combine two things on the surface feel the most unlikely of partners. Then the rest of the scenes filter out into their own interest...unrelated to each other and only able to accomplish so much. For the best narrative, I think the film should have grappled one situation and explored that into what I think would have better conveyed a "heart of darkness". What Apocalypse Now does is just sketch with some interesting scenes without really matching them into a whole identity and yet the film seems to think it has one coherent, continually provactive, film. Too disjointed for me.
But, thats to speak on the negative parts of the film. Still a very rich experience of locale used with filmmaking to really grab the mood. I just think the story lacked.
I think this holds up for the Redux, but the orginal is much better, in my mind. The original is about a "heart of darkness " and the redux is more about vietnam. What I am saying is the redux comments more on the vietnam situation (with that French Plantation scene) and the result is a vietnam war film, when the film is much more than that.
Quote from: NEON MERCURYQuote from: Dottie_HinkleThe movie bored me. The shots were nice and the acting was first-rate but the story bored me. I also hated Full Metal Jacket.... Give me Deer Hunter over both of them. I'm also a die-hard DeNiro fan.
but if you want to talk about a boring overated war film.....or something of the like..The Deer Hunter is boring ..you could skip a large chunk of the middle and certain parts at the begining and still get the point...the only scenes worth mentioning in TDH..would be war scenes and the infamous roulette......but thats it......
Neon, we are in perfect agreement.
Shouldn't the word superficial be added to the no no list?
There have been times where I thought I might be wrong about a film. A good example is The Usual Suspects. I tried 3 times to watch that film but never got into it. The fourth time I watched I loved it! I've given AN many chances to interest me and it doesn't...the reason it's boring! I've seen the film at least 6 times and I've read the screenplay twice.
Quote from: Dottie_HinkleA good example is The Usual Suspects.
speaking of boring/empty/superficial/shit.
u must be from Bizarro world.
i really love apocalyse now, but is there anyone else who thinks that the scene with the french people in redux was destroying the suspenceful buildup to the brando sequence. i think the scene on itself i good and all -- the last scene in the original cut just seemed so more climatic to me
yes, it seemed a bit like that french crowd was the false climax of the movie
Redux is king.
I thought the Redux scenes should have stayed on the cutting room floor.
I watched Apocalypse recently, and I was wondering -- as great as the Duvall/surfing scene is (it's probably the highlight of the entire film, actually), what is the point of the scene? That war is insane? Clearly, this point was made when we hear Brando speak on tape in the "extreme prejudice" scene. In terms of narrative, how necessary is this scene? My guess is that Kilgore had to napalm that village in order for Willard's mission to continue up the river. Can anyone confirm this? I don't know enough about military logistics to figure it out.
25 years later, I prefer Deer Hunter to Apocalypse Now. Both films are striving to do different things, but ultimately I prefer Deer Hunter because it engages on a deeper level with its characters. We get to know De Niro, Walken and Savage before they are plunged into the madness of war, and we feel (at least, I feel) the poignance of the men trying to readjust to life after war. I never got emotionally involved in Apocalyse Now's characters.
Some people complain that Deer Hunter is too long, and that there is no point to the wedding sequence, but I think there is. The wedding serves as a counterpoint to the funeral at the end, just as the first deer hunt is juxtaposed with De Niro letting the deer escape in the second deer hunt. We see the rituals of a tight-knit community before and after the war, and we see how life changes and how life goes on, how the community remains the same after the war and yet is totally different from De Niro's perspective.
Hey Pubrick, I stand by my words. Hated AN and liked the Ususal Suspects. That is a clever film, IMO. Are any of you people into cool people like Billy Wilder?
Usual Suspects is clever in the way that a joke can be clever, after the second time u hear it the punchline is meaningless.
maybe u didn't get what the "twist" was until ur fourth viewing, and then u thought u had witnessed sumthing miraculous? that feeling wore off for me like a month after i saw it.
anyway, this has been argued before, sumone can redirect u and save me the effort of stating the obvious again.
yeah, like unbreakable, you can pretty much figure out the ending halfway through the movie. Actually, Usual Suspect is even more obvious than unbreakable. it's good "storytelling" I guess, but I'm glad the dude moved onto the X-Mens.
I never even got through the film UNTIL the 4th time. I think once I fell asleep and twice I was too distracted to commit to it.
Quote from: Dottie_HinkleShouldn't the word superficial be added to the no no list?
There have been times where I thought I might be wrong about a film. A good example is The Usual Suspects. I tried 3 times to watch that film but never got into it. The fourth time I watched I loved it! I've given AN many chances to interest me and it doesn't...the reason it's boring! I've seen the film at least 6 times and I've read the screenplay twice.
Quote from: Dottie_HinkleI never even got through the film UNTIL the 4th time. I think once I fell asleep and twice I was too distracted to commit to it.
3+6+2+4=15
....a question, ....even though you stated that apcalypse now is boring..how come you watched it 6 times and read the screenplay 2 times.?..
(answer in a complete sentence using at least three verbs)...
geez, i've never encountered such asshole-ishness... Anyway, the 6 times and two reads were over many years. Honestly, I thought I was missing something. I wasn't. And don't treat me like I'm stupid, ok? I'm not some teenager and I am a dedicated movie-freak. I just happen to dislike this film. Live with it.
Quote from: Dottie_Hinklegeez, i've never encountered such asshole-ishness...
Welcome.
Quote from: Dottie_HinkleAre any of you people into cool people like Billy Wilder?
macguffin and i are. probably cinephile too. and thats about it.
What I've had a chance to see of Wilder's, I've liked. Some Like It Hot = okay. Sunset Blvd. = good, if cheesy at times. Double Indemnity = excellent.
[link] (http://5minutesonline.com/1D/apocalypseworkprint.html)
Quote from: themodernage02Quote from: Dottie_HinkleAre any of you people into cool people like Billy Wilder?
macguffin and i are. probably cinephile too. and thats about it.
Hey hey hey, I've only seen 3, but I like what I see.
Quote from: rettic[link] (http://5minutesonline.com/1D/apocalypseworkprint.html)
whoa, I don't think movie sites can get more hipster than that one. never seen video catalogues so full of irony before.
Quote from: peteQuote from: rettic[link] (http://5minutesonline.com/1D/apocalypseworkprint.html)
whoa, I don't think movie sites can get more hipster than that one. never seen video catalogues so full of irony before.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F5minutesonline.com%2F2ACOVER%2Fbadi.gif&hash=e2392ee3989b6ed668d7e340661337eb987e2ef2)
Who doesn't consider this a classic?
Quote from: themodernage02Quote from: Dottie_HinkleAre any of you people into cool people like Billy Wilder?
macguffin and i are. probably cinephile too. and thats about it.
I think you might be underestimating the people on Xixax with that comment.
I like Billy Wilder.....it's the "cool" part that i don't have.
Quote from: SHAFTRQuote from: themodernage02Quote from: Dottie_HinkleAre any of you people into cool people like Billy Wilder?
macguffin and i are. probably cinephile too. and thats about it.
I think you might be underestimating the people on Xixax with that comment.
Yeah, mod, really. You know how to search. Hang your head in shame.
Billy Wilder: http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=1410
"I think you might be underestimating the people on Xixax with that comment."
I feel I'm the one who is undersestimated on this board. I'm a newbie too which makes it worse. Anyway, I too hated Fight Club. That should earn me some points.....
Quote from: Dottie_HinkleAnyway, I too hated Fight Club. That should earn me some points.....
Not really. (http://www.xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=5109&highlight=xixax+dekapenticon)
And forget about the n00b factor. People are judged here based on what they say, and how stupid or clever or intelligent or whatever it is. Things like how long you've been registered rarely matter.
Dottie, I applaud the fact that you didn't and don't back down from ganged up on. I almost expected you to leave us (and wouldn't blame you). You keep on expressing yourself. There is no rule that says you must like a "classic".
Quote from: MacGuffinDottie, I applaud the fact that you didn't and don't back down from ganged up on. I almost expected you to leave us (and wouldn't blame you). You keep on expressing yourself. There is no rule that says you must like a "classic".
In fact... (http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=4703&highlight=classics)
Quote from: CinephileQuote from: SHAFTRQuote from: themodernage02Quote from: Dottie_HinkleAre any of you people into cool people like Billy Wilder?
macguffin and i are. probably cinephile too. and thats about it.
I think you might be underestimating the people on Xixax with that comment.
Yeah, mod, really. You know how to search. Hang your head in shame.
Billy Wilder: http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=1410
yeah add me to the billy wilder fan list please...
this is really Uber geek.
Quote from: Bruce Leethis is really Uber geek.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.2zero9.org%2Fmisc%2Firony.png&hash=4ca117a5cc0be03a510e41876ef5e59e1793877c)
Quote from: Gold Trumpet...Apocalypse Now is highly overrated...the story of Sheen's character going from place to place, war zone after war zone, insanity after insanity, only seems to superficially really grab the terror he is talking about the entire time. As much as I cherish Robert Duvall, his character and purpose of his entire scene is a ploy to match the oddity of someone in love with war and surfing, nothing more. Same deal with the Playboy bunny scenes...to combine two things on the surface feel the most unlikely of partners. Then the rest of the scenes filter out into their own interest...unrelated to each other and only able to accomplish so much.....What Apocalypse Now does is just sketch with some interesting scenes without really matching them into a whole identity and yet the film seems to think it has one coherent, continually provactive, film. Too disjointed for me.
Quote from: soixanteI watched Apocalypse recently, and I was wondering -- as great as the Duvall/surfing scene is (it's probably the highlight of the entire film, actually), what is the point of the scene? That war is insane? Clearly, this point was made when we hear Brando speak on tape in the "extreme prejudice" scene. In terms of narrative, how necessary is this scene? My guess is that Kilgore had to napalm that village in order for Willard's mission to continue up the river. Can anyone confirm this? I don't know enough about military logistics to figure it out.
You have to look at the Kilgore scene (and most every scene in Apocalypse Now!) as an examination of yet another flavor of war insanity. The fact that it's a point made several times should be your first clue that this is the topic of the film: it's insane to get out of the boat if you know you might get attacked by tigers; it's insane to ship Playboy Bunnies into a war-zone full of undersexed GIs; it's insane that that one guy in the trench can grenade a Viet Cong in the dark in a jungle from 100 yards away.....the list goes on and on and on.....The point is that to call Kurtz insane (and to endeavor to kill him for it) in an environment in which everything is insane is, itself, an insane thing to do.
As far as military logistics, I'd say the necessity of Kilgore's action is unknowable. He's a guy who'll take any excuse to burn whole swaths of Vietnam—he just plain "loves the smell of napalm in the morning." For Kilgore, napalming villages = "the best part of waking up is Folger's in your cup."
Quote from: Gold TrumpetFor the best narrative, I think the film should have grappled one situation and explored that into what I think would have better conveyed a "heart of darkness".
Along similar lines, I'd argue that the point is that there is no "heart of darkness." As the disembodied, anonymous voice tells us during the last half of Pink Floyd's
Dark Side of the Moon, "There is no dark side of the moon, really. In fact, it's all dark."
Quote from: ewardQuote from: CinephileQuote from: SHAFTRQuote from: themodernage02Quote from: Dottie_HinkleAre any of you people into cool people like Billy Wilder?
macguffin and i are. probably cinephile too. and thats about it.
I think you might be underestimating the people on Xixax with that comment.
Yeah, mod, really. You know how to search. Hang your head in shame.
Billy Wilder: http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=1410
yeah add me to the billy wilder fan list please...
Same here.
Umm, what was this thread about again?
i agree with everything Mesh said.
.....there's nothing uber geek about me or bruce lee
Quote from: MeshYou have to look at the Kilgore scene (and most every scene in Apocalypse Now!) as an examination of yet another flavor of war insanity. The fact that it's a point made several times should be your first clue that this is the topic of the film: it's insane to get out of the boat if you know you might get attacked by tigers; it's insane to ship Playboy Bunnies into a war-zone full of undersexed GIs; it's insane that that one guy in the trench can grenade a Viet Cong in the dark in a jungle from 100 yards away.....the list goes on and on and on.....The point is that to call Kurtz insane (and to endeavor to kill him for it) in an environment in which everything is insane is, itself, an insane thing to do.
Its just with most of the scenes that do convey that the insanity is further reaching than what you think at the beginning, they do it on a level that feels like it sketching when it could have been deeper. Its not hard for anyone to think surfing during battle is insane. Its not hard for someone to think the Playboy bunny sequence in a war is insane. The effort of great writing feels lacking because most of the times, the effort to convey the insanity on both sides felt marred by a film that was trying to adapt a historical novel and make it "modern" or "hip". Worst, with each scene, they hardly investigate the scene for it to get beyond the stale idea of what it represents. They move on before making it refreshing, imo.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetQuote from: MeshYou have to look at the Kilgore scene (and most every scene in Apocalypse Now!) as an examination of yet another flavor of war insanity. The fact that it's a point made several times should be your first clue that this is the topic of the film: it's insane to get out of the boat if you know you might get attacked by tigers; it's insane to ship Playboy Bunnies into a war-zone full of undersexed GIs; it's insane that that one guy in the trench can grenade a Viet Cong in the dark in a jungle from 100 yards away.....the list goes on and on and on.....The point is that to call Kurtz insane (and to endeavor to kill him for it) in an environment in which everything is insane is, itself, an insane thing to do.
Its just with most of the scenes that do convey that the insanity is further reaching than what you think at the beginning, they do it on a level that feels like it sketching when it could have been deeper. Its not hard for anyone to think surfing during battle is insane. Its not hard for someone to think the Playboy bunny sequence in a war is insane. The effort of great writing feels lacking because most of the times, the effort to convey the insanity on both sides felt marred by a film that was trying to adapt a historical novel and make it "modern" or "hip". Worst, with each scene, they hardly investigate the scene for it to get beyond the stale idea of what it represents. They move on before making it refreshing, imo.
Here's a thought: critique the film based on
what it actually is rather than what you think it could have/should have been. Failing that, at least make some concrete suggestions about what was missing, instead of just saying "it could have been deeper" and "they hardly investigate."
Quote from: MeshHere's a thought: critique the film based on what it is rather than what you think it could have/should have been. Failing that, make some concrete suggestions about what was missing, instead of just saying "it could have been deeper."
:yabbse-thumbup:
Hahahahaha, I've wanted to tell that to all critics from the beginning of time.
Quote from: MeshQuote from: The Gold TrumpetQuote from: MeshYou have to look at the Kilgore scene (and most every scene in Apocalypse Now!) as an examination of yet another flavor of war insanity. The fact that it's a point made several times should be your first clue that this is the topic of the film: it's insane to get out of the boat if you know you might get attacked by tigers; it's insane to ship Playboy Bunnies into a war-zone full of undersexed GIs; it's insane that that one guy in the trench can grenade a Viet Cong in the dark in a jungle from 100 yards away.....the list goes on and on and on.....The point is that to call Kurtz insane (and to endeavor to kill him for it) in an environment in which everything is insane is, itself, an insane thing to do.
Its just with most of the scenes that do convey that the insanity is further reaching than what you think at the beginning, they do it on a level that feels like it sketching when it could have been deeper. Its not hard for anyone to think surfing during battle is insane. Its not hard for someone to think the Playboy bunny sequence in a war is insane. The effort of great writing feels lacking because most of the times, the effort to convey the insanity on both sides felt marred by a film that was trying to adapt a historical novel and make it "modern" or "hip". Worst, with each scene, they hardly investigate the scene for it to get beyond the stale idea of what it represents. They move on before making it refreshing, imo.
Here's a thought: critique the film based on what it actually is rather than what you think it could have/should have been. Failing that, at least make some concrete suggestions about what was missing, instead of just saying "it could have been deeper" and "they hardly investigate."
That can be suych cop out sometimes. Who says I wasn't critiquing the film for what it was? I stand by what I said as legimitate and thoughtful and could almost throw your argument of "hardly dealing with the issue" back in your face.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetWho says I wasn't critiquing the film for what it was?
That'd be me.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI stand by what I said as legimitate and thoughtful and could almost throw your argument of "hardly dealing with the issue" back in your face.
Go for it. I won't be offended. I'm just trying to raise the level of discussion here. I put together a reasoned defense of the film as coherent, themed, and more than the sum of its parts. You just pretty much said it was "superficial," a "ploy," "disjointed," "sketching," "lacking," "stale" but gave little insofar as reasons why or explanation as to what would've made for a better adaptation of the novel or a better version of Coppola's film. You can't just call an acknowledged classic like AN! "overrated" and expect to get off easily. I'm trying to make you work for it.
"It could have been deeper...." How?
"...they hardly investigate the scene for it to get beyond the stale idea of what it represents..." Examples?
"As much as I cherish Robert Duvall, his character and purpose of his entire scene is a ploy to match the oddity of someone in love with war and surfing, nothing more..." This (and the rest of that paragraph of yours) I already dealt with.
Blah, blah... It's still the second greatest motion picture ever after 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Quote from: MeshQuote from: The Gold TrumpetWho says I wasn't critiquing the film for what it was?
That'd be me.
That's a dumb argument to even begin. I had ideas about the film you disagreed with, yes, but nothing says its the "I'm right", "you're wrong" argument at all. This is all about interpretation and I am arguing you on your points now.
Quote from: MeshQuote from: The Gold TrumpetI stand by what I said as legimitate and thoughtful and could almost throw your argument of "hardly dealing with the issue" back in your face.
Go for it. I won't be offended. I'm just trying to raise the level of discussion here. I put together a reasoned defense of the film as coherent, themed, and more than the sum of its parts. You just pretty much said it was "superficial," a "ploy," "disjointed," "sketching," "lacking," "stale" but gave little insofar as reasons why or explanation as to what would've made for a better adaptation of the novel or a better version of Coppola's film. You can't just call an acknowledged classic like AN! "overrated" and expect to get off easily. I'm trying to make you work for it.
"It could have been deeper...." How?
"...they hardly investigate the scene for it to get beyond the stale idea of what it represents..." Examples?
"As much as I cherish Robert Duvall, his character and purpose of his entire scene is a ploy to match the oddity of someone in love with war and surfing, nothing more..." This (and the rest of that paragraph of yours) I already dealt with.
Fair enough.....I'll explain further. In regards to Duvall's entire scene, his character seems defined by his love of surfing in the most insane of situations. The scene hardly ever strays from making comments about how ridiculous this is. Where in another movie, a general who finds love of surfing during war to be acceptable may be just one joke or punch line, Apocalypse Now uses it continually to make the same points. Added upon this the fact that film is being narrated, a tool usually shied away from in other films because its common grievance is that brings the point of the film to the surface, but its use in this film is even worse. When Martin Sheen speaks of Duvall in the light of someone trying to recreate the feeling of home for his soldiers and please them, thats not a statement to give his character further depth, but to sum him up.
The tendency for the film to sum things up continue....such as the point in the film where Sheen visits a battle ground and looks for the officer in charge and a marine confuses him for being the officer in charge. That's a facile comment in the highest regards cause the scene literally has nowhere else to go. The point of lost cause within the war has been made. Then look at the scene where Laurence Fishburne's character has been killed in and coincidentally, a tape is playing of his mother sending him a message about getting home safely. The film forgets that Fishburne's character has been a background character the entire film cause he is used to make the common point that innocence is lost in war.
The film partly feels like it is trying to mass together as many insanities and sufferings of war possible. The problem for me is that in the clutter of all these points, the film never makes them really felt by character analysis. Its a magnificent piece of filmmaking, yes, but a superficial story of character and scene.
Paramount will release on 8/15 the 2-disc Apocalypse Now: The Complete Dossier, which includes both the original 1979 and the 2001 Redux versions of the film, along with "audio commentaries, rare unseen footage, lost scenes, brand new featurettes, Segments from the Cutting Room Floor, Then & Now retrospectives and more."
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedigitalbits.com%2Farticles%2Fmiscgfx%2Fcovers4%2Fapocalypsenowcompletedossierdvd.jpg&hash=d704c2296bb0a5ace81e4b06dbc792f9f473c5e1)
No comment about the DVD annoucement, but man, I'm hiding my face at the argument above. I could have written my argument a lot better.
I'm trying harder these days than ever before to be thoughtful and coherent when I say something, but fuck, I really do still have a lot to learn about analysis and writing.
No Apocalypse Now DVD should be called a "Complete Dossier" without Hearts of Darkness.
Additional details on Paramount's 8/15 release of Apocalypse Now: The Complete Dossier: The 2-disc special collector's edition will include audio commentary on both the 153-minute theatrical edition and the 202-minute Redux edition by director Francis Ford Coppola, 12 never-before-seen segments from the cutting room floor, the lost "Monkey Sampan" scene, Marlon Brando's complete reading of the T.S. Eliot poem The Hollow Men, the Apocalypse Then and Now retrospective featurette, the PBR Streetgang cast reunion featurette, additional never-before-seen featurettes, and more. We're trying to determine if the films will be presented in their correct 2.35:1 aspect ratio. We do know that the discs will be anamorphic widescreen. Audio will be Dolby Digital 5.1 with English and Spanish subs.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on May 15, 2006, 05:14:43 PM
No comment about the DVD annoucement, but man, I'm hiding my face at the argument above. I could have written my argument a lot better.
I'm trying harder these days than ever before to be thoughtful and coherent when I say something, but fuck, I really do still have a lot to learn about analysis and writing.
Don't sweat it, little Trumpet. That was two years ago. That's like... half of your life in highschool ago.
Being one of my favorite films, and having seen both versions dozens of times (redux on the big screen three times, and THAT'S what movies are supposed to feel on the big screen, BIG), I must say that I prefer the shorter version. Redux is a more complete film, in terms of content, i mean, it is richer, it expands, is not just alot of self indulgent fat. But at least to me, when actually watching the movie, Redux does kinda drags in the second half...it's an energy thing or something, and that never happened while watching the original version, which is faster...I guess it just have to do with the lenght...
to me, the thought of someone considering apocalypse now to be overrated is inconceibable. even if you don't like it. specially if you're a so called film lover, there's just so many things going on in it, it's a true assault on your senses...at the same time a war epic, a horror film, an ironic tale of hate, a journey to the dark side, a mad film...I don't know...when a person who likes a lot ofdifferent movies just comes out and say "apocalypse now is overrated" it kinda bums me out or something...specially saying that aobut a film with such great directing.
On the subject of Apocalypse Now today, a lot of you have been asking what aspect ratio the films included in the 2-disc Complete Dossier DVD release will be in. Apparently, some are displeased with the fact that while the films were shot in 2.35:1, they've seldom been released on video at that exact ratio. Confirmation from both Paramount and director Francis Ford Coppola's American Zoetrope indicates that the film's cinematographer, Vittorio Storaro, prefers that Apocalypse Now be exhibited on video at the slightly cropped widescreen ratio of 2.0:1 (as was the case on the previous DVD releases). Coppola agrees with this decision, so that's what you'll get on the DVD. While it wouldn't be our choice, it's hard to argue with the director and DP. Thankfully, however, both versions of the film on the new DVD will be in anamorphic widescreen (unlike some OTHER forthcoming and much-beloved films on disc).
http://www.zoetrope.com/zoe_films.cgi?page=films&action=show_one&film_id=13
Dammit.
Quote from: MacGuffin on May 17, 2006, 03:33:24 PM
the film's cinematographer, Vittorio Storaro, prefers that Apocalypse Now be exhibited on video at the slightly cropped widescreen ratio of 2.0:1
Why the hell would that be? Are there C-stands and shit on the edges of the frame?
DVDFile's review of the new version:
http://www.dvdfile.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5549&Itemid=3
Already on my list for Best DVD for the Xixaxies 2007.
Got it today. Amazing.
Quote from: Chest Rockwell on August 15, 2006, 11:46:25 PM
Got it today. Amazing.
what, no buts?
Quote from: Chest Rockwell on August 15, 2006, 11:57:35 PM
although I'd have liked the EWS notes to be complete.
Quote from: Chest Rockwell on August 15, 2006, 09:55:18 AM
I would have expected a better cover for Double Life
Quote from: Chest Rockwell on August 14, 2006, 08:08:02 AM
It was a rather interesting, albeit failed, experiment.
Quote from: Chest Rockwell on August 10, 2006, 03:21:44 PM
I feel bad though just because it cost a small fortune for my parents.
Quote from: Chest Rockwell on August 09, 2006, 08:56:28 PM
but I predict the business will plunge after the first couple weeks.
Quote from: Chest Rockwell on August 09, 2006, 03:47:09 PM
I love the theater experience except they overcharge for both food and the movies.
Quote from: Chest Rockwell on August 08, 2006, 10:34:31 PM
Although I generally don't like such obvious send-ups of past genres,
a lot of fun for a home-edited movie.
Quote from: Chest Rockwell on August 03, 2006, 10:34:05 PM
But I'm also not Jewish, so what do I know?
Quote from: Chest Rockwell on August 03, 2006, 08:49:14 PM
Wii could be a lot of fun, but you'd have to be alone....
Quote from: Chest Rockwell on August 03, 2006, 03:03:22 PM
I can't say I care too much about that role as I never would have seen it. But I imagine Scarlett must be pissed with her managers.
Quote from: Chest Rockwell on August 03, 2006, 02:55:20 PM
I don't like Mencia and I don't like racially-themed comedy that much either. But this is his biography according to IMDb
the remaining few posts i couldn't be bothered quoting were much the same shit too.
Man, how much time did you spend compiling that?
Anyway, I picked up this DVD today and am looking forward to watching it sometime within the next twelve to eighteen months. I haven't seen the film itself since Redux played on the big screen, so it's due for a revisit. And I can't wait to hear the commentary.
Quote from: Ghostboy on August 16, 2006, 05:15:51 AM
Man, how much time did you spend compiling that?
my playlist went from desperado by the eagles to desperado by johnny cash, so.. between two songs length.
Boy, you're lucky to get anything done when that song is on.
"Deeeeeeesperadoooo"
I've come to realise that a majority of cinephile's condemn Coppola's reworked 2001 release Apocalypse Now Redux. I don't understand the hate, The Redux version is a far greater film/odyssey.
People condemn the French Plantation scene for being boring/too long/unnecessary, I think it's one of the best scenes in the film and it works extremely well.
I wanted to find out if I'm in the minority, and which version you guys prefer
I prefer the one with more Brando in it. I'm sure the other one feels like a tighter, more well rounded film, but if I'm watching a Brando movie, I just wanna see more Brando. It's that simple.
My favorite version was actually a kind of mix I read about somewhere, back when I bought the "complete dossier" dvd. i used to watch the redux version on disc 1 and the normal version on disc 2. that meant that I got to see the extended sequences of the helicopter attack and the aftermath of the playboy bunnies in that typhooned camp when they're all crazy and it's all very surreal, and I got the tight version of the rest because I do feel that is there that the redux really drags. I like it but more on a curiosity level, specially the french plantation sequence which goes on for a little too long and has this weird electronic score when martin sheen and the woman fuck.
now with blu ray I prefer the original version. that said, I saw redux 4 times in the theatre when it came out.
Redux all the way...
But I've only seen the Original once.
I also prefer the Redux. Why? Well, it's a little bit more of everything, and the french plantation sequence to me just adds even more to the insanity and tension of it all.
I've only seen Redux once, but every time I've watched the original since, I find myself missing the French Plantation scene.
A Face of War (1968) by Eugene Jones - a vietnam war film that acted as major inspiration for the visual style of the war scenes in Apocalypse Now. Part 1 of 10
Well, I just handed over 26 bucks to see this so-called "Final Cut" of Apocalypse Now at the Universal City IMAX theater on Aug 18th. At these prices it better be in "Feel-Around (https://youtu.be/TCq_nzlou0Q)" as well as IMAX.
This article from May is a good read.
Francis Ford Coppola: How Winning Cannes 40 Years Ago Saved 'Apocalypse Now,' Making 'Megalopolis,' Why Scorsese Almost Helmed 'Godfather Part II' & Re-Cutting Three Past Films (https://deadline.com/2019/05/francis-ford-coppola-apocalypse-now-cannes-40-anniversary-megalopolis-scorsese-godfather-part-ii-re-cutting-godfather-iii-cotton-club-interview-1202613659/)
Saw the "Final Cut" back in May or so at the Beacon Theatre with Coppola in attendance, Q&A'd by Steven Soderbergh. Honestly, it's my least favorite version of the movie. The French Plantation material - which, on its own, amounts to an intriguing, if overlong, sequence - grinds everything to a terrible halt right when it needs to keep chugging (though I don't recall it having such a dulling effect in Redux the one and only time I saw it years back). The mix was really harsh too, the dialogue frequently unintelligible, especially during the Duvall scenes, which is hard to forgive. Could have been the venue but somehow I don't think so.
I still think the original theatrical cut is the perfect version of this film.
Most memorable portion of the evening: The movie's over, Soderbergh and Coppola come out and take their seats, and Soderbergh begins, "Okay, Francis, before we start, is there anything you want to ask me?"
Thanks for the heads up. $26 or not, I will walk if I'm not enjoying myself. I'm getting too old for cinematic nonsense anymore.
I watched the "Final Cut" at Edinburgh International Film Festival in June and it was a treat. The mix sounded good to me coming through the multiplex sound system. In fact it's the best I've heard it. Admittedly my only other cinema viewing was in a smaller arthouse cinema with a good, but not great, sound system (for Redux).
I prefer this cut to Redux - it's less unwieldy and more focused while still including abridged versions of most (all?) of the redux material. I too have a problem with the French plantation sequence in any form - it's lavish and interesting in its own way but takes away from the drive of the story.
And I have to agree that the original theatrical cut is the best version - it retains the focus and momentum of the journey/story. The other versions are always interesting to see, but new material seems to change the tone and distract more than it reveals.
I saw the film in the first week of it's original release at the Dome in 70mm. The opening audio mix of the helicopters swooping in over our left shoulder is one of the peak movie moments in my entire moviegoing career. It will be interesting to see (and hear) how this compares to that memory. I would assume that sound reproduction has improved a lot in the last 40 years.
Thanks for the heads up about the IMAX showings! I'm very excited, this is an all time favorite and I've never seen it in a theater.
Quote from: wilberfan on August 02, 2019, 01:10:59 PM
I saw the film in the first week of its original release at the Dome in 70mm. The opening audio mix of the helicopters swooping in over our left shoulder is one of the peak movie moments in my entire moviegoing career. It will be interesting to see (and hear) how this compares to that memory. I would assume that sound reproduction has improved a lot in the last 40 years.
Oh man I've heard about those initial Dome screenings, how lucky you got to be there.
https://youtu.be/VyNwha5hrAo
Well, it was wonderful to see this film again on a particularly big screen, but I think still prefer the original cut. I didn't think any of the add'l material really added anything to the experience.
There's a surfboard stealing scene, for example, that I thought showed Willard in a way that was inconsistent with his character. The French Plantation Scene feels like it belongs to a completely different film, and it felt like there were too many additional minutes added to the Kurtz Compound stuff at the end.
Turns out the guy sitting next to me had NEVER seen ANY version of the film, so I had the pleasure of encouraging him to find Hearts of Darkness to complete his experience.
I also happened to speak with a sheriff's deputy outside (this was at a crowded Universal City Walk), who was VERY excited to hear that this film was back on the big screen. It was nice to meet a fellow enthusiast.
Well of course, seeing it in IMAX changed my opinion. Still think he should lose the French Plantation scene, or at least just confine it to the burial perhaps, but the visual and aural disappointments I experienced at that first screening at The Beacon were totally absent this time. IMAX now feels like the only way to experience this movie. What a charge.
Seeing this on the IMAX was an incredible experience. It's never looked or sounded better. Those beads of sweat on Matin Sheen's face blown up to such scale, it was hypnotic.
That fucking French plantation sequence though. I was really happy with everything else in the new cut, and then the pull into this fucking cul de sac of a sequence that robs the movie of all its tension. It just flat out doesn't work and should not be in the movie. The endless bickering, the big lush romantic Hollywood score, the woman spelling out for Willard the theme of the movie in such a basic ass way, Willard taking a break from losing his mind to chill and smoke some opium -- it just makes no sense for the movie at all. If you watch Hearts of Darkness, Coppola is really unhappy with the sequence, and he should have just stuck with his instinct. I think it plays great as a deleted scene, a curio to check out outside of the context of the film, but it has no business being in the Final Cut.
That one thing aside, it's an untouchable masterpiece.