Sergio Leone Web Board

Other/Miscellaneous => Off-Topic Discussion => Topic started by: Tucumcari Bound on November 12, 2006, 08:41:18 PM



Title: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on November 12, 2006, 08:41:18 PM
Has anyone here picked the new DVD up? I've been hearing a lot of complaints about it. Is it worth getting? Please post your opinions. Thanks!


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Amaze on November 13, 2006, 12:21:37 AM
the only thing worth complaining about that I  know of, is that the dvd doesnt contain the hearts of darkness docu.
it has both the original cut and the redux version. so you can watch wichever one you like.


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Sanjuro on November 13, 2006, 09:13:04 AM
the only thing worth complaining about that I  know of, is that the dvd doesnt contain the hearts of darkness docu.
it has both the original cut and the redux version. so you can watch wichever one you like.

I have both the original release version and redux plus "Hearts of Darkness". That means I don't have to buy the complete dossier.


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Leone Admirer on November 13, 2006, 11:59:56 AM
Complaints? Most of the complaints I've heard are the usual "Not in it's OAR" and where's Hearts of Darkness.
 The OAR question is a good point but Hearts of Darkness is curently being actively pursued by Criterion for release but Coppola is dragging his heels as he feels like it shows his in a bad light.

 The package itself is rather good (my third version of Apocalypse Now I own on DVD). The post-production featurettes are fascinating, the deleted scenes are a (more then) welcome addition to the package and the presentation of the two films is good (bar the OAR)


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Amaze on November 13, 2006, 04:10:50 PM
what is the new AR?


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Leone Admirer on November 13, 2006, 05:07:53 PM
OAR is Original Aspect Ratio, Apocalypse Now (and Redux) was originally shown in the scope ratio of 2.35 : 1 in 35mm and 2.20 : 1 in the 70 mm prints. On it's release to DVD the DP Vittorio Storaro requested that it only be shown in a ratio close to 2.00:1 keeping most of the widescreen but removing as much of the black bars visible on 4:3 TV's, they kept that aspect Ratio for the recent release generating a howl of disapoval by the fans of the film wishing to see it in the scope.


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Poggle on November 13, 2006, 05:23:36 PM
I got it recently and I enjoy it. Doesn't Storaro shoot his films like Kubrick does so that if the aspect ratio changes to accomodate different screens you never really lose relevant information? Go to http://www.storarovittorio.com/inglese/index.html and click on the "Univisium" link. If you click on it a second time while at that particular page you get page 2 of the article.

I think the commentary track and the new deleted scenes were worth it. Coppola never stops talking. You usually don't get these kind of packages for $20, so I don't see any reason to complain. The other documentaries and featurettes were quite enjoyable too, especially the story of the intro sequence and the various post-production interviews/clips. I haven't seen Heart of Darkness, so I don't know how it compares.


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Amaze on November 13, 2006, 05:45:02 PM
I have the old apoc now dvd, it's also 2.00:1


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Leone Admirer on November 14, 2006, 05:12:36 AM
I got it recently and I enjoy it. Doesn't Storaro shoot his films like Kubrick does so that if the aspect ratio changes to accomodate different screens you never really lose relevant information? Go to http://www.storarovittorio.com/inglese/index.html and click on the "Univisium" link. If you click on it a second time while at that particular page you get page 2 of the article.

He certainly shoots his most recent films with that in mind but I don't think he did for Apocalypse Now and if you compare the theatrical trailer for Redux (not found in this release) and the Feature presentation there is quite a loss of infomation on each side. Also the decision for this use of Univisium was taken during the laserdisc era, when widescreen TV's weren't common place and Coppola and Storaro wanted to show the film in a widescreen ration but with less bars thus this idea was put forward and permitted.


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on November 15, 2006, 08:44:14 PM
So you guy's think I should pick up the Dossier? I only have the Redux.


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Poggle on November 15, 2006, 09:12:53 PM
Just buy the fucking thing.


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Amaze on November 16, 2006, 12:13:57 AM
I would if I were you, I like the original cut better.


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Aguirre on November 16, 2006, 01:49:41 AM
The Complete Dossier is a great package. I own it, and I don't even like the movie so much. Hearts of Darkness ain't gona get released cos Coppola doesn't want it released. The big reason that I can see, is that he says he thinks the scene with the french familiy owned plantation is just fat, since he made Redux, I'm sure he wants taht remark stricken from the record. Hearts of Darkness also shows him having a nervious breakdown, and Brando doing whatever he wants (which is totally worth watching for, even if it's only for like 5 minutes).

Anyway. all the DVDs of AN is the 2.00:1 ratio, since that is the OAR, the 2:35:1 I imagine was to acomodate theratrical releases, which happens all the time. Kubrick's film were shown in widesceen in theaters, like The Shinning and Full Metal Jacket.

The image quality is great, and 2 different commentaries. It's not anywhere near "complete" since it's also missing the Cannes Press Conference, which is on a region 2 release.

One huge thing though, each version of the film is split between both discs. They cut right after they kill the vietnamese on the boat, and take their puppy. Although I don't know where the Redux splits, I'm guessing it's from the same place. If that's a problem, then stick with the original releases. Even though that split did piss me off, it's nothing like the split in Once Upon a Time in America, which is horrible.

And it's only for $15, atleast when I bought it. Can't go wrong with that.


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on November 16, 2006, 10:33:52 AM
Just buy the fucking thing.

hahahaahaha relax friend. I'm probably gonna buy it. I just like to hear what the fans of the movie have to say.


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Silenzio on November 16, 2006, 03:30:38 PM
The Complete Dossier is a great package. I own it, and I don't even like the movie so much. Hearts of Darkness ain't gona get released cos Coppola doesn't want it released. The big reason that I can see, is that he says he thinks the scene with the french familiy owned plantation is just fat, since he made Redux, I'm sure he wants taht remark stricken from the record. Hearts of Darkness also shows him having a nervious breakdown, and Brando doing whatever he wants (which is totally worth watching for, even if it's only for like 5 minutes).

Anyway. all the DVDs of AN is the 2.00:1 ratio, since that is the OAR, the 2:35:1 I imagine was to acomodate theratrical releases, which happens all the time. Kubrick's film were shown in widesceen in theaters, like The Shinning and Full Metal Jacket.

The image quality is great, and 2 different commentaries. It's not anywhere near "complete" since it's also missing the Cannes Press Conference, which is on a region 2 release.

One huge thing though, each version of the film is split between both discs. They cut right after they kill the vietnamese on the boat, and take their puppy. Although I don't know where the Redux splits, I'm guessing it's from the same place. If that's a problem, then stick with the original releases. Even though that split did piss me off, it's nothing like the split in Once Upon a Time in America, which is horrible.

And it's only for $15, atleast when I bought it. Can't go wrong with that.

Are you sure 2.00:1 was the OAR? Everyone else says otherwise, that 2.35 was the original, but it was cropped to 2.00:1 for the home releases.


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Leone Admirer on November 16, 2006, 06:04:43 PM
Aguirre 2:35:1 Is the OAR. 2.00:1 was only used for home video release, check out the FAQ on disc 1 of the complete dossier which tells you why the ratios are different.


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Aguirre on November 16, 2006, 07:16:18 PM
Yea, sorry, I just looked into that.
Well, it is cut by the film makers, so I don't see a big problem.
Everything is in frame and center. I never saw it in the theatres, so I just can't tell the difference.

Since that's the case, I doubt the movie will ever be released on OAR then.


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Groggy on June 20, 2007, 05:49:17 PM
I watched this movie today, for the first time, and I must say, my reaction to it was more strong than I've had to a film in a long time. Thus, a whole review, therefore, rather than a blurb on the "Last Movie You Saw" thread.

This review, hopefully, will be posted on the IMDB, explaining it's length.

Over the last two years, I have made it my goal to see as many classic movies as possible. I’ve fallen in love with dozens of great movies, like the films of David Lean, “The Wind and the Lion”, “Casablanca”, “The Godfather Part II”, “Sunset Boulevard” - too many too mention. There have been some classics which I’ve not been entirely satisfied with; I’ve been slightly disappointed by “My Fair Lady”, “Spartacus”, and “Citizen Kane”, among others. But at least I enjoyed them, and found some merit in them deserving of classic status.

Today, I had a mind-altering experience. I watched “Apocalypse Now: Redux”, the three-and-a-half hour cut of Francis Ford Coppola’s infamous masterpiece of madness and war. And I learned a very valuable lesson which, as I embark on my college term as a Film Studies Major, I will always keep in mind:

Not all classic movies are great. Not all classic movies are even good. Some are too long, some are excruciating to watch, some try to hard to be “deep” and “meaningful“ when in reality they‘re just a pile of pretentious poo. And then, some movies add an hour of footage to an already long movie and make it agonizingly slow-paced. “Apocalypse Now: Redux” is one of these; it’s a movie that starts off interesting, has flashes of genius, and then, at about the two hour mark, begins a long, slow decline in entertainment value and seemed to be begging for us to accept it as a great movie. Well, sorry, but you don’t get an A just for trying.

Based on Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness”, the film concerns Captain Willard (Martin Sheen), a burned-out Special Forces officer who is sent on a suicide mission up a river into Cambodia, to assassinate the renegade Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando), now fighting his own private war with an army of Montagnard tribesmen who worship him as a demi-god. As Willard and his companions go further up-river, they find their mission descending further into madness and depravity. By the time he finally reaches Kurtz’s camp, Willard is forced to confront his own perceptions of war and morality.

It boggles my mind to think how this movie is considered THE definitive Vietnam movie. It is not about the Vietnam War, any more than “Raiders of the Lost Ark” is about World War II. Most of the movie, despite all the period details, could take place at any time, any place. This is not, in and of itself, a bad thing, and to be fair, the film does have some intriguing analysis of the Vietnam War and the US involvement there. But it’s not the point; in essence, the movie is just some guys looking for a crazy guy hiding out in the jungle.

Perhaps the movie’s biggest flaw is in its characters. None of the characters are one bit sympathetic. Willard and his crew are pretty much caricatures of Vietnam soldiers - burned-out, half-crazed drug addicted war criminals. Anyone who thinks that these are accurate characterizations of Vietnam soldiers gets their perception of the War entirely from movies like this. Whatever valid points are made about the futility of the war, and about the cruelty of human nature in general, are largely drowned by these two-dimensional characters who “bug out” at the slightest provocation. It’s difficult to care what happens to any of them, and made worse that some of them are downright unlikable. The very young Mr. Clean (Laurence Fishburne) and the spaced-out Lance (Sam Bottoms) are particularly annoying; I kept waiting for the latter to get knocked off, and I would have been relieved if he had.

The film does contain some extremely memorable scenes, and in terms of direction, cinematography, and editing, it is brilliant. The helicopter attack scene with Robert Duvall’s Colonel Kilgore, the confrontation with an unarmed sampan, the tiger sequence - all are brilliantly done set pieces. But the film also contains a lot of superfluous, digressive nonsense, namely the Playboy Bunny scenes and the unnecessary and ridiculously long scenes at the French plantation. These scenes ruin the pacing and help sabotage the fairly effective set-up, which had promised great things. The film is finally done in by the ridiculously overlong and overdone ending at Kurtz’s compound. Marlon Brando’s pontifications about the horrors of war are neither original nor insightful, and after all we‘ve seen, it‘s hard to be anything but numb to his ramblings by this point.

Nor are the performances anything to write home about. Martin Sheen does an excellent job with a two-dimensional character who has little real depth, but otherwise, a fine cast is largely wasted. Marlon Brando’s performance consists of mumbling T.S. Eliot and condemnations of war with shadow on his face - not exactly up to Terry Malloy or Vito Corleone. Dennis Hopper’s journalist is very annoying, and at any rate introduced far too late to be of any importance. Robert Duvall, while also a caricature, is perhaps the most memorable and amusing character of the film. The rest of the cast - Sam Bottoms, Laurence Fishburne, Albert Hall, Frederic Forrest, G.D. Spralin, Harrison Ford - are simply ciphers who fade into the jungle.

“Apocalypse Now” may have been an obsessive labor of love for Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, and Co.; it may be a technically brilliant film; it may be significant; it may have entertaining moments; it may even have some pertinent things to say about human nature in general and the Vietnam War in particular. But it is not, in my opinion, a great film. Poorly paced, largely incoherent, and very distant, “Apocalypse Now” set me up for a great film in the first two hours and then left me high and dry as it slowly lumbered towards an atrocious conclusion. Call me a philistine or uncultured, but that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

“The Horror”, indeed.

5/1


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Tuco the ugly on June 21, 2007, 12:15:34 AM
You got something right - most of the characters are extremely annoying,and I mean annoying.

Was this the first time you watched this movie?


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: mike siegel on June 21, 2007, 01:58:48 AM
It used to be a great film and just shows that sometimes artists have to be protected for themselves - don't mess around with your work years later...
I watched it about 3 times in the cinema between 1979 and 1990. Strong important film of the 70's, one of the last
great ones of New Hollywood. Flaws here and there, sure. But then again, it's a miracle the film ended up in a watchable version anayway. See HEARTS OF DARKNESS, my favorite documentary about film making (FULL TILT BOOGIE is great as well). Great stuff nevertheless.

Last year I took the fact that my lady never saw it as occasion to finally watch the REDUX-DVD which slept here on the shelf for years. It was great to see new scenes... But the film is gone. Much much to long now, the impact effectively destroyed. I would never have released it as a single release. Both versions in a box with the message 'Please watch this film in its original 1979 presentation first'. My lady in 1979 was haunted by the film, my lady last year had problems sitting through it.
I just did a reconstruction of Hopper's version of EASY RIDER for Cinema Retro. Before he left the editing process the film was probably over two and half hours long. THe first 20 minutes ended up being 3 minutes long in the final version! As admirer of that film I would kill to see an earlier longer version (no actual footage survived), but I'm sure released at that length it would never have had such an impact.

So leave the masterpieces alone.


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Tuco the ugly on June 21, 2007, 02:10:18 AM
I'm guessing the main problem of this movie is that Coppola wanted to actually tell the whole story about Vietnam,to give to the viewers of the movie everything he thought they need to know about that war and of course he got lost...
The position of the French,the whole absurd of that war,the carelessness of the American commanding staff,natives,kids in the war,and so on..There were so many important things to mention and incorporate in the movie,but it wasn't easy.

That is why I prefer much more Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket,in which Stan tells one part of the story,but that part is flawless;from the initial training of the young boys and the impact of their lives to the final message There are no heroes in war.


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Groggy on June 21, 2007, 06:05:11 AM
You got something right - most of the characters are extremely annoying,and I mean annoying.

Was this the first time you watched this movie?

Yes, it was the first time.

To be fair though, I'd probably like the shorter version better, since the added footage is what really took me out of it. I was enjoying it well enough until the scene at the French plantation. In and of itself, it was a well-written/acted scene, but it just went on and on and on, doing nothing but distracting from the plot. I was never able to get back into the movie after that.


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on June 21, 2007, 09:28:20 AM
I'm happy you finally watched this Groggy.  O0


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: moviesceleton on June 21, 2007, 10:15:28 AM
I've seen only the Redux version and still think this is a masterpiece. Yes, I could do without the scene at the French plantation, propably the film is much better without it. But still, in this form, this is one of my favorite films (though, I prefer Aguirre).


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on June 21, 2007, 10:54:18 AM
I'm one of the few who enjoyed the French Plantation scene.


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: moviesceleton on June 21, 2007, 12:19:06 PM
As someone said before, the scene is good but it makes the movie run too long.


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Groggy on June 21, 2007, 04:28:13 PM
As someone said before, the scene is good but it makes the movie run too long.

Basically, the whole scene was just a rant by John Milius about the Vietnam War. I like Milius better when his tongue is in his cheek (i.e. "The Wind and the Lion", which I watched for the eighty-fifth time today).  ;D


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: dave jenkins on June 21, 2007, 04:48:55 PM
Groggy, well done. Your review is right on the money in every respect. (But perhaps it is a little unfair to take on Redux without considering the theatrical cut separately, which is naturally a tighter film). It's obvious we don't need to worry about you in your film studies program, you'll be able to hold your own there. Go forth, companero, and give your professors hell.

Anyway, here's my rating of Groggy's review (out of 10): O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Groggy on June 21, 2007, 05:02:20 PM
I'm glad you liked my review Dave. O0

I have an advantage in that I actually enjoy analyzing/reviewing films. I did a 20-page research argument on Robert Bolt's plays and movies for English last year, and I honestly had great fun doing it, even though some of his lesser-known plays are pretty bizarre (ever read "Gentle Jack"? That's a weird one). I do have one weakness, though: foreign-language films. But I'm sure that will be remedied in due time. ;)

I'll give the theatrical cut of "Apocalypse Now" a chance when I'm able to - I'm sure I'll enjoy it more than the mess that is "Redux". I certainly appreciate the themes that Coppola, Milius, et al were trying to get across, and if I really wanted to I could right a rave review with my hands tied behind my back.

(My problem with the depiction of Vietnam vets, BTW, stems largely from the fact that my dad served two tours in 'Nam and he never did drugs or see, let alone take part in, any of the atrocities which movies like this and "Platoon" insist were an every day occurence.)


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: dave jenkins on June 21, 2007, 05:20:34 PM
(My problem with the depiction of Vietnam vets, BTW, stems largely from the fact that my dad served two tours in 'Nam and he never did drugs or see, let alone take part in, any of the atrocities which movies like this and "Platoon" insist were an every day occurence.)
My father also served two tours honorably. We have that in common, Grogs.


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Groggy on June 21, 2007, 05:30:54 PM
That's cool, Dave. O0 I don't deny that there were atrocities committed in 'Nam, but if you were to believe Hollywood, every platoon/company involved in the country killed a village of innocent people every other day. My dad came into contact with Vietnamese quite often (he was a field intelligence officer, so he did see combat from time to time even if he wasn't a "grunt") and never even got into a major argument with them, except the NVA/VC of course. ;)

My dad hates most Vietnam movies, and after seeing this one I can understand why. (He also thinks "The Deer Hunter" is one of the worst films ever made.) All of the characters except Albert Hall were drug-addicts or borderline lunatics, and while that may have been accurate of a lot of vets - I mean, many people had extreme psychological reactions to the war, there's no way to deny that - it's hard to believe that everyone was like that. Sorry for the rant, but it is something I feel strongly about.


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Juan Miranda on June 21, 2007, 06:24:19 PM
It's a real shame that for many young people, their first contact with this film from now and possibly for ever more will be the REDUX version.

There was a reason Coppola dropped all of the "restored" footage now cobbled onto the film. He just didn't like it in the first place. In HEARTS OF DARKNESS we even see a small clip of what was obviously an extened on set rant about how awful he though the French plantation sequence was going, straight to the nervous performers involved. However, we are now supposed to forget this and accept this dreary and redundent scene as now somehow as vital as all the new effects and big explosions Franny's chum George Lucas has added to his first three STAR WARS films because, you know, that's how they really meant the films to be seen all along.

Rubbish. Everybody knows that Coppola's main business these days is in the wine and hotel market. I suspect the whole REDUX thing was merely an exploitation of the old family jewels to fund some new, non-movie enterprise.

I saw APOCALYPSE NOW some 16 or 17 times on it's first release at the cinema in my mid teens. As you can tell from that I was kind of obsessed by the thing. As has been pointed out, it uses the Vietnam War as a setting for a rather "bigger" plot, but at the same time has a narration written by Michael Herr, with uncredited quotes from photographer Phillip Jones Griffith's classic book VIETNAM INC. (as well as some of his pictures), two men who's work came to define the war, just as much as the war defined them. The film isn't so much about a specific war though, but all wars. It's just a shame APOCALYPSE NOW has joined the list of films partly ruined by creators who have run out of ideas and have to raise cash by messing around with their old movies. In this case, a masterpiece as far as I was concerned. Whole chunks of it are just... perfect.


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: The Firecracker on June 21, 2007, 06:28:27 PM
It's a real shame that for many young people, their first contact with this film from now and possibly for ever more will be the REDUX version.

There was a reason Coppola dropped all of the "restored" footage now cobbled onto the film. He just didn't like it in the first place. In HEARTS OF DARKNESS we even see a small clip of what was obviously an extened on set rant about how awful he though the French plantation sequence was going, straight to the nervous performers involved. However, we are now supposed to forget this and accept this dreary and redundent scene as now somehow as vital as all the new effects and big explosions Franny's chum George Lucas has added to his first three STAR WARS films because, you know, that's how they really meant the films to be seem all along.

Rubbish. Everybody knows that Coppola's main business these days is in the wine and hotel market. I suspect the whole REDUX thing was merely an exploitation of the old family jewels to fund some new, non-movie enterprise.

I saw APOCALYPSE NOW some 16 or 17 times on it's first release at the cinema in my mid teens. As you can tell from that I was kind of obsessed by the thing. As has been pointed out, it uses the Vietnam War as a setting for a rather "bigger" plot, but at the same time has a narration written by Michael Herr, with uncredited quotes from photographer Phillip Jones Griffith's classic book VIETNAM INC. (as well as some of his pictures), two men who's work came to define the war, just as much as the war defined them. The film isn't so much about a specific war though, but all wars. It's just a shame APOCALYPSE NOW has joined the list of films partly ruined by creators who have run out of ideas and have to raise cash by messing around with their old movies. In this case, a masterpiece as far as I was concerned. Whole chunks of it are just... perfect.



Agreed.
I would never take a look at the REDUX version.


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Sonny on June 21, 2007, 08:39:45 PM
I'm guessing the main problem of this movie is that Coppola wanted to actually tell the whole story about Vietnam,to give to the viewers of the movie everything he thought they need to know about that war and of course he got lost...
The position of the French,the whole absurd of that war,the carelessness of the American commanding staff,natives,kids in the war,and so on..There were so many important things to mention and incorporate in the movie,but it wasn't easy.


Rather than trying to make his movie a historical documentary about the Vietnam War, I think Coppola's intentions, based on the content of the film, were to make the Vietnam situation the background for what he really meant to represent, which was the insanity that the Vietnam soilders were eventually faced with. 

(SPOILER follows)
For example, the flashback scene where Kurtz is an active seargent, as bombs and gunfire are aimed in his troop's direction, he asks the troops to go surfing.  You can tell by the way he reacts to the loud artillery around them that there was a big difference between Kurtz's reaction and the reaction of his troops to what surrounded them. Kurtz was clearly mentally affected by the war even back then.  He had no reasonable reaction to the attacking enemy, he just acted as though nothing was going on, while influencng his troops to act in the same manner.

The movie's main theme was not the Vietnam War, but the insanity of war itself is well represented; how it can drive a person to madness, as represented by Kurtz's character.


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Sonny on June 21, 2007, 08:46:05 PM


Agreed.
I would never take a look at the REDUX version.

Never say never.... ;)

Well, I don't know if this has been mentioned before (i'm sure it has) but i just wanna express how incredibly stupid the people who made the newest Apocalypse Now release are.  The boxset has two discs, but instead of making one the redux version and the other the original, the dumbasses made both versions in both discs, cutting both versions half way in order to switch to disc 2.  Nuts, isn't it?  Does anyone know why they did it that way? cos i frankly don't understand


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Tuco the ugly on June 22, 2007, 05:33:53 AM
Rather than trying to make his movie a historical documentary about the Vietnam War, I think Coppola's intentions, based on the content of the film, were to make the Vietnam situation the background for what he really meant to represent, which was the insanity that the Vietnam solders were eventually faced with. 

The movie's main theme was not the Vietnam War, but the insanity of war itself is well represented; how it can drive a person to madness, as represented by Kurtz's character.

I agree,I was talking about that myself.
Showing the insanity of war itself on the example of Vietnam.
But I'm afraid my bad English ruins the thought sometimes...


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: mike siegel on June 22, 2007, 05:42:38 AM
NEW DVD-RELEASE:  You serious?
And I just wanted to purchase that thing... Thanks!

Interesting how serious some of you take historical accuracy (right word?) when it comes to NAM.
Every movie is a fiction, except documentaries (minus M.Moore maybe:)). Anti-war films really can't exist some say, and they're not that wrong. Whenever there's gunplay and male bonding and adventure of any sort involved, it feeds certain fantasies... The film makers point of most of 'these' films, like CATCH 22, M*A*S*H etc. is to sneak in heavy anti-war messages, but not to re-create an enviorenment, as intelligent artists do know the the horror of violence, war & death can't be re-created. For that matter I would suggest COMING HOME. Not one gunshot in the film. Helped my decision not to go to the army anyway.

I understand the difficulties of seeing fiction that deals with 'personal' experiences very well. And my uncle is a surgeon, boy did he had fun watching some of that 'accurate' movie/TV-stuff (so well researched :)). And being German I could mention 90% of war-movies relating to WWII. I mean the universal German soldier in those was so mean, I always cheered for Flynn & Wayne. Kill the bloody krauts!! That's entertainment.





Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Groggy on June 22, 2007, 06:00:27 AM
Juan, you absolutely nailed it. The French plantation scene would have worked as an extra deleted scene, but I think there's a pretty good reason it was cut in the first place. A semi-rational discussion about the Vietnam War just doesn't fit in with the overall tone of the film. The "new" Playboy Bunnies scene was titillating, to be sure, but too long and absolutely pointless. O0

To be fair, though, I've never seen the "theatrical cuts" of OUATITW, OUATIA, "The Last Emperor", "Lawrence of Arabia", "The Wild Bunch". . . and I think the "extended versions" are all excellent. :D


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: dave jenkins on June 22, 2007, 03:37:48 PM
To be fair, though, I've never seen the "theatrical cuts" of OUATITW, OUATIA, "The Last Emperor", "Lawrence of Arabia", "The Wild Bunch". . . and I think the "extended versions" are all excellent. :D
Well, in the case of Lawrence, the "extended" version is pretty much a restoration of what was originally released theatrically, as this passage from the Wikipedia entry makes clear:

Quote
The film premiered in London on December 10, 1962, and was released in the USA on December 16, 1962.

The original release ran for 222 minutes (plus overture, intermission, and exit music). A later theatrical re-release ran for 202 minutes; an even shorter cut of 187 minutes briefly surfaced in the 1970s. The current "restored version", undertaken by Robert A. Harris and James C. Katz (under the supervision of director David Lean), was released in 1989 with a 216 minute length (plus overture, intermission, and exit music).

Most of the cut scenes were dialogue sequences, particularly those involving General Allenby and his staff. Two whole scenes - Brighton's briefing of Allenby in Jerusalem prior to the Deraa scene and the British staff meeting in the field tent - were completely excised, and the former has still not been entirely restored. Much of the missing dialogue involves Lawrence's writing of poetry and verse, alluded to by Allenby in particular, saying "the last poetry general we had was Wellington." Lawrence's first meeting with Allenby in Cairo was significantly shorter, and the scene in Jerusalem where Allenby convinces Lawrence not to resign existed in only fragmented form. These scenes have been restored to the current edition; most of the still-missing footage is of minimal import. The actors still living at the time of the re-release dubbed their own dialogue, though Jack Hawkins's dialogue had to be dubbed by Charles Gray (who had already done Hawkins' voice for several films after the latter developed throat cancer in the late 1960s).

A full list of cuts can be found at the Internet Movie Database. Reasons for the cuts of various scenes can be found in Lean's notes to Sam Spiegel, Robert Bolt, and Anne V. Coates.

The film runs 216 minutes in the most recent Director's Cut available on DVD.

The point is, the longer cut of Lawrence is more or less what Lean intended at the time of its original release. This is not the case with Apocalypse Now. The re-introduction of the French Plantation sequence seriously deforms Coppola's artistic intentions circa 1979. Juan Miranda made this abundantly clear above, but if there are still any who doubt this all they need do is study the sequence again. Note that Willard's voice-over is entirely absent from that part of the movie. Obviously, this material was already cut prior to Sheen going in, during post production, to do his dubbing for the film. It was therefore no longer part of the movie, and should not have been restored, except for its curiosity value. It does not represent the director's vision (I mean the director who made the film, not the guy who inhabits his body 20-some years later).


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Groggy on June 22, 2007, 05:00:26 PM
Would it surprise you to learn that 80% of that passage was written by moi?  ;)

I do see your point however. I will say though, that the original cut version of "Lawrence" - the 200 minute one - was authorized by Lean because he felt it was too long for a commercial film. As his director's notes show, he wasn't unsatisfied with what he cut out, but he recognized that the film would probably have more of an appeal to the public at large.



Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Kurug3n on June 22, 2007, 05:02:36 PM
the orignal cut of Apocalypse always win out against the ever so boring REDUX


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on June 22, 2007, 05:34:07 PM
the orignal cut of Apocalypse always win out against the ever so boring REDUX

I disagree. The REDUX is in no way boring to me.


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: dave jenkins on June 22, 2007, 05:35:28 PM
Quote
Would it surprise you to learn that 80% of that passage was written by moi?  ;)
Nope. You seem to have done a good job, though. O0

Quote
I do see your point however. I will say though, that the original cut version of "Lawrence" - the 200 minute one - was authorized by Lean because he felt it was too long for a commercial film. As his director's notes show, he wasn't unsatisfied with what he cut out, but he recognized that the film would probably have more of an appeal to the public at large.
Can we agree, then, that Lean authorized at least two different cuts of his film for its maiden run, each equally valid? If so, this does not parallel the release history of Apocalypse Now/Redux.

Now, onto OUATIA. There were two theatrical releases of the film in America, what we can call the illegitimate, first one (shortened and re-chronologicized), and the legitimate one that played in its correct form. I saw the film the second way in 1985, at the Biograph in Chicago. The current DVD properly reflects that theatrical release.


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Kurug3n on June 22, 2007, 10:46:40 PM
I disagree. The REDUX is in no way boring to me.

we always seem to disagree eh,Tucumcari ;D


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on June 23, 2007, 04:44:54 PM
we always seem to disagree eh,Tucumcari ;D

It's ok, it's all in good fun kurug3n! If this was IMDB, you'd probably call me stupid. hahaha.


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Kurug3n on June 23, 2007, 05:50:05 PM
It's ok, it's all in good fun kurug3n! If this was IMDB, you'd probably call me stupid. hahaha.

to all good fun O0


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on June 23, 2007, 07:03:10 PM
to all good fun O0

Of course my friend! I love to agree to disagree. It makes for great conversation. At least we all can respect eachother's opinion's here. That's why I love it here so much.


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: noodles_leone on July 03, 2007, 01:44:36 PM
I disagree. The REDUX is in no way boring to me.

I agree. Two points :

First, knowing which version is the favorite one of the director gives only two informations : WHY the director accepts a new release and WHAT is the taste of a director. This has ABSOLUTLY NOTHING to do wit hthe quality of any version of the movie, even if, for good directors, their favorite version is often the best one.

Second point, I always though the redux is better than the original one... It is strange, but the long scenes that have been added help me to find the movie LESS boring, I don't know why... The french plantation looks to be in another movie, so I understand why some people don't like it. I see it as a passage in another world, another war, which justifies the change of tonality for this scene... and i love the way it ends : the boat goes away and everything disapears behind it, like if it had been a dream... And I always loved the "could you please pick up grand pere" (or stg like that). Morever, if I love love love love almost the whole movie, I'm not fond of the final part (in Brando's camp). The scene where you can see him in the dayliht (that was added in the redux) has a major flaw, which is the daylight, so BRando loose everything in it... Still, it is also an advantage : since the whole thing is a little boring for me at this point, changing the atmosphere is quite nice.
Concerning the playboy bunny scene, it IS too long, that's a fact. During the scene, I alway wait for stg to happen (it makes me think to a scene in the cross of iron, which has a similar atmosphere). But is only has to be cut a little, because the scene is good...

Anyone to back my opinion or i am he only one (with Tucumcari_Bound) to like this version?


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Jill on July 03, 2007, 01:59:39 PM
I have te dvd, but saw REDUX in cinema too. Yes, too long. The original version was terrific - that new svcenes are not needed... except the plus Brando scene. The others are boring.

The movie itself is a masterpiece I think.


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: moviesceleton on July 03, 2007, 02:49:37 PM
Anyone to back my opinion or i am he only one (with Tucumcari_Bound) to like this version?
I like it. I never said I don't like it. It's one of my favorite movies. I said I could imagine that liked it better without the extra scenes, but I can't know because I haven't see the original. The redux version is a masterpiece IMO.


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: PowerRR on July 31, 2007, 06:26:04 PM
Yay for me. You all suck. I win!


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Kurug3n on July 31, 2007, 06:28:34 PM
jokes on you! You wont be able to see the original ending credits where alot shit blows UP!!


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Groggy on August 01, 2007, 06:35:34 AM
That movie stinks. I wouldn't brag about it. ::)


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 01, 2007, 08:58:48 AM
Wow, Groggy, you and I completely agree . . . again! O0


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on August 01, 2007, 09:01:51 AM
I like it. I never said I don't like it. It's one of my favorite movies. I said I could imagine that liked it better without the extra scenes, but I can't know because I haven't see the original. The redux version is a masterpiece IMO.

I'm still with you moviesceleton. Love the Redux! O0


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: PowerRR on August 01, 2007, 05:40:06 PM
What a terrible experience.

First of all, by "old time movie theater" they MEAN it. The screen was about 3.5x smaller than the average theater today, the seating was absolutely terrible, the ground seating was far too low while the second level was far too high, the set-up was terrible (they make it look like a home-run theater, basically what it was), and not to mention the movie screwed up and reset itself to the beginning twice (before we decided to leave).

Also, they were unable to find an original reel of the film so they had to use the DVD version. They gave us free tickets for that which I was going to use for City Lights and The Great Dictator next month, but not anymore.

Oh, and the way they decorated the place looked like a 13-year-old girl's bedroom except with Fellini and Hitchcock pictures stapled randomly to the walls.


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Atlas2112 on September 09, 2007, 06:44:03 PM
okay, ive never seen this flick but i really want too. which version should i see first? original or redux?


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Kurug3n on September 09, 2007, 06:52:35 PM
to me the orignal is better but others prefer the redux.


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: The Firecracker on September 09, 2007, 06:54:00 PM
okay, ive never seen this flick but i really want too. which version should i see first? original or redux?


Neither.


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Atlas2112 on September 09, 2007, 06:57:16 PM

Neither.
well maybe i can decide for myself if it blows chucks or not AFTER i watch it  :P


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Silenzio on September 09, 2007, 06:58:23 PM

Neither.

Fuck you.


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Sonny on September 09, 2007, 08:52:35 PM

Fuck You very much FC!!  >:(



I'll stay mad at you for the next... five minutes, even though it should be more!


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: moviesceleton on September 10, 2007, 08:37:15 AM
to me the orignal is better but others prefer the redux.
I'd say the majority prefers the original.


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: dave jenkins on October 17, 2007, 06:39:15 PM
Hearts of Darkness to R1 DVD: http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=66149


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Kurug3n on October 17, 2007, 10:05:42 PM
Hearts of Darkness to R1 DVD: http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=66149

Awesome News Dave O0


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on October 18, 2007, 12:07:03 PM
Hearts of Darkness to R1 DVD: http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=66149

Wow!!! Finally!!! Thank you so much for the news dave! O0


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 02, 2010, 02:00:51 PM
Yeah, baby! http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B003UESJJC


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: titoli on August 02, 2010, 03:31:11 PM
Yeah, baby! http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B003UESJJC

It never ends...


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Dust Devil on August 02, 2010, 11:12:33 PM
The horror...


Title: Re: Apocalypse Now (1979)
Post by: Senza on February 27, 2013, 05:07:14 PM
I think this maybe because I'm not old enough to fully appreciate it but this movie is actually hard for me to sit through, I've seen it once before and didn't really like it that much, so I decided to give it another go, and couldn't get past the first 90 minutes before losing interest.