Apocolypse Now... I just dont get it.

House · 5 Dec 2009 at 16:44

One of the best films? yes. The best? No. Though i'd strugle to say which film is.
I guess it only just falls into 30 years as well

TonyM19 · 5 Dec 2009 at 16:57

yermum said:
Personally I think that this film loses a lot of its impact when watched on a small screen. In the cinema it was awesome.

Absolutely. The opening sequence was truly memorable.

The Redux version fills in a lot of the gaps but you can see why they were cut. Up to the last 20 minutes, probably the best film I've ever seen. I remember people walking out in the cinema when I first saw it.

thevet · 5 Dec 2009 at 17:24

Platoon..no1

^TANK^ · 5 Dec 2009 at 17:24

Hellsmk2 said:
It's an absolute masterpiece of a film - the best anti-war film of all time.

I'm afraid I just don't agree with you

+1.

Irish_Tom · 5 Dec 2009 at 17:41

^TANK^ said:
+1.

+2

It really is an epic. There's just something special about it.

I've read Heart of Darkness and they both work very well to convey hopelessness and utter breakdown.

Apocalypse Now just contexutalises it into an anti 'nam/war fill.

Panzer

Chimerical · 5 Dec 2009 at 17:47

Apocalypse Now is one of the all time "Great" war movies but its not the best. The Redux cut is far, far too long.

Also the appeal for many people is the story behind how the film was made as much as the movie itself.

davethe11 · 5 Dec 2009 at 17:53

I've not seen the Redux version, I forget if it was in the Hearts of Darkness documentary or if I read it or saw it elsewhere, but Coppola said he never liked the scenes he shot when they come across the French plantation which is why they were not in the theatrical cut, now he puts them back in for the Redux version which makes me question the motives for this version of the movie, I want to see the Redux version but this is why it isn't as high on my must-see-list as other directors cuts/alternate versions.

Sankari · 5 Dec 2009 at 19:53

jp_bl_68 said:
The Redux version is excellent, the better of the two in my opinion. I don't know if it's the best movie of the last 30 years but it's definitely the best war movie made.

+1 for Redux. (The horror! The horror! :eek:

) Looks absolutely stunning in blu ray.

It all makes more sense if you're familiar with Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, upon which the movie is based.

Moogman · 5 Dec 2009 at 22:01

You can read in to it what you will with this film, for all those that don't get it I say that's a good thing and thats what war is..it makes no sense.

Tummy · 5 Dec 2009 at 23:12

jp_bl_68 said:
The Redux version is excellent, the better of the two in my opinion. I don't know if it's the best movie of the last 30 years but it's definitely the best war movie made.

Indeed.

Masterpiece.

"andy" · 6 Dec 2009 at 05:17

it will always be in my top 3 films. has everything a great film needs and then does it all so well too

benneh · 6 Dec 2009 at 05:22

Because it's one of the best things ever made. It's a real motion picture, grandiose and genial. It's what would happen if you gave Francis Ford Coppola $100m and a giant film crew and all the booze and drugs he could carry

.

Cob · 6 Dec 2009 at 12:46

davethe11 said:
I've not seen the Redux version, I forget if it was in the Hearts of Darkness documentary or if I read it or saw it elsewhere, but Coppola said he never liked the scenes he shot when they come across the French plantation which is why they were not in the theatrical cut, now he puts them back in for the Redux version which makes me question the motives for this version of the movie, I want to see the Redux version but this is why it isn't as high on my must-see-list as other directors cuts/alternate versions.

I agree that the French plantation scenes weren't really missed from the original, but a lot of the others were cut simply to reduce the running time.

The scene with Kilgores surfboard is hilarious and helps break up the darkness of the movie a little.

simpletom · 6 Dec 2009 at 13:34

Like Godfather and Brando, it was a bloated ego-trip. I have not seen the 'redux' version, but at nearly 3½ hours I have no intention. Being based on a very short novel, it just seems to lose its point.

It is not a terrible film, but I reckon it is over-rated.

Glaucus · 6 Dec 2009 at 13:43

Cob said:
Have you watched the Redux version yet?

It makes a lot more sense than the original version, which was already a masterpiece IMHO.

+1. it's long and it's not a film I would watch often. But it is simply amazing.

Grimley · 6 Dec 2009 at 17:47

MY opinion? good film but not the best 'nam film. I award that to FMJ. Didn't stop me from getting it on DVD as soon as it became available overseas. Now waiting for the Blu-ray.

benneh · 6 Dec 2009 at 18:00

simpletom said:
I have not seen the 'redux' version, but at nearly 3½ hours I have no intention.

That's a shame, 3 1/2 hours really isn't that long. In fact, I prefer a long film

.

silversurfer · 6 Dec 2009 at 21:56

It is a bit rambling and chaotic, like the war was perhaps is the point

Try hamburger hill instead

Columbo · 6 Dec 2009 at 22:19

Along with The Thin Red Line (Terence Malick's version) its my favourite film of all time.

Its a total masterpiece of cinematography with a ensemble cast, who are all on top form and take turns in stealing the show right the way through film.

The soundtrack is also right on the money and creates a very unique atmosphere, and when you consider the fact that it took everything but an act of god to get this film made it just adds to the overall effect.

Stunning..

samir_ansari · 6 Dec 2009 at 22:26

I remember walking away from the film being unsure whether it was a masterpiece or an uncomfortable mess. Still cant decide - it will probably hit me in a few years time that this is the greatest film of all time tho