siberianhusky

I'm sure I am going to get Ripped for this, and thats fine I am just curious if others feel them same as I do. I watched redux for the first time ever last night. I had never seen the original. Please don't tell me I need to see the original, because its not to hard to just eliminate the major added clips mentally.

This movie is supposed to classic, but its missing almost every major component a classic should have. I wasn't educated, entertained or encouaged. The movie wasn't powerful, realalistic or even original. Whats the point of the movie a internal struggle of good vs evil that every person faces set in a unrealistic backround of vietnam. Most of the characters went way over the top mainly brado, this made this movie not even believable. Not to mention the length, this movie just drug on, fine take out the 40+ minutes and it still would be stuck in mudd. This movie is better off just to be "seen" not watched or analyzed. There is one positive though, at times it can be visual spectacular. As for one of the top 25 movies of all time LOL I guess full metal jacket, platoon, saving private ryan, are all in the top ten all time, Because Apocalypse now isn't even in the same stratosphere as any of those. Please explain the greatness! Or not, but i could use a good laugh today.

kefrank

ebert says it better than i probably could:

http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/greatm...plypsenow.html

i think possibly you might have had the wrong expectations. apocalypse now is very surreal. it isn't a realistic, gritty war action/drama and if you're looking for that, you're looking in the wrong place. it also isn't supposed to be especially encouraging. it's dark, brooding, and surreal. in that, it is extremely powerful and original. it definitely deserves the status that it gets among the best movies of all time. its unfortunate that you didn't enjoy it, but no film pleases everyone.

Amadeus

You need to see the original.

Johnny Zhivago

Different strokes for different folks but AN is in my top 5 films all time, easily...

>>> LOL I guess full metal jacket, platoon, saving private ryan, are all in the top ten all time, Because Apocalypse now isn't even in the same stratosphere as any of those.

Um... Yeah... Well, if this is what you're using for comparison then I'd say you missed the boat completely. AN is not really a "war film".

Since we're setting ourselves up to get ripped in this thread, Saving Private Ryan is one of the most overrated films that I have ever seen, right up there with Fight Club. Typical Spielberg sap.

And you need to see the original.

siberianhusky

Thats cheating you can't erase my "DON'T'. LOL

Amadeus

LBPound

It's not hard to do it mentally, but it's not the same thing as watching the original. The original doesn't feel long at all, namely because you're losing the whole ghost plantation scene, and you're very much engaged right up to when Willard arrives at the Kurtz compound.

I think the Redux additions weaken the film, and I think the 'greatness' lies upon the soul of the Willard character. We can clearly identify with him (though this is tainted in some of the Redux additions, which give him more of a personality, and as a result, make him less objective/us) and the depths of emotion that he feels.

Saving Private Ryan and Platoon are war films, and they have a lot going for them and are great films.

Apocalypse Now, to me, is a character study that's set during war, and is very good for very different reasons.

Jackskeleton

Frankly, You would be a moron if you didn't see the Original. As much as I enjoyed REDUX, the original is pretty much a different film. They just didn't ADD the scenes. They re-edited the movie so scenes will feel different on both versions.

As others have said, it's a character study set in a war background. most importantly...

WATCH THE ORIGINAL!!

then if you are feeling up to it, Watch "Hearts of Darkness" which is the documentary of the making of it which is one of the best I have ever seen.

mcarver

That's fine if the movie doesn't strike your fancy. It is not a mainstream film, which is one of the reasons it is considered to be "great" (also consider when the film was made). Basically the film is Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness set during the Vietnam War....

SleepyW

I had to watch this movie a few times for a class report on religion in film. I had never seen it before that (last year), but heard how great it was supposed to be. I guess I set myself up for a disappointment because I wasn't all that impressed. It didn't "move" me, it was fairly predictable, and I didn't get anything out of it that I hadn't already experienced or learned out of life. So, to me, it was simply mediocre. My opinion could also be biased as I HAD to watch it.

However, at least now I get the reference to the movie in Hot Shots Part Deux!

Inverse

Y'know, when it came out, Apocalypse Now wasn't considered great. It was considered interesting but flawed, a misstep on the part of Coppola (little did people know at the time that bigger missteps were on the way!) Some of the objections were that the main character was uninteresting, the plot was a comic-book condensation of Conrad, the movie was extremely episodic, and the scenes with Brando were disasterous.

Over time, Apocalypse Now has acquired a reputation as a masterpiece, for a variety of reasons:

--Without a doubt, some of the individual scenes and images in the movie are classic.
--The movie has come to be seen as the high point of the director's power in Hollywood. There are any number of directors in Hollywood right now thinking, "Why won't the studio fund my pet project? Why didn't I live back in the 70s, when they let Coppola make Apocalypse Now!"
--And by far the main reason for the movie's reputation is not what's on the screen, but the story behind what's on the screen. The cost overruns, the Philipine Army, Coppola going bonkers, Sheen's heart attack, Brando being immensely overweight and unable to fit into his costume, Coppola having to read the book to Brando page by page--it makes a great Hollywood legend. Contributing to the legend is the idea that Apocalypse Now ruined Coppola's reputation with the suits in Hollywood (though this is incorrect: AN broke even. What ruined his reputation was his next movie, the disasterous musical flop One From the Heart.)

Anyhoo, it's a good movie, but it pales in comparison to the first two Godfathers or The Conversation. (But no, it's not supposed to be realistic.)

Redux was a dopey idea. Coppola took out those scenes because everyone, himself included, agreed they didn't work. Why put them back in?

chanster

Watch Hearts of Darkness for more information about the making of the movie. I am not sure it is on DVD ( I don't believe so) The movie is pretty surreal, and then read the book. Heart of Darkness would be an impossible and probably pretty boring movie but it makes a great movie. I believe there was a made for TV movie of Heart of Darkness about 10 years ago or so.

Mr. Salty

It sounds to me like you've already made up your mind and aren't really open to hearing others' opinions of the movie.

This may be a movie you need to revisit in a few years, and as others have said, see the original edit. It's a movie that definitely becomes greater and greater with subsequent viewings, especially as you yourself get a little older.

siberianhusky

Well you are right, I did make up my mind, the movie sucks.
I am open to hearing others opinions though, just because I don't like it, doesn't mean I can't understand why others do. I am not looking to change my view, I wanted to know if others had the same view point as me. Thats the problem with many people today, they conform to others, and let other tell one what is great or a classic. Thats sad! The movie can't become better if it was poor the first time, unless it was too complex for me to grasp, and that wasn't the case. Others tried to make that assumption earlier "its not a war film" well I am sorry to let you know it is a war film. I don't care if the film intent wasn't about a war, and a underlying tone of the characters was. The Director decided to project his message of good vs evil of one's psyche thought a 3+ hour film of war, thats make it a war film. I'm perplexed at what age has anything to do with, I hope your not implying I am not educated enough or mature enough to make analysis of the film. Its not like I have completed 7 years of college or anything. I hope people make assessments of films based on their own opinions not others looking to label them great.

kefrank

(did you take any grammar in college?) sorry, that was a cheapshot.

i agree with your final statement. personally, watching apocalypse now (the original edit...i haven't seen the redux) was one of the most engaging experiences i've ever had watching a film. i knew very little about it, or about film in general when i saw it for the first time.

as i said before, no film pleases everyone. that being said, the fact that you personally thought it sucked doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't deserve the classic status that it has obtained.

siberianhusky

I always hated spelling and grammer and I refuse to proofread things while I'm on my break, but thankyou Professor kefrank. lol

Rubix

just because a certain element is in a film doesn't mean the film is about that thing.

most every movie you've seen has people wearing shoes in it i'm sure, yet i bet not one of them was actually about people wearing shoes. just because apoc now is in a war environment, doesn't mean it is about war.

TCG

You think AN sucks?!
No. "Them" sucks. AN is a certifiable classic. I honestly feel sorry that you cant see it. I think it's brilliant, and is among the best films of the past 25 years.

BTW, tell me some of your faves.

joelgee

Where is the greatness?

In the eye of the beholder.
J

Big Quasimodo

To me, it is important to differentiate between your OPINION and the EDUCATED CRITIQUES of professional film historians. While each is certainly valid (as far as it goes), the later benefits from expertise gained from a lifetime of study and evaluation.

Here are a few reviews for your perusal:

Ebert's Apocolypse Now Redux
James Kendrick's Apocolypse Now Redux

You will note that much of the reviews focus on the PROCESS of the film and relate its greatness to the CONTEXT of historical American cinema. If you refuse to expand your appreciation of cinema above the "I didn't like it, so it SUCKED!" method of criticism, then you really shouldn't be asking our opinions. At this point, it doesn't really seem that you are sincere in your desire to LEARN why the film is considered a classic.

Personally, I find the soundtrack, cinematography, scope and scale of the film to be exemplary. Likening it to DW Griffiths productions of Intolerance andBirth of a Nation strikes a resonance with my feelings about the film. It is an epic drama, with epic themes and images, some of which are indelible on the landscape of American cinema.

Like you, when I view a film considered to be a classic, and I walk away wondering "What did I miss?", I try to reach out and educate myself. IMDB.com provides a good source of reviews.

marty888

How do you know it wasn't "too complex" for you to grasp? Not looking to change your view? Don't care what the film's intent was? And age (chronological and mental) has a lot to do with it. That's why we start kids reading with "See Spot run".

mcarver

As already mentioned, one needs to view the film in context (and this not only includes current cinema productions, but social conditions at the time). It spoke of a time and to the time. It was also a "different" and "bold" movie for its time (plus being a passion of the director). If one can view in as closely as possible to its original context, I think one may have a different take.

Apocalypse Now is not Full Metal Jacket, Platoon, Thin Red Line, nor Singing in the Rain. It was never entended to be, it was a comment by the director about his and others impressions of the nation's state of mind during the Vietnam Conflict and after.

L'Avventura (1960) by Michelangelo Antonioni is also considered to be masterpiece and turning point in cinema history. When viewed out of context of the time, one may wonder "what's the deal". But when viewed in its proper context, one can become to learn its importance and value in cinema history.

Mr. Salty

Yes, I was implying that (the maturity part, not the uneducated part).

I can tell you from personal experience, there are movies that I didn't have the maturity or the life experience (call it whatever you like) to understand or appreciate when I was younger that are some of my favorite films now. It's just a fact of life, as we get older, our tastes change, evolve and grow.

That's why 5-year-olds watch Rugrats movies, not "Citizen Kane."

sarah p

Apocalypse Now is a masterpiece and a classic for several reasons: terrific acting, awesome cinematography, a great score, excellent writing, the Wagner scene, Robert Duvall, the riverboat massacre, and the powerful final scene. Idolotry and cultism. If you can't see the greatness in this film then I feel sorry for you.

The Bus

Apocalypse Now may be the first greatest film I've ever seen -- that is, I saw it (finally) at a time when I could appreciate great cinema. It's probably the movie that brought me to this point today. I think it's ridiculously surreal, disjointed, and senseless. Wonderful.