Apocalypse Now Redux

Rating:
Summary: apocalypse now redux
Review: i've read the other amazon reviews as well as a batch of other published reviews. in my opinion the original cut worked really well, but the new footage adds in a worthwhile way. there is a filling out of character and historical situation with the new footage. this may not be essential to the movie, but apart from the added length (which most people won't be able to stand), the movie is in some ways more satisfying. i think it makes a strong difference to have the french plantation scene because it brings women into the film in more than just the playboy bunny way. though of course there's sex involved, the woman in this case has things to say that matter, especially in the midst of all the male killing and shouting. and the bunnies-for-fuel sequence, as far as i'm concerned, makes the bizarreness of the whole heart-of-darkness world all the stronger by moving directly into the realm of sex/women as a commodity. the extra footage with kurtz and the kids may not add much *except* with respect to visuals. those kids and kurtz peering down through those jagged wholes in the sweat box make a stunning and unique image in a film full of stunning and unique images. anyway, the thing that matters is that anyone who has not seen this film now has the chance to see the gussied-up dvd print, and there may be no other movie that is so visually striking. in 3 1/2 hours there are maybe 15 minutes of just neutral images. *everything* else you can sit and look at like a painting. and then there's the music. fantastic shifts between the doors, and this running electronic score that fades in and out from machine-sounds to music, and then just a little actual instrumental music at short precise moments. very fine. no movie-fan should miss it.

Rating:
Summary: From the Greatest to the Best
Review: When Coppola released the original version over twenty years ago, it unleashed a Wagnerian firestorm of critical debate (already a hint of great art!) It seemed every critic thought it was either the best movie of the year, or the worst. When his (almost-ex-)wife released her documentary about the film's creation (also a great film, "Hearts of Darkness",)the critics flip-flopped. The ones who had hated "Apocalypse" loved "Hearts", and visa versa. How could a film generate such hatred, such confusion?

This film is ABOUT hatred, and confusion. Coppola and John Milius, being young recent film graduate school students, had the enormous chutzpah to write a screenplay, while the Vietnam War was still raging, transplanting Joseph Conrad's powerful novel, "The Heart of Darkness" to Vietnam. It was never "about" Vietnam; it didn't say anything which any reasonably intelligent, well-read person of the time didn't already know. But Vietnam was a Horror, with a capital "H", that we all knew: it came into our houses every night over the TV and radio; it came into our lives with the news of friends who would never come home. In that tiny, far-away country, civilized American boys and girls were doing unbelievably violent and terrible things, just like the civilized French boys and girls before them. Why did we watch the TV every day? Why did we keep track of how many died, and where? (Why do we keep watching the burning twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York?)

In Milnius's original script, Col. Kurtz says, "We fight for the land that's under our feet, gold that's in our hands, women that worship the power in our loins. I summon fire from the sky. Do you know what it means to be a white man who can summon fire from the sky? What it means? You can live or die for these things. Not silly ideals that are always betrayed . . . What do you fight for, Captain?" And Capt. Willard , the "hero" of the story, responds, "Because it feels good."

In the actual film, Colonel Kurtz (probably Marlon Brando extemporizing) says, "It takes bravery. The deepest bullets are not to be feared, phophorus, napalm are nothing to be feared, but nothing. But to look inward to see that twisted mind that lies beneath the surface of all humans and to say, "Yes, I accept you; I even love you, because you're part of me, you're an extension of me." There is a Darkness inside all of us. It seeks to undo everything we know and believe in, and we are fascinated by it. If we harness it's power, we can do great things; but when we are overwhelmed by it, we get swept into the currents of a downward maelstrom from which we are unlikely to escape. This is Conrad's story; it is Coppola's story; and it is our story. And because it has been told, I have long felt that "Apocalypse Now" was the greatest film in American Cinema history.

"Redux", however, does more. It takes a long film, hastily put together to alleviate Coppola's labor pains, and to assuage creditors for a project that was notably over schedule and over budget, and makes it even longer. For over three hours we ride the river of life, up and down, peaceful and tempestuous, like a symphonic odyssey of sight and sound and emotion. It is Greek Tragedy meets high-technology.

What's different in "Redux?" There is more thoughtful and challenging editing; our eyes are more sophisticated than they were 20 years ago. More time is spent dealing with the Robert DeNiro character, making him more three-dimensional (and comical.) More time is spent with the Playmates, in scenes that squeezed the last drop of innocence from my jaded soul. A scene is added: the discovery of a plantation of French who refuse to leave, for reasons they can not say. But the main difference is that the longer version is truer to the rhythm of life. The characters are fleshed-out, and their agony is real, palpable, and above-all, personal.

When I saw the film in the theater, at it's conclusion, no one spoke; I didn't hear any movement; I didn't even hear anyone breathe. There were no credits to watch. There was nothing to do that seemed like it mattered. It had all been said. In 40 years of filmgoing, I only had that experience once before, at the conclusion of "Hearts and Minds," the great documentary of the Vietnam War. So my hope to a generation that has known no American war: watch this film, not some sentimental spieljunk. It's just a three-hour voyage. And we've been on it all of our lives.

Rating:
Summary: The ultimate version of a masterpiece
Review: This new version of Coppola's masterpiece is more coherent than the previous one.At the same time,one finds in it a certain humor(the scene of the GI's encounter with the bunnies reminded me of M.A.S.H) and some erotic scenes which deeply modifies the film(it is no longer a "males'film).
Coppola has not done better ever since and unfortunately, few recent films have reached such a degree of achievement.But keep in mind that the film is not about the Viet-Nâm war but about the decay of civilisation.It is therefore more than useful to watch this film now!

Rating:
Summary: Absolutely Brilliant!
Review: I just saw Redux and I must say that it is, by far, one of the most well-directed, well-acted, films that I've ever seen. Though I would have to agree with the previous viewer that many of the extra scenes, especially the French Plantation scene, didn't seem to blend in well with the rest of the film's pace, the film is still very impressive. The one new scene, where the Playboy bunnies are forced into prostitution for helecoptor fuel, is absolutely essential to the movie. It further illustrates just how horrible the conditions were during Vietnam. Anyway, just SEE THIS MOVIE! Try to see it on the big-screen too, before it's too late!

Rating:
Summary: "Apocalypse Now - Redux" -- IT WORKS!
Review: The original cut always felt incomplete. It was a bunch of great vignettes which were just thrown together. The new footage has helped give the film breathing room which was much needed. No longer is the ship raced from one surreal incident to the next. At the same time, the new footage also helps strengthen some of the films themes.

Before I continue, it's worth noting that "Redux" isn't your typical directors cut, where new footage is simply just shoved into the film. Coppola and editor Walter Murch created an entirely new cut of the film using the original negatives. The film has also been beautifully restored using Technicolor dye-transfer prints, giving the film the Technicolor look of movies from the 40's and 50's. The colors are vibrant, rich, lush and blacks and truly black. "Apocalypse Now" was always one of the most beautifully photographed films and this new transfer helps justify that. The Cinematographer Vittorio Storaro said he cried when he saw the transfer. The remasterd sound is also spectacular. Murch has done an excellent job of putting the audience in the jungle. Now back to the film.

The first bit a new footage was an extension of the last scene with Robert Duvall's character, Lt. Kilgore. After giving his famous napalm speech Kilgore is informed that the waves at the beech aren't going to be as big as he expected because the napalm strike has disturbed the wind. This is a nice little touch showing the cause and the effect of the US's actions; no matter what they do, there is a negative effect. After that, Martin Sheen's character Willard, steels Kilgore's surfboard. This was another nice addition. The original version always lacked scenes of Willard before his transformation from going up the river. The scene also helped reinforce the relationship Willard has with the men on the boat; they of course all get a kick out of what Willard does.

The next big addition is the Playboy Bunny scene. This scene helps show how the war has even dehumanized sex. Lance (Sam Bottoms) is in a mud filled tent and is painting the face of the bunny he is with. I thought it was great how Coppola showed how dirty sex had become. Meanwhile, Chef (Frederic Forrest) is transforming the bunny he is with into another bunny by having her wear a wing and pose the same way this other bunny did in her spread. This was a masterful way of showing how incredibly impersonal sex has become.

The last big addition I'll talk about is the infamous French Plantation scene. The scene started off well, but slowly went down hill. In the first part of it, the French help Willard and the men conduct a funeral for Clean (Fishburne). The men do their best job to conduct a funeral, but it's not exactly up to what a typical army funeral is. There's some great imagery in there, like the small shredded American flag which is used. The funeral scene also makes a great comparison to how Chief (Albert Hall) death is handled. By that time in the film, they are so far up the river that the Army's and American values have vanished; Lance is having a fun time with the body (the body's final resting place is the river, not the earth) while Willard and Chief are totally preoccupied.

The plantation scene also helped reinforce the going back in time theme, something which came up a lot in "Heart of Darkness" but never panned out so well in the '79 version of "AP".

After the funeral there is a dinner scene with the plantation heads, and this is where things go down hill. There is just way too much dialogue in this scene and Coppola's intentions are quite transparent. The French basically give a recap of the West's involvement in Vietnam and then talk specifically about the US's presence there. It was like Coppola was saying "Incase you don't know what the film is about and why the US are the bad guys in this war..." Worst of all the scene dragged out and hurt the pacing of the film. Coppola spent the last two hours communicating his anti war message visually and suddenly he just had someone blurt it all.

There's some new stuff at the Kurtz compound, nothing too important but it helps give us some more time to take in the last 3rd of the film; again helping to reduce that rushed feeling.

The end still doesn't quite work, but there is no way to fix this. The Vietnam war had no real ending, there was no climax, there wasn't one last big battle. The US simply accepted it was a war which couldn't be won and pulled out. The ending actually reflects this fairly well. Once the mad Colonel Kurtz is killed, Willard walks down to the boat, leading Lance out, who has become totally wrapped up in the madness. They then peacefully go back down the river. While something like one last battle would have given the film more of a sense of finality, that wouldn't have been staying true to the war.

Overall, "Apocalypse Now - Redux" is an extraordinary film. Coppola never wastes a even a single frame (well there was the dinner scene...) Since this film was made, I don't think anyone has ever asked so much of the audience.

Rating:
Summary: Less of a great film than the original
Review: I watched the new cut of Coppola's film today (after re-watching the original release a few weeks ago), and I think the new edit is slightly misguided. In the original cut of Apocalypse Now, we're placed in the shoes of the Willard character (who functions as an everyman) as he makes his journey up the river. The scenes that are added seem to have been intended to flesh out his & his boat mates characters, but I don't think that's the direction that the film should be taken in.

In order for Willard to function as our stand-in, his character cannot be too defined. By showing him fraternizing with the crew members or scoring with a chick, they're changing his role. In the original cut, he really only acts a few times in the film before killing Kurtz (most notably when he shoots the woman with the puppy). Here we see him as a much more active character. He's not simply an observer of the war's insanity... He seems an active participant. To me, this takes away from my ability to feel that *I* have gone on the film's journey, and that *I* have seen the horror that man is capable of.

His crew members seemed almost iconic in their vagueness, but here they are mildly developed, so they become less iconic, but are not so developed that they lose that generic feeling. What Kurtz actually says remains as irrelevant to the film's message as ever, since he's still obviously insane. While they're still well-acted parts , it's somewhat disappointing.

Basically, what I'm saying is that the additional scenes do more to hurt the overall film (the French plantation sequence seems to really hurt the pacing the most) than to help it. They aren't bad scenes at all, but they simply don't have a place in the film. Apocalypse Now Redux, like most "Special Editions" these days, is a reduction of the original.

Rating:
Summary: The Horror...........
Review: "The Horror...the Horror." These are the last words spoken by Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando) in Francis Ford Coppola's masterwork, "Apocalypse Now Redux" with approx. 45 minutes of footage added to the original version released in 1978. And indeed much of what we witness in this film is horrible (i.e. "full of horror") yet uplifting as only great art can be. At this point, some 23 years later we can take some things for granted: the use of music(specifically "The End" by the Doors" and Richard Wagner's "Ride of the Vaulkerie")is inspired, the cinematography by Vittorio Storaro is unparalled and Martin Sheen (Captain Willard) and Robert Duvall (Colonel Kilgore) excell in their roles. But what of the added footage? Does it make the film greater or not? Does it clarify or obfuscate motivation or the storytelling itself? Are the performances helped or hindered? I think the added scenes do some of all of the above. The added scene at the French Rubber plantation does nothing but hinder the progression of Willard and company to Kurtz's lair with little redeeming value even though the political discussion between Willard and the plantation owner is vaguely interesting. But the french actor's english is so thickly accented that we can't understand much of what is being said in any event. Coppola was right to excise this sequence in the original version and should have left it out this time also. I think he might have wanted to humanize Willard a bit as in this sequence he is shown at ease, unstressed and in bed with a french widow. In another added sequence the Playboy Bunny Go-GO dancers sequence is extended and this is raunchy fun. But once again Coppola adds this scene, I think to humanize the ship's crew through the use of sex and closeness to a woman. Redemption through Sex? Remember Willard and company are on their way to murder "one of our own," Colonel Kurtz and in hindsight Coppola seems to be trying to mitigate this with originaly excised scenes in order to make the crew appear less malicious. It doesn't work. This will be interesting fodder for discussion around the water cooler all over America for some time to come. It is Marlon Brando's performance that benefits the most from his added scenes with Willard and the denizens of his island. The added scenes humanize and give Brando's Kurtz a chance to explain his motivations himself and his performance metamorphoses from an enigma in the original version to "almost" a living, breathing person in this version. His part is still underwritten per se but Brando has a chance to show off his sterling technique and his characterization is the better for it. It is a pleasure to see "Apocalypse Now" with a re-mastered soundtrack and color print looking as vibrant as it did in 1978. It is interesting to note that many attending the Cannes film festival 2001 said it was the best movie shown there... a neat trick for a 23 year old film. What does that say about the current state of films in the new Millennium?

Rating:
Summary: Now THAT's a movie!
Review: Giving a rating to Apocalypse Now Redux is just plain silly -- this epic is a force of nature, not something to be bothered by how many stars it receives. Releasing this now, in age where even the devastation of Pearl Harbor is reduced to a soulless computer-generated effect, shows you what movies have the potential to be.
Here's one movie that actually lives up to the hype. Many good movies have two, three, maybe four scenes that stay with you for a long time, that make you think, that challenge you. Apocalypse Now has 10 or 15 scenes like that...
The Redux version itself is a mixed bag of treats to fans of the original movie. Does it feel too long? Yes, especially in the French plantation scene and at the end, when Sheen is spending (seemingly) endless minutes looking groggily around. The length reduces some of the kick-to-the-ribs impact that the original cut had, making Redux a more thoughtful movie. But the original movie is still in there, looking and sounding better than ever. The helicopter scene with Ride of The Valkyries playing in the background, the hacked-up bodies lining the banks of the river, the smell of napalm in the morning, the Playboy bunnies jiggling for a rabid crowd of GI's in the middle of hell (with a poignant addition later that adds to the depressing nature of the trip. Like Col. Kilgore's steak and surfing in the midst of carnage, the bunnies only reminds one of the sheer hell of their existence)...The movie is also far funnier, adding another emotion to a swirling mix of disgust, awe and bewilderment.
The most effective addition, however, is a Brando scene where he reads from Time magazine -- yielding an understanding to the man and his hatred of the U.S. hypocrisy in Vietnam that does not exist as clearly in the original version. The French plantation scene also yields some context to the story, although it is not of the story nor does it advance the plot...it's an interlude, sort of like an intermission...I ended up with a much more nuanced understanding of why the war could not be won, at least without an army full of Kurtzes (a scary thought).
Add to all of that bravura cinematography (from the shadows on Kurtz's face to the sheer power of the helicopter attack), the most literary war movie screenplay ever and a cast of geniuses, and you've got a movie that is firmly ensconced in the pantheon of film. Can a rerelease be nominated for Best Picture? (Somehow I don't think 'Gangs of New York' would be much competition).
Also, here's hoping that Coppola releases both versions in the same package on DVD.

Rating:
Summary: Fills in the Blanks
Review: As wonderful as the 1st release was there were holes in the story. There wasn't enough about Kurtz to fully understand his character. There wasn't any catalyst that helped us understand Lance's character. Both of these shortcomings (and more) are rectified in "Redux." Brando's Kurtz is better understood. Although Kurtz was over the edge, now you hear him go in and out of insanity. He was only a little more nuts than anyone else in Viet Nam...a fine line that the film somehow makes clear. Lance's escapade with the sad Playboy Bunny explains how he was touched so deeply. The character of Chef was developed deeper and more clearly. There is also a scene with a French plantation family that Willard & Co. run into on their way up the river. It lends some persepctive of the history and evolution of the Viet Nam conflict through the (stereotypically French) plantation squatters, but you'd better know a little about it yourself in order to follow it, such as knowing the signifigance of Dien Bien Phu. If you don't, look it up before you go. The film still does not discuss the demand that France placed on the US to finance its war in Indochina as a condition for joining of NATO, but the addition of the French element ought to give viewers enough curiosity to go and look up the details. There is also a scene of Willard & Co. stealing one of Kilgore's prized surfboards before they head up river. The scene adds "before" and "after" contrast to the characters in the boat, especially Willard. (There was a sense of humor to start with, and it is re-emphasized in the Playboy Bunny encounter referred to above). By the end, there isn't much separating Willard from Kurtz.
This didn't seem like a 3 1/2 hour movie. The first version made less sense. "Redux" adds the elements and character development that is missing in the original version. Highly recommend.

Rating:
Summary: Insanity is all around and it's not for the squeamish
Review: I didn't see the original "Apocalypse Now" when it wasreleased in 1979. I do remember a bit of the hype around it though. Iwas generally aware of the theme, which was about the horrors of theVietnam war and cast Marlon Brando as a demented former officer whocreated his own little kingdom among the headhunters of Cambodia. Iremember hearing that he received $1 million for his role, whichrequired him to be in the film for a mere half hour. I also rememberthe expression "Charlie don't surf" and had no idea whatthat meant. Most of these memories faded a long time ago. Now, all ofsudden, in 2001, the director, Francis Coppola, has chosen to re-editthe entire film, add 53 minutes of footage that had never been seenbefore, and release it to the theaters. Naturally I had to see it. Isaw the film at the Lincoln Sony in a huge theater, which usually isreserved for IMAX showings. It was a plain old Wednesday evening at6:00 p.m., and yet the theater, which holds easily more than 1,000people, was completely filled. The screen is huge, the sound andphotographic resolution excellent. And so I sat back and let myselfenter the jungle nightmare, depicted with realism and art. It was doneso well that I can certainly understand why it won its only academyawards for cinematography and sound.

Martin Sheen is cast in the leadrole as Captain Benjamin Willard, who is sent on a mission to go intothe jungle, find Colonel Walter Kurtz, played by Brando, and killhim. And so he travels up river with a small crew, which includes ayoung Laurence Fishburne, who was only a teenager at the time. Alongthe way they encounter some stunning examples of the insanitysurrounding them. Robert Duvall is cast as Lt. Colonel Bill Kilgorewho is a surfing enthusiast and we watch him order his men to attack aVietnamese village simply because it borders a beach with good surfingwaves. The word "Charlie" was a slang word for the Viet Congand the expression "Charlie don't surf" was an example ofhis single-minded insanity. He also has a few other great lines thatmade history, such as "I love the smell of napalm in themorning." These lines were in the original version of the filmbut Coppola added some extra footage in this version, which showsMartin Sheen and his crew stealing the Lt. Colonel's surfboard.

Theytravel upriver to a huge army base where a few Playboy playmates areflown in to entertain the troops but have to quickly leave when themen start to rush the stage. Other added footage depicts the smallcrew of Martin Sheen's boat later encountering these playmates in adowned helicopter. Sheen gives them some tanks of fuel in exchange forletting his crew have sex with the women. These scenes might show thedegradation that the women but they are not the only peopledegraded. Everyone in the film is degraded. Gradually, the horrorsaccumulate and Martin Sheen soon finds himself turning into thekind of man who he is hunting. In other scenes that had been editedout of the original, the crew comes upon a colony of French people whoare still living on a plantation in Cambodia. The French help bury acrewmate and invite the group to stay the night. During the elaboratedinner, there is much discussion about the role of Americans inVietnam and a sad eyed and beautiful French widow seducesSheen.

Finally, the crew reaches its destination and more horrorsbegin. There are severed heads around the encampment which Brandorules as if he is a God. In another portion of the film, which wasnever in the original, Sheen is imprisoned in jungle cell while Brandoreads to him from an old "Time" magazine and children watchand giggle. Brando's voice is impressive, as is his demeanor and mostof his role is shot in shadow. The effect is eerie and the eventualscene between Brando and Sheen is an example of great acting.

The filmis 3-1/2 hours long and I was intrigued the whole time. Never once didI feel bored. The story is based on Joseph Conrad's book "Heartof Darkness" and of course it's an allegory, not just about theVietnam war, but about the insanity of war in general. As in many films about Vietnam, it is all from the point of view of the Americans. Except for some very moving footage, which shows the slaughter of the Vietnamese, there is almost nothing about them. They were simply more victims of the insanity of the time. I loved the film though and recommend you see it in a theater if you can. Video or DVD will not do justice to the experience of sitting there and feeling ajungle surrounding you. However, it's not for the squeamish.