Last Movie You Watched.

[MiamiPhish]

Watching Apoc for your first time, at night = amazing amazing movie life experience.  What a film.

[Hicks]

Hamburger Hill.

Probably the best and most accurate depiction of the Vietnam War.  Great movie.

most accurate? for all i know. best? hell no! try watching Apocalypse Now. or Full Metal Jacket.

Apocalypse Now is less about Nam and more about a complete psychopath and the man sent to kill him.  Full Metal Jacket is awesome...  no doubt about it.

Indeed Apocalypse Now just happens to be set in Nam, it's more about war and the madness it causes in general. 

It's bigger than that. It's not just about the madness of war, it's about the madness of man.

Sure, sure but since all of the characters are engaged in war then it becomes a chicken or the egg debate.  Are they crazy because they are in the middle of a war, or was the insanity always there and was it the root cause of war in the first place?

mind=bl0wn!  :-D

Apocolypse Now is based on the book "Heart of Darkness" which focuses on the themes of the absurdity of evil, the hypocrasy of Imperialism, and the madness as a result of imperialism.   Kurtz from the novel deals with Imperialism; Kurtz from the movie deals with the US involvement in the war.

The movie uses the setting of the war to illustrate these themes, so it's not the chicken or the egg, it's just a avenue to illustrate these ideas.
Sheen's character is not "involved in the war" as his mission is to get Kurtz.  Involvment in the war along the way is another symbol of the movie.
In the novel, the Congo river is the symbol of the white man's ability to get into Africa and not be a part of the what is going on around him.  The same goes for Sheen's character who uses the river to get to places he should not be, allowing him to do so without be part of the war around him.  The struggles on the river in both the movie and the novel symbolize the struggle the main character is having with understanding Kurtz.

edit: It is still a mind blowing movie...

Thanks for the literature lesson, but the movie only takes the bare bones plot from the book so I think we can analyze the film on its own. 

[Mr Minor]

Hamburger Hill.

Probably the best and most accurate depiction of the Vietnam War.  Great movie.

most accurate? for all i know. best? hell no! try watching Apocalypse Now. or Full Metal Jacket.

Apocalypse Now is less about Nam and more about a complete psychopath and the man sent to kill him.  Full Metal Jacket is awesome...  no doubt about it.

Indeed Apocalypse Now just happens to be set in Nam, it's more about war and the madness it causes in general. 

It's bigger than that. It's not just about the madness of war, it's about the madness of man.

Sure, sure but since all of the characters are engaged in war then it becomes a chicken or the egg debate.  Are they crazy because they are in the middle of a war, or was the insanity always there and was it the root cause of war in the first place?

mind=bl0wn!  :-D

Apocolypse Now is based on the book "Heart of Darkness" which focuses on the themes of the absurdity of evil, the hypocrasy of Imperialism, and the madness as a result of imperialism.   Kurtz from the novel deals with Imperialism; Kurtz from the movie deals with the US involvement in the war.

The movie uses the setting of the war to illustrate these themes, so it's not the chicken or the egg, it's just a avenue to illustrate these ideas.
Sheen's character is not "involved in the war" as his mission is to get Kurtz.  Involvment in the war along the way is another symbol of the movie.
In the novel, the Congo river is the symbol of the white man's ability to get into Africa and not be a part of the what is going on around him.  The same goes for Sheen's character who uses the river to get to places he should not be, allowing him to do so without be part of the war around him.  The struggles on the river in both the movie and the novel symbolize the struggle the main character is having with understanding Kurtz.

edit: It is still a mind blowing movie...

Thanks for the literature lesson, but the movie only takes the bare bones plot from the book so I think we can analyze the film on its own. 

In that case, I would still argue that the movie is not about Vietnam and the struggles of war, but more of the struggles of Colonel Kurtz and his disagreement of the U.S. government and their ways.  Kurtz is doing the things he is doing because of his disillusionment of the government.  He doesn't believe the government is being effective and he has taken matters into his own hands.

Regardless of how much of the novel was used for the movie, it's the themes and symbolism that are the same.  By analyzing the themes of the movie you have also analyzed the themes of the novel.

[rowjimmy]

Hamburger Hill.

Probably the best and most accurate depiction of the Vietnam War.  Great movie.

most accurate? for all i know. best? hell no! try watching Apocalypse Now. or Full Metal Jacket.

Apocalypse Now is less about Nam and more about a complete psychopath and the man sent to kill him.  Full Metal Jacket is awesome...  no doubt about it.

Indeed Apocalypse Now just happens to be set in Nam, it's more about war and the madness it causes in general. 

It's bigger than that. It's not just about the madness of war, it's about the madness of man.

Sure, sure but since all of the characters are engaged in war then it becomes a chicken or the egg debate.  Are they crazy because they are in the middle of a war, or was the insanity always there and was it the root cause of war in the first place?

mind=bl0wn!  :-D

Apocolypse Now is based on the book "Heart of Darkness" which focuses on the themes of the absurdity of evil, the hypocrasy of Imperialism, and the madness as a result of imperialism.   Kurtz from the novel deals with Imperialism; Kurtz from the movie deals with the US involvement in the war.

The movie uses the setting of the war to illustrate these themes, so it's not the chicken or the egg, it's just a avenue to illustrate these ideas.
Sheen's character is not "involved in the war" as his mission is to get Kurtz.  Involvment in the war along the way is another symbol of the movie.
In the novel, the Congo river is the symbol of the white man's ability to get into Africa and not be a part of the what is going on around him.  The same goes for Sheen's character who uses the river to get to places he should not be, allowing him to do so without be part of the war around him.  The struggles on the river in both the movie and the novel symbolize the struggle the main character is having with understanding Kurtz.

edit: It is still a mind blowing movie...

Thanks for the literature lesson, but the movie only takes the bare bones plot from the book so I think we can analyze the film on its own. 

In that case, I would still argue that the movie is not about Vietnam and the struggles of war, but more of the struggles of Colonel Kurtz and his disagreement of the U.S. government and their ways.  Kurtz is doing the things he is doing because of his disillusionment of the government.  He doesn't believe the government is being effective and he has taken matters into his own hands.

Regardless of how much of the novel was used for the movie, it's the themes and symbolism that are the same.  By analyzing the themes of the movie you have also analyzed the themes of the novel.

It's not disillusionment with the government. Its the derangement of power.
It's the savage within unleashed and the greater savage rising to the top.
The journey upriver is a trip deeper into the madness and savagery of man but notice that Copolla makes a point of showing that, back in the world, things aren't quite sane. They're just constrained by regulations.

[cactusfan]

Hamburger Hill.

Probably the best and most accurate depiction of the Vietnam War.  Great movie.

most accurate? for all i know. best? hell no! try watching Apocalypse Now. or Full Metal Jacket.

Apocalypse Now is less about Nam and more about a complete psychopath and the man sent to kill him.  Full Metal Jacket is awesome...  no doubt about it.

Indeed Apocalypse Now just happens to be set in Nam, it's more about war and the madness it causes in general. 

It's bigger than that. It's not just about the madness of war, it's about the madness of man.

Sure, sure but since all of the characters are engaged in war then it becomes a chicken or the egg debate.  Are they crazy because they are in the middle of a war, or was the insanity always there and was it the root cause of war in the first place?

mind=bl0wn!  :-D

Apocolypse Now is based on the book "Heart of Darkness" which focuses on the themes of the absurdity of evil, the hypocrasy of Imperialism, and the madness as a result of imperialism.   Kurtz from the novel deals with Imperialism; Kurtz from the movie deals with the US involvement in the war.

The movie uses the setting of the war to illustrate these themes, so it's not the chicken or the egg, it's just a avenue to illustrate these ideas.
Sheen's character is not "involved in the war" as his mission is to get Kurtz.  Involvment in the war along the way is another symbol of the movie.
In the novel, the Congo river is the symbol of the white man's ability to get into Africa and not be a part of the what is going on around him.  The same goes for Sheen's character who uses the river to get to places he should not be, allowing him to do so without be part of the war around him.  The struggles on the river in both the movie and the novel symbolize the struggle the main character is having with understanding Kurtz.

edit: It is still a mind blowing movie...

Thanks for the literature lesson, but the movie only takes the bare bones plot from the book so I think we can analyze the film on its own. 

In that case, I would still argue that the movie is not about Vietnam and the struggles of war, but more of the struggles of Colonel Kurtz and his disagreement of the U.S. government and their ways.  Kurtz is doing the things he is doing because of his disillusionment of the government.  He doesn't believe the government is being effective and he has taken matters into his own hands.

Regardless of how much of the novel was used for the movie, it's the themes and symbolism that are the same.  By analyzing the themes of the movie you have also analyzed the themes of the novel.

you're all forgetting when the movie was made. the vietnam war had just ended. it had been an incredibly pervasive presence for years and years. the movie doesn't just 'happen' to be set in vietnam for convenience sake. it channels the madness and anger and cultural impact of that war. how could it not?

while it may primarily be about the madness of man, it works in a brilliant way to create the feeling of that war. obviously it doesn't attempt to literally 'depict' exactly how it went down. coppola had no interest in that. but did van gogh have an interest in 'literally' showing what a starry night looked like? no. that's not what art does. van gogh painted in a way totally 'unreal' but in a way that gets at the heart of what he's depicting far more effectively, more emotionally, than someone who painted in a 'real' way.

so it is with apocalypse. the other movies mentioned do indeed give you a better sense of exactly 'what people did' and 'how people did those things' when they were actually fighting that war. but in terms of communicating the emotional and cultural resonances of the war and the people fighting it, apocalypse is far superior.

full metal jacket faced much of the same criticism, that it wasn't 'real', that it didn't really happen like that. especially since it came out about six months after the hyper-'real' Platoon. but again, full metal jacket is brilliant in communicating the hopeless madness pervasive in that conflict. or, as kubrick would certainly want you to extrapolate, in any such conflict. it's just a bunch of little kids shooting each other and singing mickey mouse songs...

like everything oliver stone touches, platoon ages like milk. not a fan.

speaking of kubrick and war movies, see Paths of Glory. it's even more subversive than Dr. Strangelove, though waaay more subtle about it.

[VA $l!m]

-- i watched the cable TV premiere of the last XMEN movie the other nite. 1st time since i saw it in the theatres.
wow, this movie is SUCH a shame. especially after the quality of the first two. what a horrible horrible horrible piece of crap. such a letdown, with all the potential and momentum they had with the first two XMEn movies.
i'm a HUGE XMEN comics fan and this movie just came to my house and shitted on my rug.
thanks.

hopefully the upcoming WOlverine movie wont dissapoint me as much. though i'm not holding my breath after watching what they did with their last opportunity.

[blatboom]

-- i watched the cable TV premiere of the last XMEN movie the other nite. 1st time since i saw it in the theatres.
wow, this movie is SUCH a shame. especially after the quality of the first two. what a horrible horrible horrible piece of crap. such a letdown, with all the potential and momentum they had with the first two XMEn movies.
i'm a HUGE XMEN comics fan and this movie just came to my house and shitted on my rug.
thanks.

hopefully the upcoming WOlverine movie wont dissapoint me as much. though i'm not holding my breath after watching what they did with their last opportunity.

that's funny.  I loved the first two and I've had the 3rd on DVD for a while but I can't bring myself to watch it because I know how much it sucks and I won't be able to unsee it.  Shows how important Bryan Singer's vision was to the quality of the first two.

[Hicks]

Back to Apocalypse Now, does anybody else actually prefer the Redux?

In the original the pacing of the movie is so break-neck that when it comes to a screeching halt when Sheen reaches Kurtz that it's a bit jarring.  We've been swept through the story so rapidly that the scenes with Brando feel kinda slow to me.

In the Redux some of the extra scenes, especially the plantation sequence, do a great job of evening out the overall pacing of the movie as well as adding some more character depth. 

[mattstick]

There was a 6-hour edit of Apocalypse Now released recently.  That should change up the pacing for ya...

I do prefer the Redux, although I hate how it's split over 2 DVDs.

[rowjimmy]

Aside from the scene with the playboy bunnies that was added... I think the new scenes enhance the film. The added bunny sequence seems gratuitous and does nothing for the film other than add boobies.

[cactusfan]

Back to Apocalypse Now, does anybody else actually prefer the Redux?

In the original the pacing of the movie is so break-neck that when it comes to a screeching halt when Sheen reaches Kurtz that it's a bit jarring.  We've been swept through the story so rapidly that the scenes with Brando feel kinda slow to me.

In the Redux some of the extra scenes, especially the plantation sequence, do a great job of evening out the overall pacing of the movie as well as adding some more character depth. 

weird. i really don't like the redux at all. it feels like i'm watching apocalypse now and then taking a break to watch some weird scene before going back to the real movie. i find it kind of absurd to take a great movie that's existed for years and years and then to say, okay, here's some more scenes. it's too late. the movie works perfectly as is.

[Mr Minor]

Back to Apocalypse Now, does anybody else actually prefer the Redux?

In the original the pacing of the movie is so break-neck that when it comes to a screeching halt when Sheen reaches Kurtz that it's a bit jarring.  We've been swept through the story so rapidly that the scenes with Brando feel kinda slow to me.

In the Redux some of the extra scenes, especially the plantation sequence, do a great job of evening out the overall pacing of the movie as well as adding some more character depth. 

I totally agree.  I went and watched it in the theater and it blew me away.

Aside from the scene with the playboy bunnies that was added... I think the new scenes enhance the film. The added bunny sequence seems gratuitous and does nothing for the film other than add boobies.

Werd.

[Ri©h]

Aside from the scene with the playboy bunnies that was added... I think the new scenes enhance the film. The added bunny sequence seems gratuitous and does nothing for the film other than add boobies.

Honestly when I saw that added scene I thought the same thing.  It does nothing but add boobs. Not that there's anything wrong with that.   :-D

[MiamiPhish]

Wow, most people I've talked to, myself included, think that the original Apocalypse Now is a better film than the Redux...
The playboy bunny scene I never really minded, another horrifying depiction of the conditions we faced in 'nam.  The whole part with the french plantation, on the other hand, is long, superfluous and boring! imo, of course.
The original just seems more focused and better paced to me.

[Hicks]

I really like the French plantation scene, it gives a glimpse into the human side of Sheen's character and also throws a bone of hope into the mix, suggesting that people can live peacefully and with sanity given the right conditions, and there's more boobs! 

Plus like I said before the whole reason I think it works is it slows down the movie and prepares us a bit for Brando's mumbly trainwreck of a performance at the end.