Apocalypse now - Page 2

I've looked at Redux twice and now I can safely say that the original cut is superior, IMHO. Leaner, meaner, and just flows much better. I like long movies and director's cuts usually, but for this one I must say the younger Coppola was right on the money. The older Coppola should have left it alone. Er, Spielberg and Lucas are you listening??

Too bad they can't clean up the transfer of the original cut and re-release it (DTS too would be a feather in Paramount's cap!).

Dan

I like the water buffalo in redux.

It had:

1 EACH
BUFFALO, WATER
S/N 12345678

painted on its side.

I just watched Redux for the first time yesterday and although the extra scenes do stand out a bit they are still worthwhile. You can't go wrong with either one or by buying both.

My second favorite of all time.
I own both.

waiting waiting waiting for Hearts of Darkness.I just got a VHS copy on ebay

Any true fan of Apocalypse Now will love Hearts of Darkness!
I have it on laser disk and love watching it.
Coppola on the phone yelling that Martin Sheen is well
if he says he is well and is dead if he says he is dead.
So don't report anything about any heart attack!
Sounds like Coppola might run a film crew like some
military man who thought he was god like??

Does anyone think we will ever get an OAR version of Apocalypse Now (original or Redux)? Rather than the current MAR version which is around 1.95:1 or 2:1.

What's really f$&#ing irritating is that the trailer on the Redux DVD is in the full 2.35:1 aspect ratio, while the film itself is only 2:1!!!!!

I currently own the Redux DVD, but would like to own the original as well, so I'm going to buy it before it disappears. I don't see the original at stores very often. Just the Redux version, which is now down to $14.99 price point.

Is there any possibility of a Super Duper Apocalypse Now special edition featuring the 2.35:1 OAR, both versions of the film and extra features? I strongly doubt it, but you never know. After I've purchased both versions seperately they probably will release that special edition.

Sorry guys, I feel redux is a better cut of the movie...I always felt the orginal cut was a bit rushed...that I was missing something...if the movie is longer in time(too long for some) too bad, I am willing to take the extra time to have the characters develope....As far as transfers go..you are right on..while the first transfer was great....redux is greater,cleaner...a must buy for any fan of the movie..

I saw both under the best possible circumstances, 70MM print in Boston of the original, and Redux in an enormous theater with astounding sound in NYC sitting in the center of the balcony . And yet they were completely different experiences.

The original is a masterpiece for 2 hours and blows it at the end. Redux is probably the worst "director's cut" ever released. If there was ever proof that Coppola really lost it in the jungle, this is it. Every addition is completely boneheaded, from Kurtz sounding exceptionally goofy reading from Time magazine (therefore completely derailing the notion that he is a dark, brooding, and intelligent man who has simply lost it and that invalidates his prsecence as a serious violent threat for the last section of the film), to the French plantation scene which makes it seem as if they have that argument every night, regardless of the presence of the Americans, and it is so poorly edited I wouldn't have even known it was supposed to be a sort of fantasy had I not already seen Hearts of Darkness, to the worst music ever produced for a mainstream motion picture (think of the scene where Willard is making out with the French woman, ugh!). My friend and girlfriend at the time were nudging me to leave from two hours in, I kept insisting that the incredible reviews had to be based on something, and perhaps they could fix the ending. I was very wrong.

And what extra character development do you speak of? The Playboy bunny sex scene? The surfboard scene which is funny, but out of place? Yes, the original was rushed, but from the extra material, it appears that Coppola cut the right fat. Besides we still have Hearts of Darkness (which looks pretty good on LD), better than either cut of the film.

It's been a while since I've seen the original '79 version of Apocalypse Now, but I just watched Redux again and I believe I prefer the original. I like many of the added scenes in Redux, but the French Plantation scene really slows the film down to a crawl. That scene is just a wee bit long, I think. At that point in the film, I think we're pretty much ready to get to the Kurtz Compound. I also think the Playboy Bunnies scene is a bit extraneous, but I like pretty much everything else about Redux, particularly the Technicolor dye-transfer print.

At any rate, Coppola has give movie fans something to debate on forums like this for eternity.

You are right al, its not a perfect movie either way.....but taken a whole...the new additions..add something...to me a deeper meaning...a longer lasting expierence...the plantation additions were critial to exploring the other side...of our hero or antihero.... to me the additions WHEN ADDED AFTER YOU HAVE SEEN THE FIRST CUT TAKE YOU TO A DEEPER LEVEL, a broader expereince..I agree the first cut should be the first cut...but AL does not the additon of this information broaden this giant scope of this classic motion picture

This would be true if the plantation scene were not in fact awful.


COMMENTS REMOVED BY OWNER - DO NOT REPOST


Nope.

I passed on Redux. Can someone describe the additions to the bunny scene?

Likely when 2:1 or 2.35:1 televisions are being sold.

Regarding the bunnies.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

The earlier base scene seems redundant because it parallels the chaotic scene shown later at Do Lung bridge. Since it foreshadows and explains why Willard and crew have to put in at Do Lung, it ends up smoothing out the narrative. However, the pacing of the film is slowed down as well. It is personal taste whether the film is improved or not. If a person is more concerned with the narrative being totally cohesive, then the addition is good. However, if a person is more attuned to the pacing of the film, then the addition acts as a drag anchor. The Base scene also shows the beginnings of Lance going "native".

Damn it. So I have to see the film in a theater to see it OAR? I wish I had seen Redux theatrically back in 2001, but I don't think it even played in my town. Hmmmmmm... Well, if Apocalypse Now ever shows near me, I'm going.

Why are we assuming this? I was under the impression that the reframing had less to do with Univisium and more to do with Storaro's belief that current TV technology is too low-res for full 2.40:1 images, which would open the way for an OAR release if and when HD becomes standard. Or am I misremembering?

Yeah, Apocalypse now IMO is one of the greatest movies in history! Apocalyse Now Redux is one of the biggest screw ups of a movie I have ever seen. The only additional footage of Redux that I like is Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) All the other footage interrupts the perfect flow of the original film. Especially the plantation scene. If that didn't break up the flow of the movie and take it into a totally different direction. Amovie that I though was dark,evil and mysterious sor years gets ruined with the Redux version. I am so upset that I sold my original. I wish they can show the attention and remaster the original to make the video and audio as good or better than it is on the Redux version. That is the ONLY reason to get the Redux version.

I never made a direct comparison but how much better is the audio and video in the Redux version. I know it is better especially on the video side but is it a huge difference on the audio side?

The Zoetrope website has some information on the aspect ratio. I am fine with the 2:1 ratio since it is preferred by both the cinematographer and the director. However, I do understand why people would be upset about it.

Hopefully Paramount will give us a special edition with both cuts of the film, Hearts of Darkness, a Coppola commentary, and the additional deleted scenes (almost an hour worth).



In my opinion that was the worst newly added scene, since it significantly altered Sheen's character.

This is from Zoetrope:



I still disagree, but it's such a great film...I can easily live with it.

I didn't like the plantation scene at all. For one it wasn't that good. In the original as the crew kept getting closer and closer to their destination things kept getting darker and their mental state and situation worsened and worsened. The plantation scene completely broke that up in my opinion as they are seemingly in comfort eating a nice meal...etc...Any of you guys get the same impression...I am no expert on this film...I think I have seen the original twice and the redux once but thats what I noticed. Is the original out of print?

Would someone please answer Jeff Adams' question about whether the sound in redux is improved over the original? I would like the answer to this too.

WARNING: CRANKY OPINIONS AHEAD...

I own Redux and wish I owned the original instead. From my limited experience, "directors' cuts" often take away more than they give, depending on the circumstances...
Let's say a studio interferes with a director's original vision and orders changes, like, say, adding a voice over. Well, by all means, let's have a director's version without the V.O. or whatever.
But sometimes it seems like directors choose to fiddle around with their original films decades later simply because they CAN. (And the growing popularity of the DVD format means there is a market out there.)
For instance, I loved watching Aliens in the theater, but the version I have on DVD has extra scenes inserted that are so clunky and stupid as to be unwatchable. I can't believe they were cut from the original because some overbearing studio exec tampered with the director's vision. It seems more likely that they were added to the DVD version as a marketing gismo, the same way shampoos will come out with a new label marked "New and Improved!"
As another example, I don't want to see annual re-releases of Star Wars with the latest CGI technology inserted, simply because it wasn't available for the last release.
Finally, when a director - like Coppola - seems to have lost almost everything that made him an interesting artist in the first place, the idea of a new director's cut seems even less promising. What's next? Godfather Redux? The Conversation Redux? Coppola, IMO should stick to making wine now and leave his classics alone.

That reminds me, was that buffulo real when they killed it towards the end of the film? Whenever I see that scene, it makes me a bit uneasy, not knowing if it was real or not?

But 16:9 sets aren't square. (Neither are 4:3 sets, of course, but you get my point.) Obviously Storaro isn't happy with the 16:9 ratio but I am still left with the impression that his primary beef is with the resolution; since HDTVs offer both higher resolution and (typically) a wider screen I do not consider it outside the realm of possibility that he will reconsider when HD becomes standard. Of course by that time he could be dead and the decision won't be in his hands anymore..........

The buffalo was real, BTW.

The water buffalo was real. If you can see Hearts of Darkness, they have more about the buffalo. It was part of a tribal ritual that the native extras exercised during the filming. The ritual was filmed and used by Coppola for the climax. So the buffalo was real, but it's not like Coppola asked them "Please kill this buffalo." It was going to be killed anyway for the ritual, so Coppola just stood back and took footage of it.



The special edition has been around for quite a few years, well outdating the advent of DVD. My understanding is that Cameron prefers the special edition of Aliens but chose to cut the film for theaters due to timing and length issues. This is why the extended version is a "Special Edition", not a "Director's Cut" - because he had final cut originally. Same thing with The Abyss - he prefers the special edition but cut the theatrical edition.

BUT, I believe he prefers the tighter theatrical cut of T2 to the extended cut - interesting to note therefore that the first commentary he records is for the extended T2 on the Extreme Edition.