Apocalypse now (1 Viewer)

[BarryS]

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.

 

[Mehdy]

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

 

[Al Stuart]

Quote:

Nope.

 

[Josh Davidson]

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

 

[Patrick McCart]

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.

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

 

[Edwin-S]

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".

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

The aspect ratio for 65mm origination or 70mm blow-up is 2.21:1.
If Storaro and Coppola are happy with the 2:1 Univisium reframing, then there isn't much you can do about. Believe me when I say that you will never see this film on home-video in it's original 2.40:1 framimg. That descision was made a long time ago, and there have been many chances to revise that descision and it has never happened. It's Storaro and his Univisium. Tucker is also 2:1 on DVD and it looks great, but Apocalypse Now suffers badly in some shots; the legendary 'Ride Of The Valkyries' sequence is mighty impressive in high-quality 35mm/70mm projection, but on DVD... it's still good, but nothing beats the big screen, in this case.
The 'Redux' cut is a cinematic abortion, in my opinion. A bloated, awkward, self-indulgent version of an already self-indulgent film.
The orignal is a crazed masterpiece, perhaps the last American film of the Seventies - Heaven's Gate put the nail in the coffin of self-indulgent, personal epics.
Sorry for the rant!
Gordy

 

[BarryS]

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.

 

[Jean-Michel]

Believe me when I say that you will never see this film on home-video in it's original 2.40:1 framimg.

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?

 

[Jeff Adams]

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 iswhere it shows the surf board getting stolen and Robert Duvall serching for them and trying to get it back.
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.

 

[Jeff Adams]

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?

 

[Bill J]

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.

 

[Dharmesh C]

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

 

[JakeMcM]

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?

 

[Dharmesh C]

Yes, the original is OOP and I don't think it will be re-released ever again according to Francis. You can still buy the original, but as far as I'm aware, no more are being pressed.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Sorry, Jean-Michel, maybe I am assuming a bit too much, but it just seems to me that Storaro likes the 2:1 reframing too much to let it go and let the 2.40:1 framing return. The film looks great in its original framing in a high-quality 35mm/70mm screening - it would be great to see it on DVD/HD-DVD, but I remain sceptical. Sorry!
I'm more eager to see The Conformist on DVD. Storaro's cinematography in that film is in a class of its own.
Gordy

 

[James Zos]

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.

 

[Robert_eb]

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?

 

[Jean-Michel]

the 2.0:1 transfer is the best possible compromise in adapting the very wide film picture to the very "square" TV.

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.

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

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!"

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.