A Few Words About A few words about...™ Apocalypse Now -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Jim*Tod]

I watched the 1979 version last night and I thought it looked and sounded great. I am somewhat new to blu ray (as in only one month) so obviously I am not going to look at the transfer as critically as many of you.

But Mr. Harris.... for anyone who knows anything about film history, your tidbit about seeing this movie with Abel Gance really does spark interest. Have you written any articles about Gance... I know would love to hear more details about what he thought of APOCALYPSE NOW. I have been fascinated by Gance ever since I read THE PARADE'S GONE BY in the late sixties and in the early 80's was lucky enough to see NAPOLEON at the Kennedy Center with a full orchestra with the finale on a huge screen (a mindbending experience for any real film buff.) If you haven't written about Gance, please consider doing so. He is a great director that too few people know about and I know you would bring great insight to anything you'd have to say.

 

[bosque]

I know Coppola doesn't want to see credits either at the beginning or end of Apocalypse Now (and that is kind of ironic in itself given that he appears to be the one who with The Godfather started what has become, when the credits roll, the current gargantuan list of those who worked on, or were connected with, or have paid for a name check on - a movie). But I watched Apocalypse Now a number of times during its initial run in 1980 and it was always shown with the destruction of the Kurtz compound at the end - so that is how I see the movie ending and anything else is an after-thought, an editing tweak after the movie had already opened. Having the credit sequence only on second disc as a separate feature which cannot be played without Coppola's voice over is kind of irritating for what can now be seen as Coppola's best movie.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

A few days later I'm still thinking about this film.

That's quite amazing for a movie I didn't care
much about for all these years.

Aside from the transfer (which I still contend is
one of the best this year) I am fascinated that
this film was made in the last years before the
introduction of CGI. To watch these thrilling
action sequences and understand that they were
actually staged rather than computerized gives
you a higher appreciation for the filmmaking
process.

I had to laugh at one of the scenes late in
the film when shots were being fired off the
boat. They looked like STAR WARS effects
with the painted in gunfire that looked more
like they were coming from blasters.

There's a place in filmmaking for CGI.
However I have seen some films completely
ruined by it (Star Wars I-III) and others that
it's difficult to tell where reality ends and CGI
begins (Avatar). However, there will always
be an appreciation for films like Apocalypse
Now and all those that came before it for the
spectacular action sequences that were done
with real props.

 

[JonZ]

Platoon features some gunshots that looked the same way during the final battle. Im no expert of military weapons, but Ive seen some footage of gatlin guns firing that do look like lasers.

 

[Geoff_D]

I know what you mean, Ron. Re-watching this, the first three Alien films and the BTTF films on Blu also gave me the same kinda feeling.

 

[Ralphie_B]

Originally Posted by JonZ
Platoon features some gunshots that looked the same way during the final battle. Im no expert of military weapons, but Ive seen some footage of gatlin guns firing that do look like lasers.

I don't think it's uncommon to load tracers every x numbers of rounds, especially on a belt-fed gun, to help the shooter stay on-target.

I just rented AN on Blu-Ray from Netflix over the weekend (no wait, I couldn't believe it!) -- this was my first time seeing the film, and I thought it was great. In fact, it's inspired me to re-read Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness'. But I digress... I guess those gunshots didn't jump out at me; I will have to look closer next time I watch this (and there will be a next time).

 

[Dick]

This sounds outstanding. One possible caveat: does this set not contain the threatrical trailer?

 

[gomezfan69]

It does include the original trailer but not the Redux one.

 

[TommyT]

One thing I've found a bit irritating about the Apoc Now BR: the chapters for the restored Redux footage seem to be missing: there doesn't seem to be chapter stops for the French plantation scene or the extra scenes w/the Playboy bunnies. Am I missing them in the pop-up menu or something?

 

[Dave H]

Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein
A few days later I'm still thinking about this film.

That's quite amazing for a movie I didn't care
much about for all these years.

Aside from the transfer (which I still contend is
one of the best this year) I am fascinated that
this film was made in the last years before the
introduction of CGI. To watch these thrilling
action sequences and understand that they were
actually staged rather than computerized gives
you a higher appreciation for the filmmaking
process.

I had to laugh at one of the scenes late in
the film when shots were being fired off the
boat. They looked like STAR WARS effects
with the painted in gunfire that looked more
like they were coming from blasters.

There's a place in filmmaking for CGI.
However I have seen some films completely
ruined by it (Star Wars I-III) and others that
it's difficult to tell where reality ends and CGI
begins (Avatar). However, there will always
be an appreciation for films like Apocalypse
Now and all those that came before it for the
spectacular action sequences that were done
with real props.

I agree and I think, for example, The Lord of the Rings trilogy did a good job of balance between real props and CGI (although some of the CGI in those movies now looks a bit dated these days).

 

[benbess]

I just watched the documentary Hearts of Darkness for the first time. I thought it was great. I hesitated to watch it because I thought I would come out of it feeling like Francis Ford Coppola was a messed up nut and a jerk. And actually my respect for what he pulled off with this film given the conditions and what he was attempting increased quite a bit. I had no idea Harvey Keitel was first cast in Sheen's part. Sheen does an amazing job, of course. In fact sometimes it's kind of jaw dropping because it's almost beyond acting the way we normally think of it. Sheen asked Coppola at one point, "Who is Willard?" And Coppola said to him, "He's you, Marty. He's you..."
Anyway, I'm glad I got the full disclosure so that I could see this in high def.
I'm now in the middle of watching the conversation between Coppola and Sheen done in 2010. Good stuff. Two talented guys.
I like Kramer vs. Kramer a lot, but I think this one should have won that year. If Deer Hunter hadn't won the previous year it probably would have....
Oh. Back to the documentary, I had no idea all of those severed heads in the Kurtz compound were REAL heads of actors buried up to their necks who had to stay there all day...

 

[Cinescott]

I was probably 20 years old when I saw AN for the 1st time (I'm 47 now). I didn't really "get it" back then. It seemed kind of like a pretentious, overblown bore of a movie. However, as I have aged and revisited it, I can see the artistry all over AN. The metaphors, the imagery, the subtlety of the messages and literary references are all incredibly fun to think about. I do like the theatrical version better, but see the value in the redux scenes. The French plantation, the bunnies, the extended scenes with Kilgore. They're all fascinating to watch and to discern how they change the movie.

 

[Brian Borst]

Originally Posted by Cinescott
I was probably 20 years old when I saw AN for the 1st time (I'm 47 now). I didn't really "get it" back then. It seemed kind of like a pretentious, overblown bore of a movie. However, as I have aged and revisited it, I can see the artistry all over AN. The metaphors, the imagery, the subtlety of the messages and literary references are all incredibly fun to think about. I do like the theatrical version better, but see the value in the redux scenes. The French plantation, the bunnies, the extended scenes with Kilgore. They're all fascinating to watch and to discern how they change the movie.

I agree. I first saw the movie in the Redux version, on DVD. I liked the Redux version, but I fell in love with the theatrical version. Some of the scenes in the Redux work fine on their own (like the plantation scene) but they don't fit in the movie. Most of the added scenes are just too much. Still, it's good to own both cuts.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by Cinescott
The metaphors, the imagery, the subtlety of the messages and literary references are all incredibly fun to think about.

I agree.

 

[Flemming.K]

Sorry, if these images has already been posted. But the difference in detail from, what should be the HBO HDTV showing of an old redux transfer, compared to the blu-ray release, stuns me. There is abundant detail in the HBO shot below and the BD shot looks Patton like in comparison.

Blu-ray: Large: http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/659/an14new.png

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/image/id/610841/width/1000/height/500

HBO HDTV old transfer: Large: http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/5600/an14old.png

 

[Geoff_D]

Those pics ably demonstrates the yellow push too. Seeing AN in 2.35 is a wonderful experience, but the Blu-ray colour timing does its best to dampen my enthusiasm. I'm not saying that this wasn't filmmaker intent or anything like that, just that I HATES it, precious.

DVD/Blu comparisons here (check that YELLOW): http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/index.php?art=full&image=7&vergleich=apocalypse_now&lossless=0#auswahl

 

[Cinescott]

I just do not think screen caps do much to illustrate the quality (or lack of) of a disc. IMO, AN is a very detailed Blu-ray, with rather exemplary quality standards. Yes, there may be a (very) slight shift to yellow, but hardly anything that could draw from the pure spectacle of this movie. I'm frankly not sure why most color shifting happens, but it's rarely been a distraction for me. Perhaps previous versions have been too bright and hidden the color better. Who knows? Even theatrical presentations are not good comparisons, since I imagine prints can vary greatly in quality and "intended look." If this is the way Francis Ford Coppola says it should look, who are we to argue with that?

 

[Lord Dalek]

I'm not sure if a shift from orange to yellow is much of one.

 

[Flemming.K]

Originally Posted by Cinescott
If this is the way Francis Ford Coppola says it should look, who are we to argue with that?

The director has the last word, that's for sure But still I'd chip in a word or two, should I believe that the transfer lacks in quality compared to what is possible to achieve.

Seeing that there is such prominent details inherent in the transfer of Apocalypse Now, that the HBO representation manages to put on display, I myself, sincerely doubt the statements about the softness of the Apocalypse Now filmstock of the 70'ies. There is more grain and detail available in the HBO transfer and as such, in the light of this, I find the BD to be a dull visual release. It is hailed for qualities some other releases from the 70'ies are often criticized for. I'd prefer an All the Presidents Men transfer, grainy and true to the source over this.

 

[Richard--W]

When Apocalypse Now was new, I couldn't get enough of it. Each time I saw it, I experienced another layer of meaning I hadn't perceived the previous time. The image before me kept revealing new details. It seemed to me perfect cinema. The emotional pitch at which the drama is played, the composition and music, the imagery, the light and darkness, worked on me like hypnosis. It still does.
My first impression of the Full Disclosure Edition is that the theatrical version is too bright and overly tinted with green and yellow. It just might ruin the film for me. I'll take another look tonight.