What's new

'Apocalypse Now' voted greatest film of the last 25 years (1 Viewer)

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585
Does anybody have any clue why the second half/ending to Apocalypse Now seems kind of blah?
Um, because it isn't? ;)
I always felt the whole film is driving us to find out what Kurtz's motivation has become so the last half is a real payoff on that (excluding the dragging Redux version). The entire trip is a Kilgore transformation and it requires his meeting with Kurtz to complete it. But perhaps because the narrative goal is slowly evolving from the much clearer "go up the river and get Kurtz" goal into sort of a "find yourself/make sense of the war" goal makes the film more difficult down the stretch, and therefore less taunt from scene to scene. It goes from a catchy dance tempo with obvious rhythm to a alternative jazz riff where the tempo is hidden from us.
I've always found the ending to be like Odysseus or Gilgamesh decending into hell to be tested and then emerge as a stronger warrior.
Yeah, the brooding under-the-eyebrow-stare is another trademark, even Cruise does it for Eyes Wide Shut.
PS - Never get off the boat.
 

Dome Vongvises

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 13, 2001
Messages
8,172
Seth Paxton said:
PS - Never get off the boat.
:D
Anyways, it seems strange though. The last half works differently for me every time. Sometimes it's great, while other times it's really weird.
I get two different impressions everytime I see Kurtz. On one hand, I see a great, but tired warrior whose own country has disowned him for crimes he didn't commit. He's somebody you have great sympathy for. It's easy to see why he has such legendendary statues.
On the other hand, I sometimes see a comedic fat bastard who's such a stark contrast to the legend that the film builds him up to be. It's times like this I wonder if Marlon Brando was right for the role.
 

Rob Tomlin

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2000
Messages
4,506
I sometimes see a comedic fat bastard who's such a stark contrast to the legend that the film builds him up to be. It's times like this I wonder if Marlon Brando was right for the role.
If I remember correctly, wasn't Coppola astonished to see how fat Brando had gotten just prior to when shooting was to begin? I think I remember hearing something to the effect that if Coppola had known previously that Brando had gained so much weight, he would have considered using somebody else in that role.

I also recall that, due to the weight gain, Coppola made a concerted effort to try and show no more of Brando's body than necessary, and kept him "in the dark" as much as possible.

Although Seth said it somewhat tongue and cheek, I agree with his statement that "acting-wise he was" right for the role! Physically, he wasn't!
 

Bill J

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2001
Messages
3,970
If I remember correctly, wasn't Coppola astonished to see how fat Brando had gotten just prior to when shooting was to begin? I think I remember hearing something to the effect that if Coppola had known previously that Brando had gained so much weight, he would have considered using somebody else in that role.
I read somewhere that Brando showed up to the set without reading the script and was 40-50 kg overweight. In "Hearts of Darkness" Coppola considers finding another after Brando threatens to quit and keep his $1 million advance. I think one of Coppola's first choices was Al Pacino, but he refused because he was not comfortable with a long shoot in the Philippines.
 

Rob Tomlin

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2000
Messages
4,506
As far as realism goes, most veterans I have talked to have generally said that Apocalypse Now is the most realistic of the three, mainly because it captures the whole "surreal experience
Virtually evey Marine that I have ever spoken to has said that the Boot Camp portion of Full Metal Jacket was the most accurate depiction they have ever seen in a movie.

But, come to think of it, I don't really recall discussing the degree of realism once they get to Viet Nam. Regardless, the second half certainly works for me, and most definitely "feels" like Viet Nam. Yes, some of the Viet Nam war was actually fought in (*gasp*) the cities!

Thanks for the info re: Pacino, Bill. I knew I had heard/read something to that effect!
 

Bill J

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2001
Messages
3,970
But, come to think of it, I don't really recall discussing the degree of realism once they get to Viet Nam.
My original comment wasn't directed at anyone in particular. I remember reading somewhere that Kubrick's main goal with Full Metal Jacket was to make the most realistic war film ever made. In my opinion the first half achieved this, but the second half failed.
 

Dome Vongvises

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 13, 2001
Messages
8,172
I know lots of people that don't like the second half of Full Metal Jacket although for different reasons than Bill J had just described.
Granted, I was exaggerating my feelings about the second half, and Bill J probably captured my feelings why
As far as realism goes, most veterans I have talked to have generally said that Apocalypse Now is the most realistic of the three, mainly because it captures the whole "surreal experience."
The whole surreal thing is probably what threw me off. The film started out pretty well, and everything seemed to be making sense. Then the whole purple haze and that one guy howling real loud.....got real weird for me. Brando had to pull every acting string in the world to convince me that this old man before us was an Army Ranger badass. It helped that we got to see him behead that cook.
But enough of my silly ramblings. :) There's something nagging me for a while. At one point, one of the interpretations I had was that Kurtz was so sick of the war that he was glad the captain was coming to kill him. This happened when I watched the movie for the first time ever.
 

Dome Vongvises

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 13, 2001
Messages
8,172
Oh yeah, somebody might want to go fetch and get george kaplan to come and talk about Marine training. I think he said something to the effect that it was pretty real.
 

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585
I also recall that, due to the weight gain, Coppola made a concerted effort to try and show no more of Brando's body than necessary, and kept him "in the dark" as much as possible.
Remember the great SNLive sketch that made fun of this (original cast). They had him piled in leaves, surrounded by midgets, etc. Funny as hell.
 

george kaplan

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2001
Messages
13,063
Yes, FMJ does have the most realistic portrayal I've ever seen of Marine Corps Boot Camp. That includes documentaries on the Discovery channel that of necessity leave out a LOT of what goes on, stuff shown in FMJ.

Then again, I went to Boot Camp in 1980, so things might have changed. Supposedly they had changed by then compared to the sixties, but the only thing that I noticed any different was that when my DI beat me up, he did it in private, not in front of anyone else.

As far as the Vietnam experience, I obviously was too young for that, so I can't speak to that.
 
Joined
Nov 2, 2002
Messages
22
One more viewpoint.

I find accusations that the people who voted on this poll are "snobs" to be plain silly. When it is prefixed by "Euro" or "British" then that is just offensive.

I find Apocalypse Now to be one of the most over-rated films ever made and wouldn't put it anywhere near a Top Ten list myself. It has its moments and there are some parts that are well done, but overall I just find I don't trust that many people are really choosing it because they have genuinely compared films. I am sure that on this board, the percentage of people who do know what they're talking about is higher than most places, but I certainly question this one.

One reason I don't like it is due to it having (IMO) one of the most ever-rated actors in it. I think Marlon Brando did some great stuff in the 1950s, but rapidly declined after that and then rode the wave onwards, supported by a reputation that started becoming history. In Apocalypse Now, he mumbles his way along so that I simply don't know half of what he is saying. To me that is a definition of bad acting and I am genuinely amazed when anyone describes it as agreat performance. And for me, he actually reduces the quality of the Godfather films.

While on the over-rated, I may as well add that I think Kubrick is one of the most over-rated directors ever. Some clever camera tricks and a few pretty images just do not make good films to me. I like 2001 though still get annoyed in places, but in all of his other films, I just get bored, some intensely so. Not because they are too challenging or too artistic or too clever, but simply because they are boring. I'm sure that opinion will annoy some, but at least it is my own opinion.

Blade Runner. Apart from being a favourite film (which I regard as a separate thing altogether), I would certainly rate it in any Top Ten - including Best Films of all time. For visuals, for music, for unending depth, for enormous influence, not just on other film, but even on the real world. How can it not be there? It didn't do so great when it first came out for a few reasons - interference of the producers, people expecting Ford to be Han Solo or Indian Jones and competition from the likes of the popular E.T. But it was NOT universally panned as some like to report. For example:
"Flaws and all, it is a minor masterpiece at the least, and anyone looking for a real science fiction film of truly serious intent should go see it."
- Norman Spinrad, Starlog #64, November 1982

So, do I agree with the Sight and Sound list? Of course not. Do I respect their group opinion? Yes, I do. But kept in perspective. Any individual or group can tell you what they think is best, but they can't make you agree, only give you something to talk about.
 

Rob Tomlin

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2000
Messages
4,506
I think Kubrick is one of the most over-rated directors ever. Some clever camera tricks and a few pretty images just do not make good films to me. I like 2001 though still get annoyed in places, but in all of his other films, I just get bored, some intensely so. Not because they are too challenging or too artistic or too clever, but simply because they are boring.
*Ahem*
Paging Jack Briggs. Paging Jack Briggs!
 

andrew markworthy

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 30, 1999
Messages
4,762
I suppose we should be grateful that at least Copolla didn't replace Marlon Brando with his daughter. :D
Re: the second half of Apocalypse Now 'deteriorating'. It *hugely* helps if you read 'Heart of Darkness' (the Joseph Conrad novella, not the documentary) and T.S. Eliot's 'the Hollow Men' (quoted in the film and based on the Conrad novella). The move from the flash bang whizz of helicopter battles and Wagner to a lumpy Marlon Brando reciting poetry is a definite shift in gear, but it has a purpose, and that is to show what lies at the heart of this particular darkness. Some people get on to Copolla's wavelength, some don't. I love this movie (in either version) but I know a lot of folks who think it's flawed because of the shift in pace. Personally, I think because it fails to communicate with the majority of folks, it doesn't really deserve number 1 spot (though it's still a great movie).
 

Steve Christou

Long Member
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2000
Messages
16,333
Location
Manchester, England
Real Name
Steve Christou
Yeah we'd better change the tone of this thread before Jack gets here.
When the BBC first showed 2001 A Space Odyssey back in the early 80's, all the space scenes were in widescreen with a moving 'starfield' where the black bars should be top and bottom, it was horrendous, they made up for it in 1989 when they premiered a super wide copy on BBC2, I think its wider than the copy available now on dvd, it was just a tiny strip of light across my tv screen, and I still have it somewhere, bwahahaha, its mine all mine!!:D
[End of gratuitous 2001 anecdote.]
 

Holadem

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2000
Messages
8,967
I am not sure I would describe Kubrick's style as documentary. Detached yes, but the acting in his movies is way too unnatural to feel real to me. The pauses between lines (A talks. Pause. B replys. Pause. A replies etc...). They feel like puppets to me, as if doing and saying what someone else told them. Traffic, Y tu mama tabien feel like documentaries because the actors are not acting like they are in a movie.


He also has this habbit of shooting a room in such a way that is seems the viewer is peering into a cube. Ah, it's hard to explain. It is as if the camera took the place of one of the walls.

--
Holadem
 

chung_sotheby

Supporting Actor
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
857
Andrew, great comment. But, last I heard, Winona again will not be able to committ to Coppola's new project because of, ahem, personal reasons. ;)
I think that all of Kubrick's films exist in a type of hyper-reality, a slightly dystopian view that is not quite real, but in a surreal way feels real. I always thought of Kubrick movies much like a very, very realistic dream, where you believe and comprehend everything, but something in the back of your mind is telling you that something is not right. While Kubrick's direction may make some dialogue seem a bit forced, other times, this tension in the dialogue is perfect for a scene. I believe the best example of Kubrickian dialogue is the dinner scene between Ryan Oneal(Barry Lyndon) and Hardy Kruger (Captain Potsdorff) in Barry Lydon, where the dialogue is deliberate and tense, and we the viewer do not know why there is so much tension until the end of the scene(I left out all spoilers for those who have not seen the movie).
Kubrick's directorial style may rub some people the wrong way, which is true, but he is in no way overrated. His run of good to great movies was unparalelled. Some people have their own tastes (I, for one, think that Soderbergh is over-rated) but one has to acknowlege the incredible influence and air of greatness that Kubrick has left on the film world.
As far as the last third or so of Apocalypse, one must read Heart of Darkness to fully understand its meaning. While the ending is confusing and enrapturing without having read Conrad, it becomes that much better with the understanding of all the motives involved. Having read Conrad will take the movie to a whole different level.
 

Patrick Larkin

Screenwriter
Joined
May 8, 2001
Messages
1,759
Wow, I have many comments. I'll keep them brief.
On the list:
-Loved Apocalypse Now and don't have a problem with it being #1. Its somewhere on that list, at any rate.
- Blade Runner should not be on the list if only for it having Rutger Hauer in it.
- Brazil, Pulp Fiction, Full Metal Jacket, The Shining, and Eyes Wide Shut all could/should be on the list.
- The Thin Red Line was 3 times the film Saving Private Ryan was...belongs on the list.
- War movies don't always need to be realistic accounts. Kubrick's FMJ is more about the "Shadow" of man and like all of his films, how we all can be so damned evil. Platoon? Wow. I tried watching this recently, and it was just blech. It won't stand up over time....
2001 said:
Clockwork Orange = Perfection of the cinematic medium. And thats not even SK's best film.
 

Todd Phillips

Second Unit
Joined
Oct 15, 2000
Messages
279
I think comedy is routinely underrated on such lists.
I think most comedies don't stand up well over time, and that its much harder to make a classic comedy.

Which ones would you put on the list? (from the last 25 years)

Toy Story 2 is the first one that comes to mind...a film that blew me away when I saw it, and still is good with repeated viewing.

I might add The Princess Bride and A Christmas Story. Amelie was already mentioned.
 

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585
I am of just the opposite opinion. I put more stock in the educated thoughts of a group of experts in a field, than in any one person's opinion (including my own).
This does not mean I will watch what other people tell me to whether I like it or not. It simply means that I DO NOT see my personal list as more important to the world than an expert panel's list.
I don't think anyone else really does either. Plenty of people say that in the end THEIR list is the most important to them. Fine.
But does anyone really think their list is more important TO THE REST OF US than one from an expert panel? I would think that the idea of listening to just one other person would be far less appealing than listening to a group of other people who must temper their opinions with each other at least.
That's what these endeavors boil down to. Otherwise it's just a million film fans each preaching only to themselves, none of them listening to anything the other says. And is there anything more worthless than telling no one but yourself what you think?
I for one find the thoughtful opinions of others not only interesting, but also helpful in increasing my understanding and appreciation of any subject, including film art.
Regarding Brando
I think that both his Godfather and AN roles required him to play the characters soft and subtle. In each case his demeanor is in direct contradiction to his true nature, and that seems to be the point. The methods of these characters involve playing almost comforting at all times, especially to "enemies".
For example, in Godfather it is Sonny that is a disappointment explicitly because of his temper and hostile approach to negotiation. Brando makes his character more dominate by the very fact that he is so subdued despite having such power. It adds weight to the power he holds.
The same holds true for AN I think. Thus the massive following he has attained (I think Kurtz and Corleone are in VERY similar positions of power - similar approaches in tone AND methods - talk soft but enforce in a horrifyingly ruthless manner).
For me it's easy to see why Corleone would be the head boss over characters like we see in Goodfellas.
I just don't see terrible acting in being soft spoken and speaking almost under your breath. In fact I often find over-the-top enunciation to be the most unreal acting around. To me Brando may have gone a bit crazy, but he can act even to this day.
I won't touch Kubrick since I've said enough and I need to leave room for Briggs to say something. :)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top