Apocalypse Now (1979) User Reviews

War, What is it Good For...

[Xstal · 9/10 · 16 December 2022]

Colonel Kurtz has disappeared within the jungle, with his troupe of fighting fiends ready to rumble, you've been tasked to take him out, but first you have to search and scout, along a river where the residents are disgruntled (to put it mildly). Lots of bloodshed, bullets, ballistics then flow, there's napalm too that conjures up a glow, many lives are lost and taken, in this hell where you're forsaken, but don't ask why - because nobody, really, knows.

Still a spectacular piece of filmmaking that demonstrates on many levels the destruction, physical and mental that armed conflict causes, and yet we perpetually fail to learn from past events.

Coppola conveyed the drama and spectacle of this truly outstanding film

[Nazi_Fighter_David · 9/10 · 11 December 2008]

After the success of the first two 'Godfather' films in 1972 and 1974 respectively, Francis Ford Coppola embarked on an ambitious attempt to bring home the reality of the war in Vietnam, which had concluded with the fall of Saigon to the Vietcong in 1975… The plot was loosely based on the book 'Heart of Darkness,' a story by Joseph Conrad about Kurtz, a trading company agent in the African jungle who has acquired mysterious powers over the natives…Coppola retains much of this, including such details as the severed heads outside Kurtz's headquarters and his final words, "The horror… the horror…"

In the film, Sheen plays an army captain given the mission to penetrate into Cambodia, and eliminate, with "extreme prejudice," a decorated officer who has become an embarrassment to the authorities… On his journey up the river to the renegade's camp he experiences the demoralization of the US forces, high on dope or drunk with power…

Although, as a result of cuts forced on Coppola, the film was accused of incoherence when first released, it was by the most serious attempt to get to grips with the experience of Vietnam and a victorious reinvention of the war film genre… In 1980 the film won an Oscar for Best Cinematography and Best Sound…

"Apocalypse Now" was re-released in 2001 with fifty minutes restored… As a result, the motion picture can now be seen as the epic masterpiece it is

Crumbles under its own weight

[Vartiainen · 7/10 · 5 May 2015]

I have nothing but respect for Francis Ford Coppola. He is deservedly one of the greatest directors of all time and his style of film-making is pretty much inimitable. Yet I can't really say I enjoyed this movie. At least not the Redux version I saw.

First the good parts. It's a damn beautiful film. The mood, as they slowly drift up the Vietnamese river, keeps building and building and you can smell the heat and wetness in the air, feel the sweat dripping down your back, hear the hollow echoing screaming around you. The script was heavily inspired by the classic novella Heart of Darkness and that's exactly the mood and atmosphere they achieved.

The acting is also topnotch, with one glaring exception, and I've never seen Charlie Sheen do a more convincing role than here. You can almost see the cracks in their souls as the heaviness of the war settles around them as they are pulled from combat and send to face almost certain deaths as they hunt their elusive quarry.

It's a well-made film. Everything from camera-work to sets to directing works, and works so well, but the fact remains that's it's just too long. At least the Redux version. You can only stretch the atmosphere and suspense for so long until you start to look at the clock. That's partly the purpose and to this film's credit, any other film would have crumbled way sooner, but crumble it does, eventually.

I also have problems with Marlon Brando's performance. Apparently the man showed up hugely overweight, completely unprepared and pretty much being as unprofessional as you can be. And it shows. The final third of the film throws the suspense straight out of the window and pretty much the only question left is "Brando, what happened, man?"

I can see why people love this film. It's a haunting take on war, has amazing atmosphere, vivid imagery, memorable characters and as a whole there are very few movies like it. Personally I lost interest after the halfway point, but that's just me.

This Is the End...

[notoriousCASK · 10/10 · 23 March 2018]

Apocalypse now is not only the best war film ever made but it's also one of the best films of all time as it won the prestigious Palme d'Or at Cannes and it's constantly recognized as a benchmark in cinematic history. Based on the novel "Hearts of darkness" by Joseph Conrad this film is not so much about the Vietnam war, it is about war in general and serves as a deep study into the dark places of the human soul and how war can affect the individual. Apocalypse now depicts a timeless story about a universal human struggle, the duality of man, consisting of morality, the savage primordial instinct and what every person chooses to base his actions upon.

The film has a simple premise, US Army Captain Benjamin Willard (Martin Sheen) is ordered on a dangerous mission into Cambodia through a river, to assassinate a renegade, Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando), who has gone insane and set himself up as a god among the local native tribe. It's an accessible premise, allowing for the film to be consumed by even the most casual movie watchers, and yet this film is anything but shallow. It's a journey into madness and hysteria, an observation into the darkness of humanity. I could write a book analyzing this film, there's just so much to talk about. My interpretation is that the river is not only the passage to find Kurtz but also the descent into madness and a reflection to the character's inner journey towards evil that is accomplished through the main theme of the movie, dehumanization. The journey through the river is also reminiscent of Dante's perilous journey through unspeakable surroundings and horrors. There are three major stops before Kurtz and each stop on the river furthers the dehumanization that war has brought, as well as implanting a new type of evil to the characters.

The first stop is with lieutenant Kilgore. That stop shows that Kilgore and his soldiers have been consumed by the love of war after they dehumanized the enemy. Their love of war has blinded them so much that they see no negative and can't comprehend the consequences the war will bring. In one scene of the movie, the "heroic" marching of the helicopters to lay wrath upon their enemies, Captain Kilgore uses Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries to pump his soldiers and scare his enemies and like the mythical creatures Valkyries, he is the decider of who lives and who dies on the battle. At this stage, although everyone has removed any shred of humanity from the enemy, they still understand the innocent.

The second stop is the USO show where we see the loss of morality as well as the dehumanization of the innocent. At this stop we see that a soldier dehumanized everyone aside from himself, becoming very selfish and losing any compassion for anyone but themselves. The soldiers that have passed through this stop would be willing to put anyone at risk for their instant gratification. Now as the characters go deeper into the river metaphorically they go deeper into themselves to explore their own evils which are becoming more apparent. The last stop before Kurtz is the Do-long Bridge and it's at this point that a soldier has gone too far, he's experienced so much trauma and so much evil that he lost grip with his own sanity and thus he dehumanized himself and can't return to a normal state of mind.

The final stop on the journey is Kurtz, at this point only Willard and Kurtz have passed the madness stage and they are competing for the heart of darkness, the ultimate evil that we all have the capacity to have. Kurtz is in possession of the heart of darkness as he associates evil with strength. Bypassing the madness stage he's able to see the world for what it truly is, filled with hypocrites and he decides to bury his hatred and simply act on instinct. Willard at the end of the film rises from the river reborn as a new man ready to obtain the heart himself. He kills Kurtz and leaves the compound with his heart corrupted. In the end Willard has a choice, succumb to evil and stay in the compound having taken Kurtz's place as the leader of the savages or abandoning them into their fates...throwing his weapon, he emerges from the bottomless pit he had fallen through the heart of darkness and by saving Lance and choosing not to exterminate the tribe, he has completed his personal journey and tested his soul to the very limit. Both of them at any point could have just stopped but they didn't, they wanted to explore the depths of their souls and just how much further they could go.

The film presents this study of the human psyche through Carmine Coppola's eerie score, hypnotic images, and some haunting scenes, essentially taking the viewer into the depths of hell. It's here where Coppola succeeds the most. His ability to create a living "hell" is so amazing, and it perfectly captures the mindset of the soldiers. It provides a commentary on war and religion, making the subtext even vaster. The film is weirdly beautiful and a true picture of the evil and hell from within ourselves.

The cinematography by Vittorio Storaro is phenomenal and it provides a hallucinatory feeling throughout the film's runtime - from the faces of the losing minds covered in endless sweat, and the sight of figures within the shadows to a dark trenched riverbank - everything is captured in a stunning manner, conveying the hellish imagery and still taking the viewer's breath away. Coppola's direction transcends itself, the camerawork is at its absolute best when it comes to the use of lighting and shadows, most notable during Col. Kurtz's first appearance. The troubled production obviously didn't hurt the film at all, and most likely increased the dark quality it portrays. Apocalypse Now is beautifully haunting, utterly hellish, terrifyingly intelligent, and magnificently wrought, it slowly pushes you into the horror and absurdity of war, but also its meaningfulness and beauty. Not only is this one of the best films ever made, it's a psychoanalytical journey into places none of us would dare to venture to on our own. It is Francis Ford Coppola's magnum opus as he sacrificed everything to make it work. Rightfully deserving its place as one of the greatest on the cinematic pantheon, immortal for its contribution to cinema, and a truly unforgettable experience, Apocalypse Now is cinema at its most complete, crystalline and pure.

In my opinion, Coppola's best work

[jokeco68 · 10/10 · 21 December 2004]

My favourite movie of all time. This was a flawed piece of work by Coppola and seeing the documentary 'Heart of Darkness' made it even more compelling. Coppola at this point was king of Hollywood after making 'the Godfather' and 'GodfatherII' and had developed the ego necessary to even dare try to make a movie like 'Apocalypse Now'. Through sheer arrogance he went to the Phillipines with a partial script and thought he would know what he would do when he got there. Just as Captain Willard thought he would know what to do once he got to Col. Kurtz's compound. And just like Willard, he DIDN'T know what he was going to do once he got there. This is such a masterpiece of American cinema, beautifully photographed and the river is such a perfect metaphor and backdrop for the story. What I like most about 'Apocalypse Now' is that it offers no answers or conclusions. Consequently, because of this open-endedness, it infuriates some viewers who like their movies to be much more obvious.

This movie defies categorization. Some call it a war movie which it isn't at all, really it is more of a personal study of man. The best pic about Vietnam is 'Platoon' in my opinion and if a viewer is seeking a retelling of the Vietnam War go there first for answers.

Coppola should be commended for his take on the bureaucracy of war which he conveys quite effectively with the meeting with Gen.Corman and Lucas (Harrison Ford) and the Playmate review. The sheer audacity of Kilgore makes him an unforgettable character and the dawn attack will always be a Hollywood classic.

It is an almost psychedelic cruise to a very surreal ending which makes it a movie not accessible to everyone. Very challenging to watch but rewarding as well. I could offer my explanations on each scene but that would be totally pointless. This movie is intended for interpretation and contemplation as opposed to immediate gratification.

A little footnote, definitely if your a first-time viewer of Apocalypse Now, watch the original version first, the 'Redux' version is, I think, more intended for the hardcore fan and is more of a curiosity than a 'new and improved' version of the movie

Apocalypse Now Redux ought to be treated separately here

[GOPC · 10/10 · 2 September 2005]

As I stated above, I think that the 2000 version of the film ought to be treated separately. The Redux is not just a longer version. It contains two new and important scenes, and one of them, the "french" episode, adds a whole new touch to a classic movie, WITHOUT breaking the atmosphere or disturbing the overall picture. I remember as I saw the Redux for the first time, that my whole understanding of the war in Vietnam changed, and how I had to go to the library and get an update on a few things. Also it is interesting that Coppola chose the year 2000 for the longer Redux. My guess is that he feels that the movie is as important today as it was back in 1979. He even went to the trouble of making an excellent piece of art even better, in order to actually make all the old fans see the new stuff, and to present a whole new generation with a very controversial and strong comment on one of the most bloody wars in recorded history. The movie is thought-provoking indeed, but also it has a visually very beautifully composed screenplay. Capturing the madness and chaos of war the storyline is also filled with more or less obvious metaphors and philosophical or existential riddles. A friend of mine called it "the most philosophical of all movies" - perhaps an overstatement - in my opinion it is just a very good film about war and the politics of war. But I can see that there is plenty for everyone here. What I'm saying is that it's one of those movies that you are likely to hear distinctly different opinions about, and you are most probably going to think again and again about it. I've seen the Redux 5, 6 or 7 times, and it is always a puzzling experience. Highly recommended.

Redux: still brilliant - but now with new strengths and weaknesses

[bob the moo · 27 March 2004]

In an updating of `Hearts of Darkness' a soldier is given a mission to travel up a river During the Vietnam war in order to terminate the command of Colonel Kurtz. Kurtz is operating without orders and is leading a group of natives in brutal violent strikes against the enemy. Despite his history of brilliance and decoration he has clearly gone mad. Willard joins a military boat and travels up river to his destiny. However the further he travels the more madness appears to have become the norm.

That Redux was going to be anything less than brilliant was never in doubt: it was never going to be so different from the original that it would destroy or significantly damage the reputation or impact that the film has. What was in question to my mind was whether or not Coppola should have just left well enough alone. I have seen the documentary about the making of the original film, wherein Coppola derides many of his scenes and decides to cut them out of his movie even as he finishes shooting them - the plantation scene being one of the key ones that he felt just didn't work. It was for this reason that I was interested to see what the additions and rejigging of scenes had done to the film.

The strengths of Redux is that Apocalypse Now was never about the straight story, it was more about the journey Willard undertakes rather than a build up to a traditional conclusion - while the ending is big, it is no more or less important that anything that has gone before it. So for that reason it is a good thing that, simply put, there is now more of the journey to be enjoyed! `49 minutes of new material' my dvd cover screams at me; combine this with the movement of scenes and certainly it does have the feel of a different (albeit familiar) film rather than just a bit of spit and polish with some new CGI effects (yes ET, I'm looking at you). However this increased material also brings with it the problems that not all the material compliments the film in terms of total quality.

None of the added scenes or sequential movements are bad or even average, they are all interesting, but some just don't seem to really fit. The plantation scene has some great dialogue (that strikes a real chord so recently post-Iraq) and it makes it's points but it just didn't seem to fit. I can see what Coppola was trying to do and, if you watch Hearts Of Darkness, you can see that it frustrates him that it doesn't work, but he got it right first time, it doesn't fit despite it's standalone merits. Likewise the playboy bunny scene intrigued me as I tried to get more from the bunny's semi-speech about being made to do things and the theme of objectification, but again it didn't totally work and seemed out of place.

Despite these two major scenes not totally fitting, they are still interesting and, if you came for the journey, then that is what matters and they present themselves as a flawed part of that journey - but a part of that journey nonetheless. Some of the smaller additions actually contribute a lot more to the film. Little moments in the boat show Willard to be more relaxed as a man than the original did - and this greatly benefits my understanding and appreciation of his character. How he interacts with the rest of the crew is also improved. Other minor additions to existing scenes serve to enhance them, but improvement in some areas is difficult when it comes to this film.

I won't go into details on cast, performances and the themes of the film as I have already done that in my other review. Suffice to say that, if you loved Apocalypse Now then Redux will likely both enhance your enjoyment and slightly irritate you at the same time. The film easily stands up to the longer running time - as another user said, I could easily give the five hour version a stab (well, maybe once!) as the journey is the all. The additions may not be without flaw, but then that's why they were higher on the editing hierarchy than the rest of the stuff! However they add interest and minutes to the journey - both of which are good things.

Overall, it is very difficult to take `one of the best films ever madeT ' and make it better - and Coppola hasn't done that here, but he hasn't damaged it either. It isn't a brand new film and it doesn't mess around with the original so much that it could be called a different film - so I won't compare the two as to which is `better'. Suffice to say that, while I don't totally agree that you `can't have too much of a good thing', certainly an extra 49 minutes is gratefully received where it doesn't damage or cheapen but only seeks to enhance and support.

The Dark Side of Man

[ramstar22 · 10/10 · 14 August 2005]

Francis Ford Coppola's "Apocalypse Now" is not a Vietnam War film. Do not confuse it with one. It is set to the back drop of the war, but it is a metaphorical exposition on the deteriorating effects that war has on the human psyche. It is also one of the most audacious films ever made, produced, or even conceived (second to the Lord of the Rings trilogy. To call it a masterpiece would be an understatement of proportions as ambitious as the film's production levels.

Opening with no credits and following a memorable first scene playing to the tune of the Doors "The End" as Martin Sheen's Captain Benjamin L. Willard hallucinates to images of helicopters and napalm, the plot is essentially laid out in the first 15 minutes. Willard's mission is to "terminate... with extreme prejudice" Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando) who has invariably gone AWOL in the far reaches of the Cambodian jungle and, as told by his general, is "out there operating without any decent restraint, totally beyond the pale of any acceptable human conduct. And he is still in the field commanding troops." Kurtz is a delusional Colonel now being worshipped by a large group of followers who have dubbed him a god. For Willard, this covert operation seems somewhat more manageable than actual combat, yet, the journey he is about to take will be a personal quest that will challenge the limits of his human behavior.

Teaming up with a small crew, they embark down the vast reaches of the river in a rickety boat. Along the way, Willard educates himself on all things Kurtz. During Sheen's raspy voice over, he details his thoughts on the abundance of material he reads. Kurtz was a highly decorated and respected Green Beret. He was a normal man with a family, until a part of him succumbed to the horrors of human brutality and he led himself down the path that Willard is being led. The descent into the jungle is marked by a mesmerizing aura that echoes the battles being fought not to far away. Eventually the power of the experience weights on the group as drugs and a sort of solitary confinement attacks their senses. But Willard seems unfazed and desensitized in his quest to find Kurtz. As he reads about this mythic figure, he is drawn to the man's power and why he has become what he has become. We know that Willard's slow decay will parallel that of Kurtz's.

Marlon Brando has been revered for decades. His presence: unmatchable. His genius: undeniable. But for those unacquainted with his acting prowess and unaccustomed to his physical nuance, Brando can be perceived, in the eyes of an uncompromising film-goer, as a hack. He is most certainly not. Brando was difficult to work with, hard to interpret and impossible to understand, but his talent for unintelligible rants and unparalleled monologues is irrefutable. The man obviously knew what he was doing even if we didn't. His Colonel Kurtz is a being of limitless delusions and continual profundity.

If the film is any indication of the journeys into hell than Francis Ford Coppola's actual experience with making this masterpiece is a true life account of one man's fanatical struggle to produce a movie. It is reported that during the film's 200 plus day principle photography schedule, Coppola contemplated suicide. The film was not only an undeniable struggle to make; it is a grueling film to watch. Coppola's sweat and blood seep through the pores of the steamy locals and his dedication filters through the orifices of Martin Sheen's haunted soldier Willard.

I can not help but feel a warm sense of nostalgia for this type of film. At the dawn of all that was original and unprecedented, films that challenged as well as stimulated were commonplace. Audacity aside, Apocalypse Now is pure film-making. My respect and admiration for Mr. Coppola is of the highest order. But I shudder at the return to what has become the norm for today's standards for film: a lack of innovation. It is not simply the unoriginality of the world of cinema today; it is the fact that nobody seems to care to tell a story anymore or to tell one with heart. But we still have the great ones like Coppola's masterpiece, a film which bathed in its ability to give us something deeper than that which we could comprehend.

That depth in Apocalypse Now is the step into madness. The killing can disturb. The loss of innocence can unhinge. But it is the damage from within; the countless barrages of images that distress, unnerve and detach us from our everyday world and the memories that plague our deepest thoughts that eventually segregates us from humanity and propels us into the realm of the instinctual, the savage and the animalistic. If the thought of killing does not provide sustenance, the act of killing provides man with its fundamental catharsis.

A Surreal Journey Into Darkness

[dk777 · 10/10 · 11 October 2022]

Apocalypse Now is an interesting film, not because it is supposedly an anti-war film, but because it is surreal and shows an interesting journey into madness.

Martin Sheen gives us an insight into his character here and we see the senselessness of the whole situation and how easy it is to lose yourself in certain situations.

We follow his journey and the various events that befall him and a small group of soldiers in a patrol boat traveling deep into the jungle. On their way, really bizarre things happen.

Along the way, we also see Robert Duvall in the role of a completely insane officer, whose episodic role has a profound impact on the film.

The film should essentially be anti-war, but it didn't strike me as such, but simply as a film about the fate of various people who found themselves in unusual situations.

Their whole mission doesn't really make sense, and in the end they accomplished nothing, but that's the point. Everything was really in vain.

The direction is excellent, the music is perfectly integrated into the film and matches the tone of the film.

For me, this is a film about the loss of reason and the journey to madness. If civilization completely collapses, and somewhere it has already collapsed a long time ago, this is roughly what we can expect, madness and insanity.

I watched three versions of the film and I liked the Redux version the best.

An interesting and brutal journey into madness and darkness.

My All Time Favourite Movie

[Theo Robertson · 10/10 · 23 June 2004]

I first saw APOCALYPSE NOW in 1985 when it was broadcast on British television for the first time . I was shell shocked after seeing this masterpiece and despite some close competition from the likes of FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING this movie still remains my all time favourite nearly 20 years after I first saw it

This leads to the problem of how I can even begin to comment on the movie . I could praise the technical aspects especially the sound , editing and cinematography but everyone else seems to have praised ( Rightly too ) these achievements to high heaven while the performances in general and Robert Duvall in particular have also been noted , and everyone else has mentioned the stark imagery of the Dou Long bridge and the montage of the boat traveling upriver after passing through the border

How about the script ? Francis Ford Coppola is best known as a director but he's everyway a genius as a screenwriter as he was as a director , I said " was " in the past tense because making this movie seems to have burned out every creative brain cell in his head , but his sacrifice was worth it . In John Milius original solo draft we have a script that's just as insane and disturbing as the one on screen , but Coppola's involvement in the screenplay has injected a narrative that exactly mirrors that of war . Check how the screenplay starts off all jingoistic and macho with a star turn by Bill Kilgore who wouldn't have looked out of place in THE GREEN BERETS but the more the story progresses the more shocking and insane everything becomes , so much so that by the time reaches Kurtz outpost the audience are watching another film in much the same way as the characters have sailed into another dimension . When Coppola states " This movie isn't about Vietnam - It is Vietnam " he's right . What started off as a patriotic war to defeat communist aggression in the mid 1960s had by the film's setting ( The Manson trial suggests it's 1970 ) had changed America's view of both the world and itself and of the world's view of America

It's the insane beauty of APOCALYPSE NOW that makes it a masterwork of cinema and says more in its running time about the brutality of conflict and the hypocrisy of politicians ( What did you do in the Vietnam War Mr President ? ) than Michael Moore could hope to say in a lifetime . I've not seen the REDUX version but watching the original print I didn't feel there was anything missing from the story which like all truly great films is very basic . In fact the premise can lend itself to many other genres like a western where an army officer has to track down and kill a renegade colonel who's leading an injun war party , or a sci-fi movie where a UN assassin is to eliminate a fellow UN soldier who's leading a resistance movement on Mars , though this is probably down to Joseph Conrad's original source novel

My all time favourite movie and it's very fitting that I chose this movie to be my one thousandth review at the IMDb

More of an experience than a movie

[Horst_In_Translation · 6/10 · 24 February 2015]

"Apocalypse Now" is a 1979 movie by Francis Ford Coppola. 7 years after "The Godfather", he reunites with actor Marlon Brando (fat and bald here in his mid-50s), who is really difficult to recognize. He plays a highly decorated soldier, who deserted in Cambodia. However, I felt his part was just too self-indulging. It had "Give me an Oscar" written all over it as the final 45 minutes of the film entirely circled around him and everything before as well as he was talked about for pretty much the entire film. However, Brando did not win a single award anywhere for his performance here and the film won Oscars for its cinematography and sound. With the truly big awards, the Academy preferred a family divorce drama that year. The central character in "Apocalypse Now", however, is played by Martin Sheen, who shows striking resemblance to his son Charlie in quite a few scenes.

This is probably the most famous anti-war movie of all times. It's in the IMDb top50, but definitely not in my top50. However, I still thought it was a good film. Especially Robert Duvall (Kilgore) succeeds in displaying the insanity of war as he treats combat like a painting, plays classic music to the horrendous scenes and has his guys surfing at the same time. Excellent portrayal. He was the much better Coppola reunion in this movie and the Golden Globe and BAFTA wins were absolutely deserving. And when there is no visual horror...horror (e.g. a severed head or the death of the character played by the very young Laurence Fishburne), we hear people talking about it, for example Kurtz' story on severed children's arms.

The redux version of the movie runs for considerably over 3 hours, about 200 minutes, and I would lie if I said there was not a single moment when it dragged. It did, occasionally, for example when they meet the French guys. I could have done without that part. The cast is pretty spectacular. Apart from everybody I already mentioned, there's also Dennis Hopper, Harrison Ford and Frederic Forrest in this movie, all 3 Academy Award nominees themselves. It's an interesting take on soldiers' lives during this difficult time. But apart from all the brutal battle scenes and (during one scene) the unsuccessful longing for leadership, we also see a bunch of playboy bunnies giving the troops some pleasure with their mere presence.

This is a good film, no doubt about it. You may certainly need some knowledge about historical background to fully appreciate it and even then, it is certainly not for everybody, but watching this film can be a great experience. Visually, it's a masterpiece and the cinematography contributes as much to the nightmarish atmosphere and constant fight for survival as does the music, most of all The Doors' "This is the End".

The most anti-war pro-war film ever made.

[mark.waltz · 10/10 · 22 January 2021]

Coming out on the cusp of several other big award winning Vietnam war films ("Coming Home" and "The Deer Hunter" which could not have been any more different), this is the most avant garde of them all. While another stack of Vietnam war films came out nearly a decade later, this is perhaps the most controversial. Unlike his son Charlie Sheen's character in "Platoon" Martin Sheen's captain here isn't just a recruit facing his own apocalypse from going into combat for the first time. He's experienced, trusted and smart, and that's just one of the reasons he's chosen for the special mission of going deep into the Vietnam jungle to take out one of his own, an American officer who seems to have defected, declared himself to be lord of that jungle and most likely incurably insane.

Director Francis Ford Coppola has declared this to not be anti-war even though he doesn't indicate his own feelings. He claims that this shows why the human psyche constantly gets into wars and uses the Joseph Conrad novel "Hearts of Darkness" as his source, changing it to the Vietnam war and exploiting the cruelty and violence, some of it obviously necessary as the attacks on the Viet Cong camps at the start of a day indicate. It's easy to hate those in charge of this action for killing children, and when a young Vietnamese girl tosses something into the helicopter and runs off before it bursts into an inferno can temporarily change how you see this mission before realizing why it had to be done.

In all truth, seeing the nearly 40 year old Martin Sheen here, I did confuse him at first with son Charlie, then 22, in "Platoon". Martin looks way younger than his years so it's frightening to see him foisted into this mission to which there's no easy way to accomplish it. The look of disgust on his face while looking on at the impish antics of those on the river boat escorting him downstream is unforgettable. He's obviously already seen horrors that explain the opening scene where he's on a drug trip as the Doors song "The End" plays over it.

The subject of the assassination plot is the Colonel played by Marlon Brando in what is basically the highest paid cameo in film history, equivalent to what he had done right before this for "Superman". Brando's the one weak element of this film, photographed strangely and often difficult to understand. Perhaps he thought that would add to his character's insanity. Sheen spends time looking at pictures of the younger Brando, altered in photos to appear to be in a military setting.

Since the top billed Brando doesn't appear until later in the film, it's the supporting cast surrounding Sheen that you will remember which includes Robert Duvall, Dennis Hopper, Laurence Fishburne, Frederic Forrest and a young Harrison Ford, basically a cameo but an important scene along G.D. Spradlin. There are a few women in the cast outside the extras playing members of the Viet Cong, and one disturbing scene has a young prostitute at work asking a soldier looking on why he's there, only to heat, "I'm next."

So this glorifies war while also giving an indication of how evil it is and how soul crushing it can be. Sheen's quiet performance seems to emote this, and that gives his performance real power. Many of the battle scenes are at night with screaming voices sounding like ghosts crying out for mercy. This is the type of film that will make you feel guilty when you either cheer or laugh, but that's a part of what makes this film stand the test of time. As a 16 year old watching this in the theater, I felt different emotions than I do 41 years later, not the fear of that sheltered existence of a teenager, but the anger of a mature man still debating why we need to feel the urge to kill. That's the power of cinema when it's done right and why this film is important on so many levels.

Excellent and boring at the same time

[Bored_Dragon · 6/10 · 11 October 2016]

Excellent movie, in a way top-quality sociology textbook is excellent. Acting 10/10, directing 10/10, all technical aspects are top quality, dialogues, monologues, layering of the story and depth of the message this movie brings... and at the same time, it is painfully boring to watch that I fell asleep five or six times and then I was snapping out and rewinding and watching further, and the only thing that forced me to endure till the end is its reputation of one of the greatest movies of all time. The film may be excellent in many aspects but it failed in one very important thing - to hold viewers' attention for over three hours. If it was a bit shorter or if it was made as a mini-series for example, maybe I would enjoy it more, but this way I give it 10/10 for quality and 2/10 for interestingness. So...

6/10, and if I include The Doors music into the rating, then 5/10

I must be missing something...

[draney-600-338393 · 5/10 · 23 June 2017]

Now, it would appear by judging the user and critic reviews that my opinion is in the minority. Nonetheless, I cannot for the life of me understand the extremely high ratings for this film. The Deer Hunter, Full Metal Jacket, Platoon and Good Morning Vietnam all much more enjoyable. The cinematography of Apocalypse Now is very good at times, the opening scene being arguably my favourite part of the film as the music is perfect. However throughout the whole film I just felt an extreme lack of consistency with the storyline, too much confusion and jolting between themes. Whilst some of the action scenes were brilliant, I just felt a real lack of connection to the purpose. Now I won't spoil the ending but let's just say I really could not make heads or tail of the decisions made, all logic was out of the window. I am never usually critical of a film and this must be the highest rated picture that I really do not get on well with, for some reason I just expected a lot more and was very disappointed.

You love it, or you hate it....

[Cinema_Hound · 10/10 · 25 June 2001]

As I peruse through the hundreds of comments that loyal readers of the IMDB have posted on this film, I find it very interesting how few ,"middle of the road" comments there are. Everyone either loves it, or they hate it. Having seen Apocalypse Now approximately 30 times, and having recently dissected it on DVD (how did we ever live without those magical digital machines?????), I can say without hesitation that I am one of those who have a very special place in my heart for this film. "Why would you like a film that's so confusing?" ask many of my associates. The answer is this: Forget the war, forget the brutality....This is a classic story of society protecting itself from those that refuse to fall in line with the status quo. Brando represents the individual that has his own way of getting the job done. They (Big Brother) sent him out to do the job, he does it too well, without adhering to the accepted "standards" of death and destruction (Am I the only one who's troubled by the fact that we have 'standards' for death and destruction????), so they send the "Conformity Police" out to eliminate the individual. Hmmmmmm....Draw any parallels between this and things you see every day? With the deepest respect to Mr. Coppola, whom I believe is one of the best directors of all time, I think he transcended his original intent of the movie, and probably didn't even realize it until after the movie was released. The subtle sub-text that permeates the entire movie has way too much to it to have been planned and portrayed; instead, it seems to have 'grown' itself, like some wild flower in the middle of a vegetable garden. Again I must reiterate: I think FF Coppola did a bang-up job on this entire production, as did the cast and crew, but the sum of the movie exceeds the individual efforts ten-fold. So if you haven't seen the movie, rent it, watch it, then watch it again, and maybe a few more times, and look for all the generic parallels to everyday life. Only then make a judgment on the quality of the film. Those of you that have seen it, watch it again with the mindset previously described. I think you may just have a whole new appreciation for the film. Or maybe not! No matter whether you love it or hate it, be sure and give credit to Coppola for his masterful story-telling style!

skip Redux version, watch original first

[surfisfun · 10/10 · 3 January 2018]

Top 20 war movie

in Redux they added long scenes that changed tempo of movie. The one at the plantation didn't work well in context. What a great film!

The bravest , most honest account of the futility of war ever filmed.

[sizzling_words · 10/10 · 8 October 2005]

During the final throes of the Vitnam war, our central character, Capt. Willard (Martin Sheen) is dispatched by the CIA on an illegal one-man mission to assassinate a renegade US Marine commander, Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando), who has allegedly gone 'completely insane', but who is successfully waging a private cross-border war from his base in Cambodia, a neutral and therefore off-limits country.

The entire narrated story of what Willard sees and does as he is ferried up the Da Nang river by an undisciplined and terrorised navy patrol boat crew to murder Kurtz is a grand metaphor for the excesses, decadence and ultimately the weakness of the Anglo-Saxon psyche: If we don't understand something, and we are unable to control it, exterminate it. Kurtz had eventually come to know this.

Unless you pay complete attention to every emotional gesture, to every word of the dialogue between the protagonists, especially in the scene where the two of them are alone in Kurtz's darkened lair, you will miss one of the central themes of this incredible movie. Kurtz's subtle deal with his executioner, his unilateral 'surrender' in return for Willard agreeing (did he nod?) to tell Kurtz's 'son' (another metaphor for us, the next generation, the ones watching the movie) the truth about all the horrors that they had both seen in Vietnam, is mind-expanding stuff.The bonding between the two men whilst Kurtz cross-examines Willard,--interlaced with some of his own horror stories, is incredible, nay, genius, film. The closing (intercut)scene of the ritual slaughter of a sacrificial bull is the single most powerful of symbols. Coppolla has made, intentionally or not, the ultimate anti-war statement, one that should resonate through the ages.

One of the best and most important movies ever

[jande9 · 10/10 · 12 January 2005]

This movie changed the art of film making, telling a complex story in a powerful new way. The film mixes brutal realism with fantasy, intercutting a modern war with strange scenes full of technicolour smoke. The film uses music not as a score laid in later, but as a practical part of the scene playing from speakers, radios etc. Coppola uses a classic piece of literature as inspiration, taking scenes and characters, and putting them into entirely different surroundings. That is a tricky and brave thing to do. Then he takes a superstar, Brando, pays him a fortune, and films him so that you can barely see his face. The pure guts that such a move requires is astounding, and it works beautifully. This movie belongs in the top ten.

the horror, the horror...

[The Claw · 20 April 1999]

So just how insane is 'Apocalypse Now'? Well, let's say that it is the kind of film that makes you want to bang your head against the wall. The beginning has no credits or titles; nothing. The whole film seems like it's taking place on a different world, and as the story moves on, sanity itself is shed. There was a French plantation scene that got cut out, and an alternate ending that would have had a massive battle scene outside Kurtz's compound.

'Apocalypse Now' is not a realistic film in the sense that the presentation of the Vietnam War is far from correct: helicopters going in BEFORE the napalm strikes, a USO show in the jungle at night, and the final bridge all lit-up like a Christmas tree. (for more realistic 'Nam War movies, try 'The Deer Hunter' or 'Platoon')

But what 'Apocalypse Now' lacks in historical accuracy, it makes up in artistic and dramatic scripting. Some of the best photography and lighting ever can be found here.

The film also raises some severe philosophical issues, and gives us entirely new ones. When the movie begins, the war is raging around us. It is chaotic and nerve-racking, yet still rational. When we finally get to Kurtz's base, the action has died down, but rational thinking has long since been vanquished to the point of total lunacy. This shows us the truth about men of war in times of war and peace. The voyage down the river has a sense of time travel (a sense that would have been much more apparent had the French Plantation scene remained.) And when you get to the end, keep in mind the old phrase: The King is dead... Long live the king.

Is Kurtz insane? Or are we not yet ready to understand him? These questions and more are up to you as 'Apocalypse Now has no easy answers.

Take the long ride to perdition.

[Hitchcoc · 9/10 · 12 February 2007]

There are films we watch because they are good, even though they are painful for us. This is a film I saw one time. At that time I thought to myself, this is enough. It was painful to make that journey down the river, wondering what was around every corner. Then we meet the products of our own id impulses, as we are the enemy, our souls have been brought down to this. At the end of the river is the man who came before us, and we see the uselessness of the journey. It is the Heart of Darkness. There are death masters like Robert Duvall. There are those who can only hope to survive, but the war is the master. The Doors music as the napalm settles gently on the treetops and across the ground, sweeps us up gently. Meanwhile it is consuming the flesh of the Vietnamese people, as well as an occasional American soldier. The ancient Romans could not envision peace without war. We and much of the world seem to have embraced those tenets put forth some two thousand years ago. This film gets into the marrow.

Wonderful Vietnam Film

[christiehammel · 7/10 · 5 August 2022]

This is probably the most famous anti-war movie of all times. It's in the IMDb top50, but definitely not in my top50. However, I still thought it was a good film. Especially Robert Duvall (Kilgore) succeeds in displaying the insanity of war as he treats combat like a painting, plays classic music to the horrendous scenes and has his guys surfing at the same time. Excellent portrayal. He was the much better Coppola reunion in this movie and the Golden Globe and BAFTA wins were absolutely deserving. And when there is no visual horror...horror (e.g. A severed head or the death of the character played by the very young Laurence Fishburne), we hear people talking about it, for example Kurtz' story on severed children's arms.

The redux version of the movie runs for considerably over 3 hours, about 200 minutes, and I would lie if I said there was not a single moment when it dragged. It did, occasionally, for example when they meet the French guys. I could have done without that part. The cast is pretty spectacular. Apart from everybody I already mentioned, there's also Dennis Hopper, Harrison Ford and Frederic Forrest in this movie, all 3 Academy Award nominees themselves. It's an interesting take on soldiers' lives during this difficult time. But apart from all the brutal battle scenes and (during one scene) the unsuccessful longing for leadership, we also see a bunch of playboy bunnies giving the troops some pleasure with their mere presence.

The horror . The horror

[FilmOtaku · 8/10 · 4 October 2004]

'Apocalypse Now Redux', Francis Ford Coppola's war opus is probably the most beautiful war film I have ever seen. Capt. Benjamin Willard (Martin Sheen) is a Vietnam soldier who is tapped to head a very dangerous and highly classified mission into Cambodia to 'terminate the position' of Col. Kurtz (Marlon Brando), a highly ranked and highly regarded army man who seemingly has gone completely insane and defected from the army, setting up his own little society and helped by a cultish following of soldiers. Escorting him up the river to Cambodia is a handful of navy men, and along the way, they encounter several interesting people (most notably is Robert Duvall's Kilgore, a badass lieutenant colonel with a few screws loose) and some horrifying situations.

'Apocalypse' is less historical war film than a philosophical and psychological study. It is more 'Full Metal Jacket' than 'Platoon'. The running time of 'Apocalypse' is over three hours, but the film is so wonderfully paced and compelling that when the end of the film arrived, I was actually surprised at the amount of time that had passed. The beautiful cinematography is surely what stood out the most for me, however. After seeing this film, I am convinced that Coppola is one of the masters of light and photography in film history. The 'Godfather' films were all tinged with an almost sepia tone, and shadows created the feeling of a Baroque composition. With 'Apocalypse', there is an incredible usage of natural light, and the shadows, particularly in the scenes involving Brando and Sheen, almost become a living character, they are so pervasive and effective. Another gorgeous scene was when Cpt. Willard and Jay Hicks (Frederic Forrest) were in the jungle looking for mangoes, and come across a tiger. The sheer enormity of the surrounding foliage (leaves as big as a house) made the characters almost Lilliputian, but the colorization of the scene was incredible. While everything else was almost a muted grey, the leaves were an incredibly vibrant green, an effect that was particularly striking. Another really minor positive moment in the film was the great scene when the helicopters carrying Duvall and company attack the small village while playing Wagner. This could have just been an ultra-dramatic underlying soundtrack to the scene, but instead Coppola turns the song into an actual part of the scene, with Duvall mentioning that he likes to play it while they are approaching to 'scare the hell out of them'.

The performances in 'Apocalypse' are first class. Much has been made of the amount of money Brando earned for the film, and the amount of trouble he caused. Regardless of this, he turned out a powerful performance for a relatively short amount of screen time. Sheen is completely outstanding - this is the first time I have seen him really unleash in a film – and Duvall is a lot of fun to watch as the loony Kilgore. 'Apocalypse Now' is a film that is so pervasive in pop culture by now (most know several choice lines from the film, 'I love the smell of napalm in the morning' et al) but I knew little enough about it that there were plenty of surprises left to experience. I have not seen the original cut of 'Apocalypse Now' so I cannot compare it to this newer cut, but this is a film that should most certainly be experienced. 8/10

--Shelly

Copolla's Apocalypse

[michael_the_nermal · 7/10 · 17 October 2007]

Warning! Spoilers Ahead! This movie seems like the high-water mark for Francis Ford Copolla; nothing he has made since has been as favorably reviewed in the eyes of most critics. This is the third Copolla movie I've seen, and, while I admire Copolla's ambition, the film does not compare to his two classic Godfather movies. Simply put, the acting is not as excellent, and there are too many extraneous scenes.

The movie is most definitely NOT a straight Vietnam war movie, or even a straight war movie, period. There is little attempt at realism here. It is, simply, an adaptation of Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" set in the Vietnam War. Kurtz, as he was in the novel, is an idealistic white man who is the best of the best in his own civilization but, when exposed to the other-worldliness of a non-Western tropical society beset with colonial exploitation and the white man's savagery while trying to "tame" this landscape, he himself becomes the most demonic of the savages. Conrad's protagonist in the framework story, Marlowe, is reinvented as an out-of-it army officer assigned to kill the savage Kurtz. While he moves toward's Kurtz's lair in the heart of the jungle, he encounters the madness of Vietnam, including the Americans' disregard for human life, a battle without a commanding officer, and crazed GIs, bereft of the veneer of civilization, assaulting a USO show featuring Playboy bunnies. The results are ultimately uneven, and this may be due in large part to the difficulties of adapting Conrad's novel to the screen, especially when set in the context of the Vietnam War.

Conrad's novel was meant to highlight the horrors of white cruelty towards Africans in the Belgian Congo in their pursuit for ivory and rubber wealth. The Vietnam War is a bit more ambiguous with regards to similar colonial ambitions. Historians today still debate the reasons for the Americans entering Vietnam, but it seems a bit of a stretch to compare Vietnam with the blatant colonialism Conrad was describing. Copolla made a rather odd choice by selecting Vietnam as a proxy for the savagery of Belgian colonial rule, and this made his adaptation all the more difficult. Secondly, Copolla also had difficulty translating Conrad's symbols in a visual format. The savage whites are shown as helicopter pilots who spray bullets and fluorescent napalm on helpless victims below. It all seems like too much for the senses to take in. The massacre on the riverboat seems too quick and abrupt, and does not flow smoothly with the theme of savagery Copolla apparently had in mind.

Copolla, unfortunately, did not have the perfect cast of actors he had in "The Godfather." Martin Sheen is very good as the Marlowe character, but, as he is the "narrator" of the story, his participation is mostly subdued. Marlon Brando has deteriorated greatly since his role as Don Corleone. His delivery is monotone and stiff, and his acting utterly lethargic. He clearly seems to be going through the motions as the Kurtz character. The actors on Marlowe's boat do well, but do not compare to the "Godfather" cast.

In all, this was a highly ambitious and worthy film, but the difficulty of placing this vision on screen makes it flawed. The best scene is in the "redux" version, where Martin Sheen faces the last vestiges of desperate colonialism on a French rubber plantation. That alone is a classic movie scene, and much closer to Conrad's work than most of the film's frantic, chaotic scenes. I recommend "Apocalypse Now," but do not expect a masterpiece.

Just doesn't engage me

[robert3750 · 5/10 · 28 June 2021]

I honestly don't find it all that interesting. Yes, it has some interesting, even spectacular images, but for me, it has no engaging story or characters. I simply didn't care what happened to Willard, Kurtz, or anyone else. Everything I've heard says it's not a realistic depiction of Vietnam, including the famous helicopter attack. The sound is good, but the cinematography is somewhat overrated. It's not even a large format film. I get that this film is supposed to be Big Important Cinema, and I'm certainly not one of those people who sneers at the likes of Citizen Kane or 2001 (I think highly of both of those films), but this one? Meh.