Opiniones de usuarios

This movie is considered "culturally, historically or aesthetically significant" and selected for preservation and it is not a "bad" film, rather an overambitious, creepy, self-indulgent and slow-moving one.

I saw it the first time as a young woman and I was totally unimpressed, so much that I had no idea who the actor playing Willard was, his acting being so unimpressive. For me it was a muddled story of a bunch of unpleasant soldiers in a very hostile location. Brando was a mumbling cipher and I exited the cinema thinking I'd rather watched something else.

I had recently the chance of watch the Redux and my opinion didn't change much, except now I know Martin Sheen plays Willard, but he definitely looks spaced out and his performance is flat, probably because he was fighting alcoholism and bad health and his heart wasn't in it (literally and figuratively). I also could barely recognise a teenage, pimply Fishburne doing - I guess - his best as an overexcitable gunner's mate for which I had zero sympathy since he exterminates a bunch of civilians. The other main characters, all seemed overstressed and freaking out, understandably given the circumstances.

Some of the sequences are indeed impressive, such as the helicopter attack, with or without the Valkyrie soundtrack, even if I found more interesting other minor moments, such as the boat passing by sinister plane wreckages along the course of the disastrous journey. On the whole though, the film is very slow, with overlong, useless sequences like the initial one with Willard doing weird stuff and punching a mirror, lots of staring in silence at the creepy jungle, etc...

The soundtrack is suitably disturbing, so as to make the experience thoroughly unpleasant... and Brando.. well, my opinion did not change a bit.. he was a bloated, overrated, mumbling, fat man who should have given up acting years earlier and his pseudo-philosophical gibberish was intolerable.

I have just finished reading an interview with Vittorio Storaro, cinematographer for Apocalypse Now, and I am in a state of shock. Apparently, the plan, when preparing Apocalypse Now Redux, was to keep the original negative intact, and to edit the new material into a freshly struck inter positive. Unfortunately, the negative, 25 years old, was starting to fade, and Storaro was concerned that new prints would not be up to his, or the audience's, high standards. He suggested to Coppola that they re-edit directly into the original negative. This, of course, would eliminate the need for an inter positive, and allow for beautiful new prints to be struck. On the other hand, the original negative in its "classic" incarnation would be gone forever. Storaro asked Coppola, "Let me know one single thing, in the future, in 10, 20, 50, 100 years from now, which version would you want the audience to see?" And he said, "This one."

I remember asking myself why the additional footage couldn't have been relegated to the "Extras" section of a DVD. My guess had been that the entire affair was a cynical attempt stir up interest in a theatrical re-release in order to make a few more bucks for the perennially cash- hungry Coppola. Would that he had been so cynical. Now we will never have the chance to see a beautiful new Technicolor dye transfer print of the original Apocalypse, a genuine classic, because Coppola actually thinks that the god-awful Redux, a bloated, ponderous, amateurish mess, is the version for which he should be remembered.

I have seen the original Apocalypse dozens of times, and each time it has felt fresh, vital, visionary. I almost walked out of the theater during Redux. Like mold, the new footage had corrupted the old, making the whole film dank and dreary. Most of the new footage was hasty, improvised, and pointless, and integrated badly into the whole. The performances resembled juvenile acting class exercises. The legendary French Plantation scenes were so over the top and silly that I thought an unused sequence from Monty Python's The Meaning of Life had been dropped into the film.

As Paulette Goddard once said of Chaplin, "(Coppola) sometimes thinks he thinks." Despite his reputation as a rebellious visionary, Coppola has always done his best work for hire. When he has been allowed to go off the rails, he has produced crap fests like One From the Heart (which I actually saw in a theater) and Redux. Looks like it was only the pressure to deliver that prevented box office disaster and bankruptcy in 1979. I, like many others, have spent the last 25 years waiting for another Coppola masterpiece. From the evidence in the Storaro interview, we have all waited in vain. The man's judgment is faulty. Maybe if he can get back together with Bob Evans...

The biggest problem watching this film is that I am a Vietnam Veteran and I am aware of the movie's outlandish plot. For pure entertainment I guess, even for a Vietnam Vet, the helicopter assault with Robert Duvall was outstanding.....full of garbage but entertaining. As a MACV/SOG operative Sheen is quite good, but his lonesome mission is, again, pure garbage. People who are totally unaware of Vietnam will most probably like this movie, after all it was done for pure entertainment not truthfulness.

Unlike Joseph Conrad, Coppola never understood his subject matter. Conrad spent years at sea, sailing the world as a professional mariner before embarking on his writing career. He experienced first hand much of the content that wound up in his books. His travels hardened, wizened and salted him. FFC was a self-absorbed, hypersensitive, neurotic, ego-centric hollywood filmmaker. Much like his fellow travelers in hollywood, he was a soft, sheltered manchild completely oblivious of the real world. So, like many before and after him, he had to resort to infantile fantasy in his career. E.g. The romanticized, sentimental, psychologically complex and conflicted mob boss in GF. Pretty much the exact opposite of what these guys are in real life. Same with AN. This fanciful, sanctimonious hippy rock music video set in Vietnam, with elements of HOD layered in (always useful to have an original plot handy free of charge) is too bombastic and absurd to be taken seriously on any level. Too sensationalized to be a good war movie, too superficial and melodramatic to be a serious literary adaptation, AN is one of the most overrated movies of all time. Sheen and Brando are about as believable as SF officers as my cat. (Less actually, she's pretty stealthy & lethal). Sheen was laughably fragile and insipid. Brando was a dull, corpulent sloth, many years past his viability as an actor even then. Both were horribly miscast in these roles. Perhaps equal blame lies with Milius but at least he wasn't shy about his criticisms. The cinematography was great but it's not nearly enough to save this bloated mess, not by a sight. One star for Wagner, one for Cyndi Wood.

Never before has a film been spoken of in such high regard, but been so disappointing to view. Francis Ford Coppola's "Apocalypse Now" is the most highly acclaimed film to explore the dark underside of the war in Vietnam. It takes the viewer on a mythological journey through the war torn jungles of southeast Asia, but fails miserably to deliver what it sets into motion. The film promises good performances from its actors, and it delivers in that regard. The cast is loaded with talent, most notably that of Robert Duvall. His characters' presence in the film is short in duration, but very moving. In the beginning (like "Platoon"), "Apocalypse Now" seems to provide a glimpse into the psychological impact of an anarchic Vietnam on its wartime inhabitants. The film moves along nicely as Sheen journeys to find his imposter (Brando) who has concocted a dangerous cult following in the jungles of Cambodia. Several incidents along the way (again, like "Platoon") give the viewer insight into how unstable wartime conditions manipulate every mans psyche.

Up until this point, I thought the film was quite good. However, it takes a horrific turn for the worse when Sheens men stumble upon a family of French aristocracy still residing in Cambodia. At this point, the film jumps into a scene of pretentious political and social discourse about American involvement in the war. This miserably long scene broke the continuity of the film, as well as my interest. Trying desperately to recover from this editing atrocity, I try to stay optimistic about the films' direction. Unfortunately, its continuity is further interrupted by another unnecessary scene involving fuel exchange for sex. Still thinking it would revive itself, I tried to stay as optimistic as possible.

Finally, Sheen and his patrol boat reach the site of Brando's cult followers, and the film plunges into absolute absurdity. It now takes the form of a cheesy pseudo sci-fi thriller, and plummets past the point of anything remotely reasonable. Disappointed by direction and exhausted from unnecessary extended footage, I had to finish the film. Brando's mythical character is enveloped in stereotypical, horroresque camera shots. The film now basks in all that is predictable and unreasonable. For filmgoers who wish to have your experience handed to you on a silver platter, this is a must see. "Apocalypse Now" is ruined by blatant disregard for fluidity and reason. Any philosophical implications the film wishes to provide are drastically overshadowed by a painfully cheesy and predictable story. At the end, it seems as if Coppola had no direction for his story. The ending seems forced and unnatural. If you must view, please find the original cut, not the Redux version. Oh the horror...

I bought a ticket to this move to help save a good director from financial ruin. I remember I checked my watch A LOT! This movie moved as slow as the Machong River and rambled about as long. When it was all over, I just remember thinking that this was one long boat ride that was definitely not worth the trip. So in the universe of great movies, this is definitely a black hole that will only suck up several hours of your time. The ONLY good thing about movie was that ticket prices were a lot cheaper then when it came out. This movie was so dismal that I can't even remember enough to find ten lines to write. This movie is a very solid two. Pass on this one. Just remember, you have been warned.

What possessed Coppola to add all this silly footage back? The movie was unwieldy to begin with, but now it's a rambling, often pointless everything-and-the-kitchen-sink art film. And the music. Oh, the cheesy sounds-like-John-Carpenter-wrote-it electronic organ music! Not only bad, and badly produced, but occasionally laughably inappropriate.

Bring back the studio cut!

"I love the smell of napalm in the morning," is such a famous quote most audiences forget everything else about the famous war drama Apocalypse Now. While I was in film school, the film was made a subject of study; part of the course's curriculum was to show the first fifteen minutes of classics in hopes that students would clammer to the library to rent DVD copies and finish their education on their own. Alas, I was uninspired to watch the rest of this Vietnam drama, although I knew it was among the most famous.

Perhaps it's because we lost the war, or perhaps it's because many liberals who were so angry about it in the first place found their way to Hollywood to make their statements, but I've yet to find a Vietnam War movie that I can classify in the realm of entertainment. As it was Marlon Brando's highlighted week on Hot Toasty Rag, I felt compelled to watch the rest of this very long movie, and I turned it off twice, only rallied by my best friend to continue the journey. I complained to her that the film's attitude towards the soldiers was smug. Robert Duvall's projection of a war mongering "Patton-esque" commanding officer strutted about and puffed his feathers - so obviously making the point that he was a "rotten person". In countless scenes, young soldiers are seen goofing off, listening to the radio, trying to get Playmate of the Month girls into bed. One boy admits to dropping acid and isn't on his right mind to be on alert. In two instances, men are firing upon "the enemy" only to be discovered that they have no commanding officer, no orders, and have merely gone out of their minds from the war.

Obviously, there are lots of people who loved this movie (my best friend included). I just couldn't get past the self-righteous tone that seemed to say, "Aren't we realistic? War is so awful, isn't it, and the only ones who actually try to be good soldiers are sadistic monsters? Isn't this message deep?" There's one scene where a soldier gets killed and while his friends are weeping over his body, we hear a voice over of his mother's last letter to him, trying to make the audience feel terrible that a young boy was needlessly killed. But, as Anthony Hopkins so perfectly stated in Legends of the Fall, "He was a soldier, and soldiers die!" Yes, it's sad when a man gets killed; but if he was a soldier, it shouldn't be unexpected. The entire scene felt, once again, that the filmmakers were pushing their agendas on the audience.

My friend also likes similar classics Full Metal Jacket and Platoon, so if your tastes match hers, you probably really like Apocalypse Now. I don't like all three. I don't find it entertainment to see desolate, despondent circumstances for the sole purpose of making the audience feel a smug satisfaction that they also opposed the war. I don't find it entertainment to show a cow getting hacked to bits by machetes, and I maintain that effective war movies can be made without being so gruesome. Every WWII movie made during the time had to abide by the Production Code, and they managed to be violent, upsetting, and realistic all the same.

DLM Warning: If you suffer from vertigo or dizzy spells, like my mom does, this movie might not be your friend. In nearly every scene, the camera swirls around to follow helicopters or fast war action. In particular, about 2.5 hours in, after Martin Sheen says, "If I was still alive, it was because he wanted it that way," the camera spins upside down a few times, and that will make you sick. In other words, "Don't Look Mom!" Kiddy Warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, due to violence, gore, and an upsetting scene involving an animal, I wouldn't let my kids watch it.

Why does apocalypse now get so many high ratings? It's so boring and long. Promising start, mediocre middle and absolutely bad, weird, stupid, boring and inexplicable ending. Maybe it was a good film back in the day even if I can't explain why but right now, don't bother. I was disappointed beyond belief even though it was described as amazing online by you all. Absolutely boring waste of time. Don't bother, there are so many better films out there.

What else to say? It's rubbish but I've just been told that my review is too short to submit. I can waffle on blah blah blah, don't bother it's boring.

I just saw this and wanted to give it a one star and a scathing review.

I despised this movie it was such complete crap. Fortunately, I have no learned that there are two versions, and I am pretty sure I didn't see it until after 2001. That means I could have easily seen the crap one.

I found the one I watched ridiculous, pretentious and complete garbage. I genuinely didn't understand how anyone could rate this so highly. Now I know there might be two versions. It is time to see if I watched the definitive edition (Pretentious crap?) or the theatrical release (timeless classic)

I watched this movie with my dad because he said it was one of the best movies he has ever seen, naturally i had high expectations because he usually has good taste in movies.

By the end of the movie i felt so sick and depressed i don't think i could ever watch it again. It was extremely violent, extremely long, extremely boring, and extremely weird. It could almost be classified as a horror film, and its supposed to be a realistic war movie. But i suppose it's message is to show how horrible the Vietnam war was and how people can really do horrible things, so i will give it credit for that.

It drags out for ages and never seems to have any storyline, just a few marines on a mission to find a crazy marine who thinks he is a god to a tribe. It is almost too violent but not in a gory way, but just horrible images of sacrifice and execution and brainwash. This film made me feel like crap. I don't know why so many people love it.

I'm giving it 2/10 because it is not a very nice film to watch but it does manage to put across its message. I can only recommend it to war movie fans who like depressing films.

I should have known better. Heart of Darkness was one of the most boring novels ever. Two page descriptive paragraphs.

Cliches, no action and no plot for Redux.

Loved Platoon and Saving Private Ryan. I don't get how this snooze fest was considered superior to those films.

Could have done without the sexist Playboy bunnies. Nudity is fine but why make them out to all be such vacuous bimbos?

Platoon is better at showing us all kinds of people and not just cliches.

Audience reviews play like junior critics-in-training. Very disappointing movie.

I cant believe the high marks with this one. Im trying to recall the last time i was this bored during a film. Cant remember. Not trying to diss the movie, to each their own and all that, but holy hell did this thing take its sweet time to get to the end.

Honestly I dont know if its just that we watched the 2001 version or what but it seemed to be drag on forever. Im also not a huge fan of war movies anyway but ive always had some interest with them and never thought of them as kind of waste of time.

The acting was good, no complaints on that and the camera work was great too.

Artsy, boring movie: the men sail at the river in the midst of the Vietnam war and search the independently lethal Kurtz. The story and all the characters bore me to tears, including Marlon Brando as Kurtz - yes, he is an independent killer in the midst of the war, ah, the irony! Joseph Conrad's early 20th century novella Heart of the Darkness, set in the brutally exploited, Belgian-ruled concentration camp called Kongo, is now a study of the Vietnam War. No, I have not read the original, so I don't know how faithful adaptation of the original and it's themes this is. But why a real movie has a real-life animal killing a'la -10 exploitation excrement?