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.

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.

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

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!

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.

Disappointing

[ptndle · 6/10 · 8 August 2020]

Just watched the 3h final cut. First time I've seen this "classic" I've got to say, I really enjoyed the first 2 hours but the last 1 hour got slow and boring. From the french plantation to the end was really hard work not to turn it off and the last 20-30 minutes was disappointing. 6/10

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.

In my top five favorite films ever made

[Quinoa1984 · 10/10 · 6 January 2000]

Apocalypse Now is not only my personal favorite work by Francis Ford Coppolla, it's also one of the great visions ever put onto cinema. It makes what was horrific, strange, and ironically exciting and mysterious about the Vietnam War into this mad tale of obsession, death, loss, and the dark side of humanity. While the stories behind the production of the film made it notorious and rather risky back in 1979, it works on its own terms and represents not just Coppola's genius but others in the Zoetrope team as well. It also paints a sometimes lurid, ultra-violent, bleak and curious view of what war does to people, both in the lower ranks, the big-guns, and those who go too far "up the river".

Many have also been perplexed by Marlon Brando's performance in the film, but it's actually one of his very best turns on screen, albeit improvised and close to running off the rails. His few moments on screen (even in the somewhat unnecessary scene plopped into the Redux version) there's enough conviction in what he's saying- and what perhaps isn't said- that makes the trip down the river worthwhile on an intellectual and poetic level. And making up the bulk of the film are delirious turns by Robert Duvall (a Oscar nominated turn he should've won), Martin Sheen as the Captain with almost too much to ponder in an ever increasing state of everything but him being insane; character actors like Sam Bottoms, Frederic Forrest and 14 year-old Laurence Fishburne have some of the best work they've ever done. And it goes without saying that Dennis Hopper comes close to stealing any scene he's in, for better or worse, with the most to say in rambling, yet coherent words.

Every time I watch this film (and mostly the original version which is what first drew me in completely as opposed to the very good if muddled Redux version) I am astounded with how operatic everything is, and how the variations on the madness and chaos of Vietnam is put together. Of course one can give adulation to Coppola for this as he completed it without totally going off the deep end or possibly dying, and his talents are pulled to their richest peaks here as a storyteller and director of actors. But it can't be said enough how much I can't get enough of Vittorio Storaro's cinematography, which has in part come close to perfect for this kind of epic film. The music is perfectly eerie and insidious, with the Doors song used for one of my favorite iconic scenes in the movies (both of them). Walter Murch's editing- which apparently was what saved the film from being a four-hour disaster- makes the action move when it needs to and for individual shots to get their due. And even the production design is remarkable and, to the extent it goes to, original in its partial translation of both Conrad's fiction and the unfortunate realities of life on the river.

If you haven't seen it yet, in short, get off your ass and get a copy; it might cause a kind of shell-shock for a viewer after first taking it all in, but it has some of the purest, most rewarding bits of cinema ever to come out of that all-too-brief American new-wave of the 1970's.

Truly a Masterpiece

[cristiangrecu · 10/10 · 4 July 2004]

Somewhere on IMDb there is a discussion about the greatest director of all times (Spielberg, Copolla and others are named there). The greatest argument was around Spielberg and whether he is or isn't a great director. The problem with Spielberg is that while he is a master technician, most of his films lack depth.Saving Ryan is really outstanding from a technical point of view, but its message is dull and while its very entertaining, it doesn't make you think about anything. AN is the best movie I ever saw because it combines great shooting with a deep philosophical perspective on so many things, starting from war in general, the clash of civilizations, the condition of soldier in wartimes (is a soldier a hero or an assassin? Brando says he is neither, the french lady says he is both ...) and many others. The problem with some people is that they try to argue about whether these points are true or false. But a great movie, and a great piece of art in general is supposed to spark arguments, not to solve them ... Maybe Coppola is right, or maybe he isn't, nobody holds the truth anyway. You can watch this movie for its outer beauty, amazing scenes, great acting and memorable quotes and you will be entirely satisfied. But what really make this movie a masterpiece is its inner quality. You can't help but make a comparison with the recent Fahrenheit documentary.Both Copolla and Moore tackle similar issues, but while Copolla presents matters from an outside , objective point of view, Moore takes a very partisan position that really compromises the whole point of a documentary ... It is really a shame that a film like Fahrenheit 9/11 won a prestigious award like Cannes. But anyway, if you want to start to understand a little of the Vietnam war, the Iraq war, the second World War and any war in general, you should definitely see this movie, and not the other one ...

Lives Up To Its Title

[alexkolokotronis · 10/10 · 24 April 2008]

From all of the Vietnam war movies this is probably the most frightening and disturbing and that is really saying a lot with so many spectacular ones that have come out. It has this freakish feel to it. Everything is so chaotic in the movie it scares you. It is not like it shows a lot of different things compared to the other Vietnam war movies. What does push to such a high level is the:

The directing was spectacular here. Francis Ford Coppola shows of his talent in his last epic movie. Unlike other directors he makes you feel as if you are in the war. Most others just display and show you the horrors of war. Coppola though makes you feel confused, shocked and scared. These feelings of war are usually told to us from a movie or story. This is something that I have only experienced very few times while watching a film. The writing was of course amazing too. It brought you write into the middle of the movie. It never made me bored and this movie is three hours. The cinematography goes hand in hand with the directing which very much added to the freakish experience of watching this film showing all the chaos around you even when everything seems calm.

The acting was bone-chilling. Just look at Marlon Brando also giving his last great performance playing a deluded, out of whack colonel. When ever I think of a crazy gone made soldier I think Marlon Brando in Apocalpyse Now. With Brando n this film you don't want to look into his eyes. Like the movie he was freakish. To me this performance is as memorable as the one he gave in The Godfather. Martin Sheen gave a very deep performance and probably the best one of his career making you see everything through his eyes all the craziness he is experiencing and yet wanting him to get to his goal. It is just a wonder why these two did not get Oscar nominations. Robert Duvall was able to show part of that craziness with his ludicrous battle strategies, among those playing music to tell the enemy he is coming. Also Duvall's character asking one of the soldiers to surf in the middle of a battle was just shocking but believable. Other great supporting performances were given by a young Laurence Fishburne, Sam Bottoms and Frederic Forest who all summed up the attitudes of many of the soldiers at that time without becoming a cliché. Also for once cameos were put into good use having Dennis Hopper and Harrison Ford who I both love.

I would definitely recommend people to watch this movie. It has a message and everyone involved in the making of it is at their best. There is nothing more I could ask of this movie with its great acting, directing, writing, cinematography and great ending. Watch and you will see why it lives up to its title Apocalpyse Now.

Iconic, Original, Impossible to Forget

[SnoopyStyle · 10/10 · 1 January 2014]

Captain Willard (Martin Sheen) is given an assignment to eliminate renegade and possibly insane Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando). He takes a Navy PBR and her crew up the Nung River to find Kurtz's base in Cambodia.

This is a vision of nightmare that I could never forget. More than any other movie, there are scenes here that are seared into my memory. Rarely do I give 10/10. This is one movie where I gave a 10 without reservations. There are more iconic, original and impressive scenes here than any modern movie. There is no CGI, just real movie making. Director Francis Ford Coppola used his reputation after the two Godfather movies, and risked it all for this movie. You can tell he left it all on the screen.

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.

A masterpiece of Madness

[squigemartin · 10/10 · 3 June 2021]

This film is completely brilliant. The first half of the film has more violence and a lot more fun to the film but I'm the second half, the true physiological torment of Vietnam is shown. When they enter Kurtz's camp, the mood of the film completely changes from mildly disturbing and a bit mad, to incredibly disturbing and complete madness. The cinematography, writing, acting, direction and sound are incredible from one of the best films of the 20th century. I highly recommend you to watch this film.

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.