It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Isn't that Scaramanga's spin-off film?
That s the one. With Sylvester Stallone as the most badass character he ever played. Directed by Walter Hill.
@FoxRox, I love that doc almost as much as the film itself. You get a window into Coppola's mindset throughout filming, and the many times he was tempted to commit suicide from all the stress piling on. There's a famous picture out there of him on set, holding a revolver to his temple, his expression just black and miserable. It was such a crazy production, it's amazing the film came out as strong as it did.
The opening is a real alcoholic Martin Sheen really out of his mind, really punching a glass mirror and slicing up his hand. So, yeah. Turns out Coppola wasn't the only one the filming of this movie almost broke.
This theatrical cut of the film, to me, is how it should be. The pacing was so much better; the film flowed so much more smoothly, without feeling incomplete. Each presents an utterly nightmarish vision of war and violence (maybe moreso than any other war film I've seen), but I didn't feel like I missed anything without the added scenes of the Redux version. I just remember it feeling too slow and too long in places, whereas that was rarely a problem in the theatrical version. The only added scene I enjoyed that I can remember specifically was when Kurtz visits Willard at one point during the daytime, but I can understand why it was cut. Kurtz's character is purposefully placed in the shadows in every other part of the movie. I just enjoyed having another scene of Brando's excellent, excellent performance.
Anyways, yeah, I VASTLY prefer the theatrical version. Not even close. I should have done more research before diving in with the Redux version first. In my opinion, what was released in theaters originally is the definitive version. An incredibly dark and serious film of epic proportions, exquisitely crafted. I'm excited to see that documentary about the film.
I need to give it another watch again soon. It's a favorite of mine, probably in my top 10 of all time, and I think it's objectively one of the finest of cinema.
Do check out the documentary; it'll blow your mind. It'll make you respect Coppola even more, if only because he managed to survive it all.
I have to ask; which version do you prefer? Because watching the theatrical one was a totally different and better experience for me.
I know the Redux added a scene with Duvall's character getting his equipment taken or something to that effect, as well as with Sheen's character spending time with the Vietnamese people while going up river. Other than that, I can't remember the Redux enough to have an opinion on it.
The choices of what I remember being added for the Redux did feel weird to me, and from memory none of it really felt like it was important enough to warrant an inclusion, nor did it help flesh things out that much more. Still, more Apocalypse Now is always good.
This is true. I also cared far less for the added footage in Godfather 1 (didn't see the second one's added footage). Top 5 - that's very impressive. I have to say at this point, between the Godfather Trilogy, The Conversation, The Rainmaker, and Apocalypse Now, Coppola is a Top 10 director for me.
That is one complaint I share; I do wish they hadn't included it. I realize the cow was to be executed regardless, but I wish it was excluded as well.
The killing never bothered me at all, as I saw its purpose. It wasn't just put in randomly or to sensationalize things. Its visceral, tribal nature grounded the world Coppola crafted and those who followed Kurtz. And you could take the cow sacrifice as a greater commentary on what the military had done to young men across America during the war: lined them up for slaughter in a fight with an enemy whose nature they weren't fully aware of.
Glad you liked it @FoxRox
I don't think I even bothered watching Redux to the end it was that tedious and pretentious.
You will enjoy the Hearts of Darkness documentary now you've seen the original film. Some great footage and stories. But be warned there is a brief scene of animal cruelty in some Vietnamese ritual which I found sickening.
In my top 5 of 2016 so far for me, and my #1 superhero film of 2016 (way ahead of BvS, Deadpool, Civil War and Apocalypse). A superhero film on steroids mixed with 10 cups of very strong coffee. The soundtrack is insane, and the action & humour non-stop for 2 hours. I don't know if the characters respect the comics but they were total badasses here and had very good chemistry.
Empire magazine gave it a good review and 4 stars...!
On the set, Leto is said to have been "in character" all the time, also while not filming. The other actors were apparently scared of him.
Who is actually saying that, especially that other actors were apparently (?) scared of him? I find it a bit hard to believe, though not entirely impossible. It just sounds like some urban legend more than fact, so is there proof? I'm even suspicious of claims of actors presumably being in character all the time - it seems to rarely actually be the case, but I don't know if Leto actually does that - and especially to what extent. There are also common misconceptions about what "being in character" even is. (Keeping the accent and stuff is not the same as being in character.)