I have not so strong memories of the original version, which I saw as a teenager.

The extra length in Redux and specifically the French estate interlude made the movie much more dreamlike and intoxicating in a way. Wasn't bored for a minute.

I haven't seen Youth Without Youth, so maybe have missed Coppola's resurgance, but what the fuck happened to him? Some of the movies he made in the nineties were beyond dreadful. I really want to know what was going through his head when he made Jack.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116669

emmanuelle cunt wrote:

That's crazy! It's Kino Moskwa, in Warsaw, Poland! I used to watch movies there before they tore it down....It was the most communist theater in Warsaw for sure.

Jeez, I saw The Fugitive there (twice), Jurassic Park when it first came out. It was the true post-commie experience. Do they still have the Silver Screens or whatever just down from that?

CRAP.

Big, dumb, irresponsible movie. More of a chance for Coppola to writ large his eight-year-old imaginings of war than a serious exploration of Vietnam and its consequences.

I'm not the only one who hates it.

mattw wrote:

emmanuelle cunt wrote:

That's crazy! It's Kino Moskwa, in Warsaw, Poland! I used to watch movies there before they tore it down....It was the most communist theater in Warsaw for sure.

Jeez, I saw The Fugitive there (twice), Jurassic Park when it first came out. It was the true post-commie experience. Do they still have the Silver Screens or whatever just down from that?

Yes, I know, It's 15 minutes of walking from here! Silver Screen is located at exactly the same spot. They even kept the lions.

Conchis wrote:The extra length in Redux and specifically the French estate interlude made the movie much more dreamlike and intoxicating in a way.

That section by itself is fine, but I think the film as a whole worked better when Willard didn't take a break in his journey to the heart of darkness to eat a nice meal and nail a french lady.

tocharian wrote:Big, dumb, irresponsible movie. More of a chance for Coppola to writ large his eight-year-old imaginings of war than a serious exploration of Vietnam and its consequences.

It does not work as an exploration of the Vietnam war, but other than that I think that it is an awesome film. I would be impressed by anyone with as spectacular an imagination as that expressed in the film. There's an obscene over-ripeness to it that I think is grand, and I have not seen elsewhere. I'm thinking literally in the case of the decaying bodies, but more in terms of the way the film seems to have sprawled and grown to just before the point of rotting: it's a glorious mess, and this extends to faces of the beleaguered actors. Most characters are overwrought to the point where you'd think that to touch them would burst them, and occasionally this happens. Corpse flowers, if you will.

Obviously, knowledge of the rather disgusting way it was made influences this impression. It is a decadent film, at the druggy end of Coppola and his contemporaries' period of power.

Irresponsible I do not get; insane, thematically unsure, morally hopeless, sure. This hopeless confusion seeps into the form of the film and I think that that is fascinating.

And I prefer the Redux version.

sparky wrote:

tocharian wrote:Big, dumb, irresponsible movie. More of a chance for Coppola to writ large his eight-year-old imaginings of war than a serious exploration of Vietnam and its consequences.

It does not work as an exploration of the Vietnam war, but other than that I think that it is an awesome film. I would be impressed by anyone with as spectacular an imagination as that expressed in the film. There's an obscene over-ripeness to it that I think is grand, and I have not seen elsewhere. I'm thinking literally in the case of the decaying bodies, but more in terms of the way the film seems to have sprawled and grown to just before the point of rotting: it's a glorious mess, and this extends to faces of the beleaguered actors. Most characters are overwrought to the point where you'd think that to touch them would burst them, and occasionally this happens. Corpse flowers, if you will.

Obviously, knowledge of the rather disgusting way it was made influences this impression. It is a decadent film, at the druggy end of Coppola and his contemporaries' period of power.

Irresponsible I do not get; insane, thematically unsure, morally hopeless, sure. This hopeless confusion seeps into the form of the film and I think that that is fascinating.

And I prefer the Redux version.

It IS an awesome film, but not a great one. I didn't get it myself until I saw the Redux version on the big screen. I would go as far as saying Original: Crap, Redux: Not Crap.

Maybe best watched in conjunction with the Hearts of Darkenss documentary: "We had access to too much money, too much equipment, and little by little, we went insane."

I would love to see the 5 hour long edit that was supposedly made.

sparky wrote:Irresponsible I do not get; insane, thematically unsure, morally hopeless, sure. This hopeless confusion seeps into the form of the film and I think that that is fascinating.

Hm. I'd like to be able to say more about AN but that would involve rewatching the film, as my memory of it isn't that precise. I just remember expecting something that would prove Copolla's worth as a director and being completely appalled. AN seemed like a celebration of far-out, krazy brahs and explosions rather than an honest attempt to explore and empathize with the brutalization suffered by the Vietnamese at the hands of the American military. I really don't think a beautiful, violent entertainment was in order here.

i think it's a mistake to think of AN as 'a vietname war movie' when in reality it's 'a movie that is set in the vietnam war'.

Great movie. One of my favorites. I love the fact that this lost the best picture award to Kramer Vs. Kramer.