Review: Apocalypse Now Redux (dir. by Francis Ford Coppola)


“The horror… the horror…” — Col. Walter Kurtz

There is a specific kind of cinematic fever dream that only war, isolation, and a touch of madness can produce, and Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now remains its gold standard. Co-written by Coppola and John Milius (the latter a colorful, larger-than-life figure in 1970s Hollywood), the film’s screenplay originally leaned harder into Milius’s romantic vision of martial will before Coppola reshaped it into something more hallucinatory and morally ambiguous. When we talk about the Redux version, released in 2001, twenty-two years after the original, we are not just revisiting that fever dream; we are plunging back into an even more hallucinatory, bloated, and revealing cut of the material.

At over three hours and twenty minutes, Apocalypse Now Redux is both a gift and a test of endurance. For those who only know the theatrical cut, this version feels less like a director’s tweak and more like unearthing a lost, more indulgent diary entry from Coppola’s own heart of darkness. The core remains the same: Captain Benjamin Willard (Martin Sheen), a morally hollowed-out assassin, is sent upriver during the Vietnam War to terminate Colonel Walter Kurtz (Marlon Brando), a once-brilliant Green Beret who has gone rogue and set himself up as a demi-god in the Cambodian jungle. The structure is a loose but unmistakable adaptation of Joseph Conrad’s classic 1899 novella Heart of Darkness, transposing Conrad’s grim critique of Belgian colonialism onto America’s own imperial overreach in Southeast Asia. Conrad’s journey up the Congo River becomes the Navy patrol boat’s crawl up the Nùng River, with each stop revealing a new layer of absurdity, violence, and spiritual decay.

The most immediate thing to address is what Redux adds, because those additions fundamentally alter the rhythm of the film. The theatrical cut is a lean, relentless descent. Redux is a meandering, hypnotic, and sometimes frustratingly pensive journey. Several major extended sequences distinguish this cut from the original. The first involves the Playboy Playmates. In the theatrical cut, we see them briefly at a chaotic USO show. In Redux, we get an extended sequence where Willard’s crew trades a canister of fuel for two hours with the stranded bunnies after their helicopter runs low on fuel. Later comes the brutal, psychedelic chaos of the Do Lung Bridge, which is extended in Redux to emphasize the utter breakdown of command and reality. And finally, deep in the journey, after surviving a tiger attack, Willard and the crew stumble upon the French rubber plantation, where a family of colonial planters refuses to leave their dying world. Each of these sequences grinds the forward momentum in different ways—the bunnies through desperate transaction, the bridge through absurd chaos, the plantation through nostalgic rot.

But to truly appreciate what Coppola is doing in Redux, you have to stop thinking of the Nùng River as a simple journey and start seeing it as a vertical descent—a layered, infernal funnel where each stop corresponds to a different circle of moral decay, much like the structure of Dante Alighieri’s Inferno, the first part of his epic narrative poem The Divine Comedy. The patrol boat is not just transport; it is a cramped, filthy ferry crossing the River Styx, and the further Willard and his crew go, the thinner the veil between civilization and savagery becomes. The Redux version, with its extended sequences, actually sharpens this Dantesque geometry rather than diluting it, because each added stop becomes another hellish layer, another specific flavor of corruption rotting under the jungle canopy. And importantly, the order of these stops tells a specific story of descent. Willard first encounters raw, commodified desire at the USO show, then plunges into the absurd mechanical chaos of the Do Lung Bridge, and finally drifts into the refined, decaying nostalgia of the French plantation—each circle deeper, stranger, and more spiritually corrosive than the last.

Consider the first major stop after leaving the relative order of the Delta: the extended Playboy Playmate sequence. In Dante’s Inferno, the early circles punish the lustful and the gluttonous—sins of appetite and passion that still acknowledge desire, however distorted. This stop is the hell of commodified desire, and it functions as the upper circle of Redux’s inferno. The bunnies are not seductresses; they are air-dropped promises of home, stranded and forced to barter their presence for fuel. The crew’s transaction—a canister of gas for two hours of the bunnies’ company—is transactional depravity laid bare. There is nothing refined here. The soldiers who swarm the boat are not conquering heroes; they are starving ghosts pawing at a mirage of femininity. The corruption is the commodification of intimacy, the way the war machine grinds up even fantasy into a trade good. In Dante’s Inferno, the lustful are eternally swept by winds, never at rest. Here, the winds are helicopter rotors, and no one finds peace. This stop still has energy, still has motion—it is desperate, ugly, and pathetic, but not yet defeated. It is the first circle: sin as transaction.

Further upriver, deeper into the jungle, you hit the second major stop in Redux’s order: the Do Lung Bridge. In Dante’s structure, the middle and lower circles punish the violent, the fraudulent, and the sowers of discord—those whose sins actively tear apart the fabric of order. The bridge is a sustained vision of the eighth circle—the Malebolge, the evil ditches of the fraudulent. This is the hell of absurd, endless combat, and it sits far below the bunnies’ desperate lust because it has abandoned desire altogether. The bridge is supposed to be a strategic point, but no one in command knows who is fighting whom or even which side holds which trench. Soldiers fire blindly into the dark; engineers build and rebuild sections of bridge that are destroyed every night by an invisible enemy. The wounded groan, a psychedelic light show of flares and tracers turns the sky into a flickering carnival of death, and a dazed soldier informs Willard that this place has been “crazy” for days. There is no front line, no objective, only endless, repetitive, pointless construction and destruction. The corruption here is systemic: the war has become an autopilot nightmare where violence generates nothing but more violence. Unlike the bunnies, who still want something, the soldiers at the bridge don’t even know what they are doing anymore. They simply perform the same broken task for eternity. Willard’s only reaction is a numb observation that he should inform his superiors, but he never will. The bridge is the point where any remaining belief in order or purpose dissolves into white noise. It is the second circle: sin as automation.

Then, after the bridge’s chaos, the crew drifts into the third major stop: the French rubber plantation. In Dante’s Inferno, the deepest circles before the frozen center punish heresy and treachery—sins of the intellect and will, where belief becomes a cage. The plantation functions exactly like this. It is the hell of nostalgia and colonial rot, a step deeper than the bridge’s chaos because it has calcified into ideology. After the raw transaction of the bunnies and the absurd violence of the bridge, the crew stumbles upon a walled pocket of denial. Here, the French family sips wine, argues geopolitics, and pretends the war is a tragic inconvenience rather than a total collapse. This is the hell of the static dead—people who refuse to acknowledge that their world has already ended. The rubber trees themselves, planted in neat, tyrannical rows, symbolize extractive cruelty made mundane. Willard sleeps with a widowed French woman, a moment of hollow lust that feels more like a funeral rite than passion. The corruption here is polite, intellectual, and almost seductive—but it is still decay wearing a starched shirt. Unlike the bunnies’ squalid desperation, the plantation has manners. Unlike the bridge’s chaotic noise, the plantation has quiet arguments. That makes it more insidious, and therefore deeper in the infernal funnel. This is the third circle: sin as denial.

By the time Willard finally reaches Kurtz’s compound, he has descended past all these preparatory circles into the ninth and final circle of Dante’s Inferno—Cocytus, the frozen lake of treachery, where Satan himself is trapped in ice. Kurtz is no longer a man but a fixed point of absolute darkness. His compound is a Cambodian nightmare of severed heads, pagan rituals, and whispered monologues. Unlike the bunnies’ desperate transaction, the bridge’s absurd chaos, or the plantation’s nostalgic denial, Kurtz’s hell is complete stillness. He has murdered and been worshipped for it. He has rejected every prior layer—commerce, command, colonialism—and arrived at a nihilistic truth: that horror is the only moral absolute. Willard’s task is not to understand Kurtz but to kill him, and in doing so, to become him. That is the final descent: not into fire, but into the ice of total moral withdrawal. The Redux version emphasizes this by making Kurtz more verbose but also more inert. He is trapped not by chains, but by his own unbearable clarity. The three stops before him—the bunnies, the bridge, the plantation—are all failed attempts to build meaning in the jungle. Kurtz is the place where meaning dies entirely.

What remains unchanged, across both cuts, is the technical majesty. Vittorio Storaro’s cinematography still haunts the soul. The opening shot—a napalm-blasted jungle dissolving into the slow rotation of a ceiling fan in a Saigon hotel room, with The Doors’ “The End” whispering over the soundtrack—is one of the great tone-setters in cinema history. The Redux cut luxuriates in these images even longer, letting the heat and humidity seep through the screen. The attack on a Vietnamese sampan, where an innocent family is slaughtered in a burst of trigger-happy panic, remains devastating. Laurence Fishburne’s young, wide-eyed Clean, Dennis Hopper’s jittery, sycophantic photojournalist (a role that feels like pure id), and Robert Duvall’s iconic Lieutenant Colonel Kilgore, who loves the smell of napalm in the morning, all deliver performances that feel less like acting and more like channeling. Duvall’s surf-obsessed madman is even more absurdly perfect in Redux because the added length makes his brief screentime feel like a welcome blast of cold air before the suffocating final act.

Which brings us back to Marlon Brando as Kurtz. Here is where Redux both helps and hurts. The theatrical cut gives Kurtz a mythic, almost abstract presence—shadowy, whispering, half-sculpted. Brando showed up overweight and unprepared, so Coppola shot him mostly in shadow. In Redux, those shadows remain, but the added material includes a longer, more discursive monologue where Kurtz reads from a Time magazine article about the war and rambles about the horror of administering lethal injections to polio-stricken villagers. It is more Brando, which is never nothing, but it also demystifies the monster. The terror of Kurtz in the original cut is that he is an idea, a reflection of Willard’s own potential. In Redux, he becomes a sweaty, slightly boring philosopher. The famous “the horror, the horror” death scene still lands, but getting there feels like you have already been swimming in his rhetoric for too long. The added footage makes Kurtz more human but less terrifying, which may or may not be an improvement depending on your tolerance for Brando’s mumbling.

The casual viewer might find Redux interminable. Let’s be honest: three and a half hours of madness, helicopters, and nihilism is a lot. There are stretches in the plantation sequence where you might check your phone. The pacing is deliberately, almost arrogantly slow. Coppola is not trying to entertain you; he is trying to drown you. And in those moments of slog—when the French family drones on about geopolitics, when the bunnies’ desperation overstays its welcome, when the bridge’s chaos becomes repetitive rather than shocking—you might be tempted to declare the whole Redux experiment a failure. But here is the uncomfortable truth that separates Apocalypse Now Redux from mere indulgent director’s cuts: the film’s occasional sluggishness, its bloated digressions, its refusal to maintain a clean narrative spine, are not flaws so much as they are the correct representation of the very thing the film’s themes and narrative ideas were trying to explore. This is a movie about a journey into moral rot, about the collapse of linear purpose into circular nightmare, about men who have stared too long into the abyss and lost the ability to tell a clean story. Why should the film itself be clean? The theatrical cut is a masterpiece of compression, yes—but compression is an act of control, and Apocalypse Now is ultimately about the loss of control. The Redux version, for all its unevenness, is the more honest artifact because it refuses to polish the madness into neat dramatic beats. The original film is a nightmare you cannot wake from; Redux is the insomnia that precedes it, the sweaty, bored, terrifying awareness that there is no ending, only more jungle.

This is why, despite its longer running time and the areas where the pacing sometimes slogs through, the film overall succeeds as not just a fever dream of the filmmaker, writers, and actors who survived its legendary production—the typhoons, the heart attacks, Brando’s chaos, Sheen’s breakdown—but as the correct representation of the very thing the film’s themes and narrative ideas were trying to explore. Apocalypse Now is about the impossibility of remaining sane in an insane environment. The Redux cut, by refusing to be efficiently sane, becomes a more immersive simulation of that condition. The theatrical cut tells you about the horror; the Redux cut makes you live inside its tedious, exhausting, occasionally boring reality. And boredom is part of horror, too—the long stretches between atrocities, the waiting, the pointless arguments, the nights that won’t end. Coppola, Milius, Sheen, Brando, and everyone else who survived the Philippines shoot did not emerge with a clean story. They emerged with scars, footage, and a kind of shell-shocked awe. The Redux version honors that survival by refusing to pretend the experience was anything other than a mess. It is the director’s cut as wound, not as polish.

For the obsessive, for those who want to see the entire messy, unfinished vision behind one of the great artistic catastrophes (the documentary Hearts of Darkness is essential companion viewing), Redux is invaluable. It reveals that the original 1979 cut was a miracle of editing—a salvage job that turned a troubled production into a masterpiece. Redux is the rough draft of that miracle. It has a bloated, novelistic quality, more concerned with atmosphere than narrative efficiency. As a loose adaptation of Heart of Darkness, it is oddly more faithful than the original cut—because Conrad’s novella is also meandering, digressive, and filled with colonial asides that do not advance the plot. But faithfulness is not the same as greatness.

The Redux version is a flawed, overstuffed, hypnotic masterpiece that sometimes trips over its own ambition. It earns its runtime not through tight storytelling, but through sheer, oppressive mood. And in the end, that is the point. You are not supposed to leave Apocalypse Now feeling satisfied. You are supposed to leave feeling like you have stared into something ancient and ugly. The Redux version just makes you stare longer, dragging you down through each Dantesque circle—from the desperate, transactional depravity of the Playboy bunnies, through the absurd, autopilot chaos of the Do Lung Bridge, past the polite, rotting nostalgia of the French plantation, and finally into the frozen stillness of Kurtz’s compound—until there is nothing left but the ice and the horror. And in those moments when the film slows to a crawl, when you check your watch and wonder why we are still at the plantation, that is not a failure of art. That is the art itself, reminding you that hell is not a nonstop carnival of screams. Hell is also a long, boring dinner with people who refuse to die. Whether that is luxury or punishment is for you to decide. But Apocalypse Now Redux succeeds precisely because it trusts you to sit with that discomfort and recognize it for what it is: the truth.

Review: Full Metal Jacket (dir. by Stanley Kubrick)


“You write ‘Born to Kill’ on your helmet and you wear a peace button. What’s that supposed to be, some kind of sick joke?” — Colonel

Full Metal Jacket is the kind of war movie that sticks in your craw like old metal shavings. It’s 1987, Stanley Kubrick’s last film released in his lifetime, and it plays less like a traditional Vietnam War saga and more like a taunt packed into two very different acts. One half is a barracks horror show about how the military turns boys into killers; the other is a grubby, almost casual descent into the chaos of combat. Together, they make a movie that feels intentionally disjointed so it can drill down on the same idea from two angles: war doesn’t just brutalize your body, it reshapes your mind into something barely human.

The film follows Private J.T. “Joker” Davis, played by Matthew Modine in one of those quietly watchful performances that’s easy to underestimate. Joker starts as a kind of archetypal smart‑mouth recruit, the guy who thinks he’s above the hysteria until he realizes he isn’t. Around him swirls a platoon of young Marines going through basic training at Parris Island under the merciless Gunnery Sergeant Hartman, played with shark‑like relish by R. Lee Ermey, who was actually a real‑life Marine drill instructor. Hartman’s whole job is to obliterate softness and replace it with drilled‑in aggression, and Kubrick lingers on every insult, every barked command, until the abuse stops feeling like a setup for a war movie and starts feeling like the main event.

The first half of Full Metal Jacket is basically a single, sustained initiation ritual. The camera stays tight, almost claustrophobic, trapping you in the barracks with the recruits, so you feel the same sensory overload they do. The lighting is harsh, the colors washed out, and the camera often locks in on Hartman’s face mid‑rant, making you uncomfortably intimate with his cruelty. This isn’t training so much as a manufactured psychological war waged on the platoon’s collective brain. The recruits are constantly degraded, mocked, and forced into grotesque rituals of humiliation, and the film never lets you forget that this is the system’s idea of “making Marines.” Kubrick doesn’t fake the perverse appeal of this process either; there’s a weird, ugly thrill in how effective it is, in how the boys start enjoying the brutality once they’re inside it.

The standout character in this section is Leonard “Gomer Pyle” Lawrence, played by Vincent D’Onofrio in a performance that’s almost physically uncomfortable to watch. D’Onofrio’s Pyle is this thick‑set, awkward kid who can’t keep up, and the movie doesn’t soften his edges to make him likable. He’s genuinely bad at the routine, slow, clumsy, but he’s also clearly just trying to survive. The film lets you watch, in a very matter‑of‑fact way, how the system turns his inadequacy into a target. The other recruits are instructed to punish him, and soon everyone starts in. The film doesn’t moralize about it; it just shows that this kind of group cruelty is baked into the structure. The infamous scene where the platoon holds Leonard down with piled‑on bed sheets while whacking him with a bar of soap wrapped in a towel is less about a single act of violence than about what it means to normalize dehumanization before you ever see combat.

What’s so unsettling about Full Metal Jacket is that it never pretends Hartman is some rogue sadist. He’s not an outlier; he’s the product of the system, and he’s also the system’s avatar. In that sense, the first half of the film functions like a kind of industrial horror. The Marines are being processed like defective parts on a factory line, streamed through a machine designed to break them and then rebuild them as compliant killers. The film toys with the idea that the military doesn’t want robots so much as creatures that hunger for violence on command. The line about “we don’t want robots, we want men” is repeated with a kind of grim irony because what the film actually shows is the production of something in between: not quite human, not quite machine, but something that can pull a trigger without hesitating.

Jumping from Parris Island to the streets of Huế during the Tet Offensive, the second half of Full Metal Jacket feels like a different movie in tone but the same one in thesis. Joker, now a combat correspondent with a Stars and Stripes hat and a “Born to Kill” slogan on his helmet, is literally split down the middle between observer and participant. He carries a camera and a rifle; he’s supposed to report, but he also has to fight. The film doesn’t resolve that tension the way a more sentimental war movie would. Instead, it lets Joker drift in that gray zone where war is equal parts absurdity and atrocity. The Vietnamese civilians are largely faceless, and the war itself is shown as a series of loosely connected vignettes—raids, ambushes, random firefights—rather than a grand narrative of heroism or tragedy.

Kubrick’s Vietnam is less a country and more a ruined theater set. The cityscapes are wide, desolate, and oddly beautiful in their destruction, as if the war has turned everything into a series of bleak tableaux. The camera doesn’t linger on gore for shock value; it lingers to make the war feel like a permanent, almost aesthetic state of ruin. Individual soldiers pop in and out: Animal Mother, the violently unhinged Marine played by Adam Baldwin; Cowboy, the earnest, almost naive replacement; and the rest of the squad, who oscillate between fear, boredom, and bursts of casual cruelty. None of them are given the kind of tragic backstories that usually make you emotionally invested in a war film. Instead, they’re presented as fragments of a larger machine, each one another cog in the same indifferent system.

The film’s most famous structural trick is its way of keeping politics at arm’s length while still radiating a deeply skeptical view of the war. It doesn’t really bother telling you who’s right or wrong, or why the Marines are there. It just shows what they become and what they do. The movie doesn’t ask you to sympathize with the Marines in the way some war films do; it asks you to recognize the mirror. The famous ending, where the Marines march through flaming ruins to the tune of Mickey Mouse, is pure Kubrick dark surrealism. The cheerful cartoon theme clashes violently with the apocalyptic imagery, and the soldiers chant along with a kind of manic innocence that feels like the last vestige of humanity being cannibalized by the war itself. It’s hard to tell whether the moment is tragic, absurd, or both, and that’s the point.

Full Metal Jacket is also a film about storytelling and the way narratives are weaponized. Joker, as a reporter, is supposed to package the war for a distant audience. He’s there to turn chaos into digestible stories, but the movie quietly undermines that idea by showing how unreliable those narratives are. The soldiers’ own stories are laced with jokes, bravado, misogyny, and casual racism, and the film doesn’t clean them up. It lets you sit with the ugliness, even when it’s delivered with a laugh. The film doesn’t romanticize the Marines’ camaraderie or soften their cruelty; it just lets you watch them behave like ordinary guys who happen to be doing something extraordinary and monstrous.

The cinematography in Full Metal Jacket is cold and precise, which is exactly what the material needs. The camera behaves like a reluctant witness, framing the Marines in symmetrical, almost clinical compositions that make their brutality look routine rather than spectacular. The score is minimal, and the film often relies on diegetic sound—machine‑gun fire, jeep engines, distant explosions, Hartman’s voice echoing off concrete walls—to ground you in the sensory overload of military life. Even the few moments of levity feel like concessions to show business more than true relief. The soldiers’ jokes are rarely funny in a wholesome way; they’re the kind of gallows humor that keeps you from noticing how broken you’ve become.

What ultimately makes Full Metal Jacket endure is that it refuses to offer catharsis. By the time the film ends, nothing has been “resolved” in the way Hollywood usually expects. Joker survives, but the war doesn’t; it just keeps going, and the Marines keep marching, chanting, and killing. The film doesn’t build toward a big speech about the futility of war or a tear‑jerker about fallen comrades. It just suggests, quietly and persistently, that the process outlined in the boot‑camp half is drafted, again, in the streets of Vietnam. You go in as a boy, you’re molded into something sharper and meaner, and then you’re sent out into a world that rewards that sharpness. The movie doesn’t need to say this out loud; it just shows it happening in scene after scene.

In that sense, Full Metal Jacket is one of the most honest anti‑war films precisely because it doesn’t pretend to be a plea for peace. It’s a portrait of a machine that feeds on itself, and of the people who get caught in its gears. It’s funny, disturbing, infuriating, and occasionally mesmerizing, sometimes all at once. It’s not a movie that wants to hold your hand or make you feel better about the human race. It wants you to stare at the gleam on that full metal jacket bullet and wonder what it took to make someone pull the trigger. That’s the real power of Full Metal Jacket: it doesn’t try to redeem the war, the soldiers, or the audience. It just makes sure you can’t look away.

Lisa Marie Reviews An Oscar Nominee: Apocalypse Now (dir by Francis Ford Coppola)


1979’s Apocalypse Now reimagines the Vietnam War as pop art.

Jim Morrison sings The End in the background as slow-motion helicopters pass in front of a lush jungle.  The jungle erupts into flame while in a dingy hotel room, Captain Benjamin Willard (Martin Sheen) gets drunks, practices his karate moves, and smashes a mirror before collapsing to the floor in tears.  The next morning, the hung-over and bandaged Willard ends up at a U.S. military base where he has a nice lunch with Lt. General Corman (G.D. Spradlin) and Col. Lucas (Harrison Ford) and a nearly silent man wearing an undone tie.  Willard is asked if it’s true that he assassinated an enemy colonel.  Willard replies that he did not and that the operation was classified, proving that he can both lie and follow military protocol.  Willard is told that a Col. Walter Kurtz (Marlon Brando) has gone rogue and his mission is to go into Cambodia and terminate his command with “extreme” prejudice.  It’s a famous scene that features G.D. Spradlin delivering a brilliant monologue about good and evil and yet it’s often missed that Willard is getting his orders from Roger Corman and George Lucas.

(Roger Corman was the mentor of director Francis Ford Coppola while the pre-Star Wars George Lucas was Coppola’s business partner.  Indeed, Apocalypse Now was originally somewhat improbably planned to be a George Lucas film.)

Up the river, Willard heads on a patrol boat that is populated with characters who could have come out of an old World War II service drama.  Chief (Albert Hall) is tough and no-nonsense.  Lance (Sam Bottoms) is the goofy comic relief who likes to surf.  Clean (Laurence Fishburne) is the kid who is obviously doomed from the minute we first see him.  Chef (Fredric Forrest) is the overage, tightly-wound soldier who just wants to find mangoes in the jungle and who worries that, if he dies in a bad place, his soul won’t be able to find Heaven.  The Rolling Stones are heard on the boat’s radio.  Soldiers on the other patrol boats moon the boat and toss incendiary devices on the roof.  It’s like a frat prank war in the middle of a war.

Colonel Bill Kilgore (Robert Duvall) is a badass calvary officer whose helicopter raids are legendary amongst the enemy and a dedicated surfer who tries to turn every night into the equivalent of an AIP Beach Party film.  He’s a brilliant warrior who speaks with Malibu accent (“Charlie don’t surf!”) and who doesn’t flinch when a bomb goes off near him.  “I love the smell a napalm in the morning,” he says and, for a few moments, you really wish the film would just abandon Willard so we could spend more time with Kilgore.  “Some day this war is going to end,” he says with a reassuring nod, showing a non-neurotic attitude that is the opposite of Kurtz’s.  Willard says that he could tell Kilgore was going to get through the war without even a scratch and it’s true.  Kilgore doesn’t try to rationalize or understand things.  He just accepts the reality and adjusts.  He’s a true surfer.

The film grows progressively more surreal the closer the boat heads up the river and gets closer to Cambodia.  A USO show turns violent as soldiers go crazy at the sight of the Playboy Bunnies, dressed in denim outfits and cowboy hats and twirling cap guns like the love interest in a John Wayne western.  A visit to a bridge that is built every day and blown up every night is a neon-lit, beautiful nightmare.  Who’s the commanding officer?  No one knows and no one cares.

The closer Willard gets to Kurtz, the stranger the world gets.  Fog covers the jungles.  A tiger leaps out of nowhere.  Dennis Hopper shows up as a photojournalist who rambles as if Billy from Easy Rider headed over to Vietnam instead of going to Mardi Gras.  Scott Glenn stands silently in front of a temple, surrounded by dead bodies that feel as if they could have been brought over from an Italian cannibal film.  Kurtz, when he shows up, is an overweight, bald behemoth who talks in riddles and who hardly seem to be the fearsome warrior that he’s been described as being.  “The horror, the horror,” he says at one point in one of the few moments that links Apocalypse Now to its inspiration, Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness.

Directed by near-communist Francis Ford Coppola and written by the unapologetically right-wing John Milius, Apocalypse Now is actually less about the reality of Vietnam and more about how the images of the war shaped pop culture the world over.  It’s a reminder that Vietnam was known for being the first television war and that counterculture was not just made up of dropouts but also of writers, actors, and directors.  Kurtz may say that Willard’s been sent by grocery store clerks but actually, he’s been sent by the B-movie producers who first employed and mentored the directors and the actors who would eventually become the mainstays of the New Hollywood.  The film subverts many classic war film cliches but, at the same time, it stays true to others.  Clean dying while listening to a tape recording of his mother telling him not to get shot and to come home safe is the type of manipulative, heart-tugging moment that could have appeared in any number of World War II-era films.  And while Coppola has always said the film was meant to be anti-war, Col. Kilgore remains the most compelling character.  Most viewers would probably happily ride along with Kilgore while he flies over Vietnam and plays Wagner.  The striking images of Vietnam — the jungle, the explosions, the helicopters flying through the air — stay in the mind far more than the piles of dead bodies that appear in the background.

It’s a big, messy, and ultimately overwhelming film and, while watching it, it’s hard not to get the feeling that Coppola wasn’t totally sure what he was really trying to say.  It’s a glorious mess, full of stunning visuals, haunting music, and perhaps the best performance of Robert Duvall’s legendary career.  The film is too touched with genius to not be watchable but how one reacts overall to the film will probably depend on which version you see.

The original version, which was released in 1979 and was nominated for Best Picture, is relentless with its emphasis on getting up the river and finding Kurtz.  Willard obsesses on Kurtz and really doesn’t have much to do with the other people on the boat.  It gives the story some much-needed narrative momentum but it also makes Kurtz into such a legendary badass that it’s hard not to be disappointed when Willard actually meets him.  You’re left to wonder how, if Kurtz has been living in the jungle and fighting a brutal and never-ending guerilla war against the communists, he’s managed to gain so much weight.  Brando, who reportedly showed up on set unprepared and spent days improvising dialogue, gives a bizarre performance and it’s hard to view the Kurtz we meet as being the Kurtz we’ve heard about.  As strong as the film is, it’s hard not to be let down by who Kurtz ultimately turns out to be.

In 2001 and 2019, Coppola released two more versions of the film, Redux and The Final Cut.  These versions re-inserted a good deal of footage that was edited out of the original cut.  Most of that footage deals with Willard dealing with the crew on the boat and it’s easy to see why it was cut.  The scenes of Willard bonding with the crew feel out of character for both Willard and the rest of the crew.  A scene where Willard arranges for Clean, Lance, and Chef to spend time with the Playboy bunnies seems to go on forever and features some truly unfortunate acting.  Worst of all, Redux totally ruins Kilgore’s “I love the smell of napalm in the morning” monologue by having Willard suddenly steal his surf board.  Again, it’s out of character for Willard and it actually feels a bit disrespectful to Duvall’s performance to suddenly turn Kilgore into a buffoon.

But then there are moments that do work.  I actually like the lengthy French Plantation scene.  By the time Willard, Lance, and Chef stumble into the plantation,  the journey upriver has gotten so surreal that it makes a strange sort of sense that they would run into a large French family arguing politics while a clown tries to keep everyone distracted.  The new versions of the film are undeniably disjointed but they also shift the focus off of finding Kurtz and place it more on Willard discovering how weird things are getting in Vietnam.  As such, it’s less of a disappointment when Kurtz actually shows up.  Much as with the French Plantation scene, the journey has become so weird that Kurtz being overweight and pretentious feels somehow appropriate.

What all the versions of the film have in common is that they’re all essentially a neon-lit dream of pop cultural horror.  Is Apocalypse Now a horror film?  Critic Kim Newman argued that it owed a lot to the genre.  Certainly, that’s the case when Willard reaches the temple and finds himself surrounded by corpses and and detached heads.  Even before that, though, there are elements of horror.  The enemy is always unseen in the jungle and, when they attack, they do so quickly and without mercy.  In a scene that could almost have come from a Herzog film, the boat is attacked with toy arrows until suddenly, out of nowhere, someone throws a very real spear.  Until he’s revealed, Kurtz is a ghostly figure and Willard is the witch hunter, sent to root him out of his lair and set his followers on fire.  If the post-60s American horror genre was shaped by the images coming out of Vietnam then Apocalypse Now definitely deserves to be considered, at the very least, horror-adjacent.

Apocalypse Now was controversial when it was released.  (It’s troubled production had been the talk of Hollywood for years before Coppola finally finished his film.)  It was nominated for Best Picture but lost to the far more conventional Kramer vs Kramer.  Robert Duvall was the film’s sole acting nominee but he lost the award to Melvyn Douglas’s turn in Being There.  Douglas was very good in Being There and I imagine giving him the Oscar was also seen as a way of honoring his entire career.  That said, Duvall’s performance was amazing.  In his relatively brief screen time, Duvall somehow managed to take over and ground one of the most unruly films ever made.  The Oscar definitely should have gone to him.

As for the film itself, all three versions, flaws and all, are classics.  It’s a film that proves that genius can be found in even the messiest of productions.

Retro Television Review: Miami Vice 4.9 “The Rising Sun of Death”


Welcome to Retro Television Reviews, a feature where we review some of our favorite and least favorite shows of the past!  On Mondays, I will be reviewing Miami Vice, which ran on NBC from 1984 to 1989.  The entire show can be purchased on Prime!

This week, the Yakuza invades Miami.

Episode 4.9 “The Rising Sun of Death”

(Dir by Leon Ichaso, originally aired on May 27th, 1988)

Castillo is concerned.  The murder of an American businessman leads him to suspect that the Yakuza has come to Miami and it turns out that he’s right.  Riochi Tanaka (James Hong), a World War II war criminal-turned-mobster, is trying to take over the Miami underworld.  While corrupt Homicide Detective Haskell (R. Lee Ermey) tries to convince everyone that the Yakuza is just a myth, Castillo teams up with Japanese detective Kenji Fujitsu (Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa) to takes down Tanaka and his right-hand man, Agawa (Danny Kamekoa).  Needless to say, this leads to a fight with samurai swords, a lot of talk of honor, and a seppuku to close the case.

This episode hit every Yakuza cliche and the plot itself felt as if it had been put together at the last minute.  (This is one of those episodes where every plot hole is dismissed as being a cultural difference.)  We’re expected to believe that Tanaka could outsmart the Allies during World War II but he couldn’t outsmart the Miami Vice Squad.  As well, of the major Japanese characters, only one was played by Japanese actor.  Danny Kamekoa is a Hawaiian while James Hong is of Chinese descent.

That said, this episode was shot and filmed with a lot of style and it found an excuse to play Billy Idol’s Flesh For Fantasy during one of the early scenes.  There’s something to be said for that.  Neither Crockett nor Tubbs really did much in this episode but we did get to see Crockett house hunting with Cailtin.  It’s mentioned that everyone thinks that Caitlin’s new husband is named Sonny Burnett instead of Sonny Cockett.  That’s fine …. except for the fact that Sonny Crockett has previously been established as a bit of a minor celebrity, a college football star who would have gone on to the NFL if he hadn’t injured his knee.  Every time this show tries to convince me that Crockett has fooled everyone into thinking he’s Sonny Burnett, it just further convinces me that there’s no way Crockett and Tubbs should still be doing undercover assignments.

This episode was stylish but empty but, considering some of the other episodes that have aired during this season, at least it was entertaining.

The Boys In Company C (1978, directed by Sidney J. Furie)


In 1967, a group of young men arrive at the Marie Corp. Recruit Depot in San Diego.  Tyrone Washington (Stan Shaw) is a drug dealer from Chicago who tells everyone not to mess with him and who soon emerges as a natural born leader.  Dave Brisbee (Craig Wasson) is a long-haired hippie who tried to feel to Canada and who shows up for induction in handcuffs.  Vinny Fazio (Michael Lembeck) is a cocky and streetwise kid from Brooklyn.  Billy Ray Pike (Andrew Stevens) is a country boy from Texas.  Alvin Foster (James Canning) is an aspiring writer who keeps a journal of his experiences.  Sgt. Loyce (R. Lee Ermey, making his film debut) molds them into a combat unit before they leave for Vietnam, where they discover that all of their training hasn’t prepared them for the reality of Vietnam.

The Boys In Company C has the same basic structure as Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket, right down to R. Lee Ermey playing the tough drill sergeant.  The sharp discipline of basic training is compared to the chaos of Vietnam.  Ermey always said that he was playing a bad drill sergeant in Full Metal Jacket because he tore down the recruits but never bothered to build them back up.  In The Boys In Company C, Ermey plays a good drill sergeant, one who is tough but fair and who helps Washington reach his potential.  It doesn’t make any difference once the company arrives in Vietnam, though.  Both The Boys In Company C and Full Metal Jacket present the war in Vietnam as being run by a collection of incompetent officer who have no idea what it’s like for the soldiers who are expected to carry out their orders.

Of course, The Boys In Company C is nowhere near as good as Full Metal Jacket.  Full Metal Jacket was directed by Stanley Kubrick and it’s a chilling and relentless look at the horrors of combat.  The Boys In Company C was directed by Sidney J. Furie, a journeyman director who made a lot of movies without ever developing a signature style.  The basic training scenes are when the film is at its strongest.  When the company arrives in Vietnam, Furie struggles with the story’s episodic structure and it can sometimes be difficult to keep track of the large ensemble cast.  The Vietnam sequences are at their best when the emphasis is on the soldiers grumbling and bitching as their officers send them on one pointless mission after another.  The soccer game finale tries to duplicate the satire of the football game that ended Robert Altman’s M*A*S*H but it does so with middling results.  The Boys in Company C is a collection of strong moments that never manage to come together as a cohesive whole.

The movie is still important as one of the first major films to be made about the war in Vietnam.  However, it’s since been overshadowed by The Deer Hunter, Apocalypse Now, Platoon, and, of course, Full Metal Jacket.

 

#SundayShorts with THE FRIGHTENERS (1996)!


In the 1980’s I was a huge fan of Michael J. Fox. Alex P. Keaton was my hero, and BACK TO THE FUTURE and TEEN WOLF are two of my favorite 80’s movies. In the early 2000’s I became a huge fan of Director Peter Jackson due to his LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy. Made in 1996, THE FRIGHTENERS is the only Peter Jackson film I had seen prior to the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy. I saw THE FRIGHTENERS at the movie theater in 1996, and I loved it. It was different than I was expecting going in, but it has one hell of cast. I had not seen any of Jeffrey Combs’ work prior to this movie, and he totally cracked me up. Throw in a ghostly Chi McBride whose character even references Charles Bronson* at one point, and I’m hooked. Peter Jackson directing Michael J. Fox. Now that’s a match made in heaven!

*BONUS – Chi McBride as Cyrus
:

“All right, man, this is it. We gotta be hard. No mercy. We’re going in like professionals, like Charles Bronson. We don’t stop till the screaming starts, you dig?”

Lisa Marie Reviews An Oscar Nominee: Mississippi Burning (dir by Alan Parker)


1988’s Mississippi Burning opens on a lonely Mississippi backroad in 1964.  A car is pulled over by the police.  Inside the car are three young men, one black and two white.  Judging from their nervous expressions and the sound of the people who stopped them and the fact that they’re in Mississippi during the 60s, we can guess what is about to happen to the people in the car.

With the three men, who were civil rights activists who were involved in voter registration efforts, officially considered to be missing, the FBI sends down two agents to find out what happened.  The two agents are Alan Ward (Willem DaFoe) and Rupert Anderson (Gene Hackman).  Ward is a Northerner who does things by the book and who resents having to deal with lax Southern law enforcement.  He is serious-minded and, just in case we need a reminder of how serious he is, he wears bar-rimmed glasses that make him look like the world’s most fearsome IRS agent.  Anderson is from Mississippi.  He’s a talkative good ol’ boy who was a sheriff before he joined the FBI.  “You know what has four eyes but can’t see?” Anderson asks, “Mississippi.”  It’s a tense partnership, as Ward sometimes disapproves of Anderson’s methods and Anderson thinks that Ward doesn’t understand how things work in Mississippi.

From the first minute we meet local law enforcement, we know that they’re the killers.  Just the fact that one of them are played by Brad Dourif is evidence enough.  However, no one in town is willing to say a word against the police or their cronies.  The white citizens are either too intimidated or they agree with what happened to the three civil rights workers.  (The three men are often referred to as being “outside agitators.”)  The black townspeople live in fear of the Klan and have no reason to trust the word of white FBI agents like Ward and Anderson.

Ward and Anderson investigate the case, hoping that they can find some bit of evidence that will prove the guilt of Sheriff Stuckey (Gailard Sartain), Deputy Pell (Brad Dourif), KKK leader Clayton Townley (Stephen Tobolowsky), and maybe even the town’s mayor (R. Lee Ermey).  One advantage that the FBI has is that the murderers are incredibly stupid.  Another is that Deputy Pell’s abused wife (Frances McDormand, giving the film’s best performance) might be persuaded to testify against her husband.

Mississippi Burning is an example of both powerful filmmaking and problematic history.  Like Ridley Scott, director Alan Parker got his start making commercials and he brought the same sensibility to his movies.  He knew what audiences wanted to see and he made sure to give it to them.  Mississippi Burning looks fantastic and is full of memorable performances.  (Both McDormand and Hackman received Oscar nominations).  The action moves quickly and the villains are so hateful that watching them end up getting humiliated really does bring about a sort of emotional release.

At the same time, this is a film about the Civil Rights era that presents the FBI as being the heroes.  And while it’s true that the FBI did investigate the real-life murders that inspired this film, Mississippi Burning leaves out the fact that the FBI was just a rigorous in harassing and wire tapping Martin Luther King as they were in keeping an eye on the leaders of the Klan.  It’s a film about racism in which the heroes are as white as the villains.  Gene Hackman gives a good performance as Rupert Anderson but the film never really delves all that deeply into Anderson’s feelings about racism in the South.  We’re told that he was a sheriff in Mississippi but we never learn much about what type of sheriff Anderson was.  He’s opposed to the Klan but, historically, the same can be said of many segregationists in the 60s, many of whom felt the Klan’s activities brought unwanted federal attention to what was happening in their home states.  By not delving into Anderson’s own history as a member of Mississippi law enforcement or the FBI’s own more problematic history when it comes to the civil rights movement, the film provides viewers with the escape of viewing the bad guys as being aberrations as opposed to being the norm in 1964.  In the end, Mississippi Burning is an effective thriller with strong heroes and hateful villains.  Just don’t watch it for historical accuracy.

Mississippi Burning was nominated for Best Picture but it lost to Rain Man.

Scenes That I Love: Hartman Welcomes The Recruits In Full Metal Jacket


Today, on what would have been Stanley Kubrick’s birthday, our scene comes from 1987’s Full Metal Jacket.  

By most account, Kubrick was a director who did not regularly encourage improvisation but he apparently made an exception while filming Full Metal Jacket, allowing R. Lee Ermey to come up with his own dialogue for the majority of his scenes as Sgt. Hartman.  At one point, Kubrick apparently even asked Ermey to clarify what some of his more colorful lines were referring to.

In this scene, Hartman meets his latest batch of recruits and lets them know that they are the lowest of the low.  One thing that is often missed about this scene is that Ermey specifically played Hartman as being a drill instructor who was bad at his job, as someone who broke down his recruits but failed to build them back up.  (Being a former drill instructor, Ermey knew what he was talking about.)  It’s a bit ironic that, to many, Ermey’s Hartman is the first character they think of when they think of a drill instructor.

10 Oscar Snubs From the 1980s


Ah, the 80s! Ronald Reagan was president. America was strong. Russia was weak. The economy was booming. The music was wonderful. Many great movies were released, though most of them were not nominated for any Oscars. This is the decade that tends to drive most Oscar fanatics batty. So many good films that went unnominated. So many good performers that were overlooked.  Let’s dive on in!

1980: The Shining Is Totally Ignored

Admittedly, The Shining was not immediately embraced by critics when it was first released.  Stephen King is still whining about the movie and once he went as far as to joke about being happy that he outlived Stanley Kubrick.  (Not cool, Steve.)  Well, none of that matters.  The Shining should have been nominated across the board.  “Come and play with us, Danny …. AT THE OSCARS!”

1981: Harrison Ford Is Not Nominated For Best Actor For Raiders of the Lost Ark

Raiders received a lot of nominations.  Steven Spielberg was nominated for Best Director.  The film itself was nominated for Best Picture.  (It lost to Chariots of Fire.)  But the man who helped to hold the film together, Harrison Ford, was not nominated for his performance as Indiana Jones.  Despite totally changing the way that people looked at archeologists and also making glasses sexy, Harrison Ford was overlooked.  I think this was yet another case of the Academy taking a reliable actor for granted.

1982: Brian Dennehy Is Not Nominated For Best Supporting Actor For First Blood

First Blood didn’t receive any Oscar nominations, not even in the technical categories.  Personally, I think you could argue that the film, which was much more than just an action film, deserved to be considered for everything from Best Actor to Best Director to Best Picture.  But, in the end, if anyone was truly snubbed, it was Brian Dennehy.  Dennehy turned Will Teasle into a classic villain.  Wisely, neither the film nor Dennehy made the mistake of portraying Sheriff Teasle as being evil.  Instead, he was just a very stubborn man who couldn’t admit that he made a mistake in the way he treated John Rambo.  Dennehy gave an excellent performance that elevated the entire film.

1984: Once Upon A Time In America Is Totally Ignored

It’s not a huge shock that Once Upon A Time In America didn’t receive any Oscar nominations.  Warner Bros. took Sergio Leone’s gangster epic and recut it before giving it a wide release in America.  Among other things, scenes were rearranged so that they played out in chronological order, the studio took 90 minutes off of the run time, and the film’s surrealistic and challenging ending was altered.  Leone disowned the Warner Bros. edit of the film.  Unfortunately, in 1984, most people only saw the edited version of Once Upon A Time In America and Leone was so disillusioned by the experience that he would never direct another film.  (That said, even the edited version featured Ennio Morricone’s haunting score, which certainly deserved not just a nomination but also the Oscar.)  The original cut of Once Upon A Time In America is one of the greatest gangster films ever made, though one gets the feeling that it might have still been too violent, thematically dark, and narratively complex for the tastes of the Academy in 1984.  At a time when the Academy was going out of its way to honor good-for-you films like Gandhi, it’s probable that a film featuring Robert De Niro floating through time in an Opium-induced haze might have been a bridge too far.

1985: The Breakfast Club Is Totally Ignored

Not even a nomination for Best Screenplay!  It’s a shame.  I’m going to guess that the Academy assumed that The Breakfast Club was just another teen flick.  Personally, if nothing else, I would have given the film the Oscar for Best Original Song.  Seriously, don’t you forget about me.

1986: Alan Ruck Is Not Nominated For Best Supporting Actor For Ferris Bueller’s Day Off

Poor Cameron!

1986: Blue Velvet Is Not Nominated For Best Picture

Considering the type of films that the Academy typically nominated in the 80s, it’s something of a shock that David Lynch even managed to get a Best Director nomination for a film as surreal and subversive as Blue Velvet.  Unfortunately, that was the only recognition that the Academy was willing to give to the film.  It can also be argued that Kyle MacLachlan, Laura Dern, Isabella Rossellini, and Dean Stockwell were overlooked by the Academy.  Dennis Hopper did receive a Supporting Actor nomination in 1986, though it was for Hoosiers and not Blue Velvet.

1987: R. Lee Ermey Is Not Nominated For Best Supporting Actor For Full Metal Jacket

One of the biggest misconceptions about Full Metal Jacket is that R. Lee Ermey was just playing himself.  While Ermey was a former drill instructor and he did improvise the majority of his lines (which made him unique among actors who have appeared in Kubrick films), Ermey specifically set out to play Sgt. Hartmann as being a bad drill instructor, one who pushed his recruits too hard, forgot the importance of building them back up, and was so busy being a bully that he failed to notice that Pvt. Pyle had gone off the deep end.  Because Ermey was, by most accounts, a good drill instructor, he knew how to portray a bad one and the end result was an award-worthy performance.

1988: Die Hard Is Not Nominated For Best Picture, Actor, Supporting Actor, or Director

Die Hard did receive some technical nominations but, when you consider how influential the film would go on to be, it’s hard not to feel that it deserved more.  Almost every action movie villain owes a debt to Alan Rickman’s performance as Hans Gruber.  And Bruce Willis …. well, all I can say is that people really took Bruce for granted.

1989: Do The Right Thing Is Not Nominated For Best Picture

Indeed, it would take another 30 years for a film directed by Spike Lee to finally be nominated for Best Picture.

Agree?  Disagree?  Do you have an Oscar snub that you think is even worse than the 10 listed here?  Let us know in the comments!

Up next: It’s the 90s!

The Terror Within II (1991, directed by Andrew Stevens)


Two years after ripping off Alien with The Terror Within, producer Roger Corman decided to rip it off a second time with The Terror Within II.  This time, star Andrew Stevens hopped into the director’s chair and, along with the sex-crazed monsters, a religious cult was also added.  A year after The Terror Within II was released, Alien 3 was released and it also featured a religious cult.  Was it a coincidence or was Roger Corman predicting the future?

Speaking of the future, The Terror Within II returns us to the crappy future that was predicted by the first film.  As the previous film’s only survivor, scientist Andrew Stevens is walking across Colorado to take a position at yet another lab.  Along the way, he meets a young woman named Ariel (Clare Hoak).  No sooner have they met than they’re doing their bit to repopulate the human race.  Meanwhile, a cult wants to kidnap Ariel and offer her up to the mutants.  (The mutants were called Gargoyles in the first film.  Now, they’re called Lusus.)

Meanwhile, at the other lab, the scientists, including Stella Stevens and R. Lee Ermey, are studying a mutated finger, which appears to be spontaneously regenerating into a Gargoyle or a Lusus or whatever its called now.  Does it occur to anyone at the lab that growing their own monster is a stupid idea?  No.  Humanity is doomed.

The Terror Within II was shot for even less money than the first film but it’s also a marked improvement.  That’s mostly due to Andrew Stevens being a far more competent filmmaker than the director who did the first film.  Stevens know how to shoot an action scene and, when the monsters inevitable do end up storming the lab, it’s more exciting in the second film than it was in the first.  Plus, whereas The Terror Within only had George Kennedy to lend it some class, The Terror Within II has both R. Lee Ermey and Stella Stevens!  It’s an improvement, all around.

Unfortunately, there was never a third film.  The Lusus probably would have won anyways.  There’s only so many underground labs that humanity can hide out in.