Apocalypse Now Re-Redux

Sad Professor

Francis Coppola is recutting Apocalypse Now again for its 40th anniversary. This "final cut" will be 20 minutes shorter than the Redux version released in 2001. It's getting a limited theatrical release in August in the US and presumedly the UK/Ireland too.

adox

I thought the redux was vastly inferior to the original cut.

Gwynplaine

They have to cut more time off it because the majority of people now have the attention span of a goldfish, and cant go more than 5 minutes without looking at their phone.

pixelburp

Gwynplaine wrote: »

They have to cut more time off it because the majority of people now have the attention span of a goldfish, and cant go more than 5 minutes without looking at their phone.

There's a 3 hour blockbuster currently shy of $2 billion at the box office that might disagree with you...

Akrasia

adox wrote: »

I thought the redux was vastly inferior to the original cut.

But there were boobs!

Sad Professor

Akrasia wrote: »

But there were boobs!

The scene with the playmates is apparently gone in the new version.

Decuc500

I wish they would take the Water Buffalo slaughter scene out of it. So unnecessary.

branie2

I prefer the original

mloc123

Decuc500 wrote: »

I wish they would take the Water Buffalo slaughter scene out of it. So unnecessary.

Yeah... Disturbing scene

Tony EH

Why not just release the original cut?

Redux was a pretty bad idea really. Stuff that ended up on the cutting room floor in the first place did so for a good reason. The playmate and French plantation scenes kill the film stone dead and don't add anything to the film at all, except for some second level information that the French family provide re: politics in Vietnam.

The only additions that were worth seeing were the extra scenes in Kurtz's camp. But, when I saw this is the cinema, I felt that it spoilt the mystery of that place somewhat.

In any case these "director's cuts" aren't always a good idea. In fact, I'd say more often than not they're bad ones. Another film that springs to mind that's better in its original form is 'The Big Red One'.

Jurgen The German

pixelburp wrote: »

There's a 3 hour blockbuster currently shy of $2 billion at the box office that might disagree with you...

buser2x

I prefer the original as well, the redux was un-necessary , I will like to see this new cut

boyce81

Tony EH wrote: »

In any case these "director's cuts" aren't always a good idea. In fact, I'd say more often than not they're bad ones. Another film that springs to mind that's better in its original form is 'The Big Red One'.

Add the "Donnie Darko" Director's cut to that list!

Danny2580

Very much looking forward to this.

buser2x

I did see it on the big screen when it first came out,,,when that tiger jumped out, scared the hell out of me

MfMan

Could they recut it to excise all Brando's scenes out of it? His incomprehensible gibberish killed the movie stone dead.

branie2

The whole point of the film was to find and kill Brando's character, so why cut him out?

pixelburp

You'd struggle to cut Brando out from a narrative point of view, but his contribution is definitely overrated and over-mythologised IMO; it was self indulgent and unprofessional - typical of Brando in his latter career who would cause havoc in productions because of his flightiness - and exactly the kind of empty philosophising rhetoric you see nowadays on Facebook feeds, from those trying to affect deep thought through superficial waffle.

beauf

Spoiler tags people.

Ironically much like the character he was playing.