Still one of the best

Rating: 9/10 (12 September 2006)

I have seen several versions of this film. Years ago, when it first came out, in the theater, several times. A year or so ago I went to the theater to watch the newly edited and much longer version that had all that extra material added on. I just recently purchased a very inexpensive VHS version of the original; this version had the ending without the bombardment.
So, I've seen most of the iterations of this film. I want to first comment on the extra long version that came out recently. For me the extra hour or so of added material just added weight that was totally unnecessary to the plot. It made the film too long and the plot diversions with the French added nothing but padding. Willard's character didn't need to visit with them and so I was left wondering why it was included. I understand that legend has it that Coppola shot about 200 hours of film. Heck, with all that extra stuff lying around, I guess the temptation to put it back was too great. The extra material with the Playboy bunnies was useless.
Watching the original again reminded me of how much I did not like the soundtrack. OF course I liked the Wagner and The Doors. The rest was just awful to my ears. I found that the only redeeming factor that the longest version has over the others is the outstanding colors that come out in the fresh print. The additional material with Robert Duval was silly and not necessary. As well the additional Brando scenes did not add to the "darkness" but detracted by making his appearance seem too normal.
The actors: for me what is sad is that the film is really Martin Sheen's best opus of his entire career. While nearly dying in the process of making it, he gave as much gut wrenching inner being in this film as Brando gave in Last Tango. What I cannot grasp is that most critics talk about the colors or the amount of money or the travails of shooting the film and very little on Sheen's contribution. It is, after all, his journey into the darkness and it is mostly through his eyes that we frame our thoughts. Sheen's characterization of the descent into chaos and hell is as good a performance as a human being could have given. He reflects the full "horror" of hell without the slightest hint of over-acting or romanticism. Brando, it is reported, had not read "Heart of Darkness", which is a bit hard to believe, in that he was very well read. He had not read the script but upon doing so hated it and continually argued with Coppola. That's Brando for you. It is said that it was Brando's idea to be shot in shadows for the majority of his time and in this I think he was dead on. It is a big shame that instead of having Brando's 45 minute improvisation that was edited out of the final edition, Coppola instead put in the extra rubbish as I've reported above. I bet you that the Brando material, if it ever sees the light of day, will prove to be far and away more interesting and captivating than the extra stuff that was added on. Brando as an improvisational actor had no peer and only a few could come close to his levels. Imagine watching 45 minutes of a man descend into his own hell.
In closing, the original film even though not as visually stunning as the re-edited cut of last year was a far better product in it's slimmer format. The story, while still a bit loose holds together whereas the longer version gets sidetracked into paths we don't need to tread. The entire supporting cast is superb and of course Duval just chews up the scenery in all his moments. While still a really great film, the soundtrack bothered me quite a bit and so it's not a 10. It is a film that looks better if you've read Conrad and are familiar with those themes. Coppola almost succeeds to create the film this could have been; the result is still very much worth absorbing if only for the searing paths of hell Sheen walks.