A war-movie? Or a movie taking place in the war?

Rating: 8/10 (23 August 2005)

It has been called "Simply the best movie ever made!", while most viewers are just calling it the best war-movie ever made. After watching "Apocalypse Now! Redux" twice, I don't think the film earns any of those titles. But Francis Ford Coppola, the man behind one of our time's greatest movie-masterpieces: "The Godfather" (1972), has made a film about the Vietnam-war that's a pretty unique movie-experience. This is a must for everyone who like artistic cinema.
Colonel Walter Kurtz (Marlon Brando) is a national hero with a career in the army which is full of merits of bravery and honour. But now he has gone insane, and has escaped from the army and into the jungle of Vietnam, where he is living as a king among an army of his own. Captain Benjamin Willard (Martin Sheen) is being given the mission of finding Kurtz and "terminate" him. Together with some young unexperienced soldiers, he starts the search. In a boat, through a river, the journey goes deep into the jungle. A slow journey into the insanity and madness of the war...a journey to hell on earth.
Now, can this film really be called a war-movie? The reason I ask this question, is because I feel that this film has its focus on the people in the war, and their experiences and reflections, rather than the war itself. This is not about people fighting in the war, but a story that takes place in Vietnam DURING the war. But this is probably just one of many questions that Coppola wanted people to ask themselves after a weird, thought-provoking, shocking, "tormenting" and totally unique film-experience like this.
The most notable thing about "Apocalypse Now! Redux", and probably the most impelling part is the cinematography...beautiful and perfect. And over all, I think this film has its definite strength in the visual part, but Coppola's directing and contribution to the score should also be mentioned. It all sets a very special mood for the film, and provides a unique movie-experience that it's hard to not be impressed by. I'm also convinced that this is the most artistic war-movie ever made...it even tops Terrence Mavelick's poetic "The Thin Red Line" (1998) when it comes to artistic expressions, in my opinion. So if you like challenging films with depth, I think you should see this film, no matter what you've read or heard about it.
"Apocalypse Now! Redux" has also a solid cast. Martin Sheen is doing very well in the exacting leading role as Captain Benjamin Willard. Actors such as Dennis Hopper, Frederic Forrest and Marlon Brando is also giving good performances in a film with characters that seems to have a total lack of "normal" persons. A young Lawrence Fishburne also shows up and gives a approved performance as Tyrone Miller. But the most memorable performance of the film is being delivered by Robert Duvall. His character Lt. Bill Kilgore is among the most famous in film-history, and the way Duvall portrays him is pure brilliance.
I haven't seen the original "Apocolypse Now!" from 1979 with the running time of 2 hours and 30 minutes, but I feel that the running time of 3 hours and 15 minutes is the weakness of "Apocalypse Now! Redux". I know long-time admirers of "Apocalypse Now!" (1979) has embraced the added scenes in the Redux-version, but I personally found the film a bit long-winded when it approached 3 hours. I think the scenes where Cpt. Willard and his companions visit a French plantation in the middle of the jungle, is the film's lowest point, and there's also some other scenes that lacks consistency, and that's not strengthening the film.
With "Apocalypse Now! Redux", Francis Ford Coppola has made a spectacular piece of cinema. Visually, it is perfect and over all this is a film that all film-enthusiasts should experience at least once. But I think the average movie-viewer should go for the original version from 1979. This is a very good film, but not exactly a Top-Rated masterpiece, in my opinion. And if you really want a film about the Vietnam-war, I think Oliver Stone's "Platoon" (1986) would be a better choice.
8.5 out of 10