Henry and Kristl experienced Apocalypse Now redux (1979)

Rating: Null/10 (1 July 2014)

Had to look up what 'redux' means. It means revived or brought back. So that is what it has been done to the movie, Henry said. Revived. Brought back to live.
It begs the question: why? Is it because Coppola keeps tinkering, never satisfied with the result, even if a work is hailed as a masterpiece?
Feels a bit like Star Wars. I heard it gets remade too. Star Wars redux?
At least this seems to be a definite version. A finished piece. A directors cut, but a bit more. I understand the movie itself has been improved. More vivid colors.
So what do you think? Is it improved?
What do you think?
I can't tell. I never saw the first version. That is more something you might have seen.
I did, but I was a long time ago. Hard to recall things. I will tell a bit about them, but you have to first tell me what you think of this version?
Well, I liked it, even though it was a long sit. 3 hours. It is a fascinating story of a descend into hell.
A bit like lord of the rings or Dante's inferno. A journey into darkness.
Yes. You see it in the degeneration of the crew of the river boat that is taking the captain up the river where he is to dispose of that rogue Colonel. And in the worsening of the condition of situations on the river and the river banks. It gets from bad to worse. The senseless killing and murders. And the dead get mutilated. The horror as the Colonel says in the end, the horror.
Would you say it's an anti war movie?
I am not sure.. It seems to be more than an anti-war movie, a movie about the human condition. Cause and effect. One thing leads to another and that leads to yet another situation. And the next step builds on the previous one. It is a chain of events that don't get broken. Almost a pre-ordained result. People could have changed the outcome, but they don't change. The result is inevitable.
Sounds a bit too philosophical.. I mean at any one time someone could have made a different choice. It's not like there is no possibility to make another choice, Henry said.
Perhaps that is what the movie tries to convey? That a choice could have been made. At any one time. A different outcome is possible?
Well. Perhaps.. It is however also an entertaining movie. Not gung-ho violence, but it slowly builds up. Only the ending is a bit.. typical.
I understood Coppola wasn't satisfied with the ending himself. He thought it was too tame for modern audiences in the theatrical version. But that is what some people maintain he said. Maybe it is really just a rumor. Or humor.
So can you say something about the changes?
I think that there are two major changes, which is the encounter with the French somewhere halfway into the movie, which lasts almost thirty minutes, and that addition of the sex scenes with the entertainment girls. Personally I find both superfluous. The first breaks up the journey and adds a totally strange sex scene to the movie. A french lady decides to have sex with the Captain, a guy she hardly knows. Why on earth would she do that? The latter addition does in fact the same, but the first is for the Captain, the latter for the boat crew. Neither I think is a worthwhile addition in my opinion and does not add anything to the movie but adding some sex scenes. Perhaps that is more 'modern'.
I actually liked them, Henry laughed
I bet you do.
Sex comes natural, Kristl.
Even in war?
Very much so in war.
Hmm. I get rather upset by flying bullets and such. Disturbing in the extreme.
I bet you get used to it. Even you.
You think so? I would not want to put it to the test.
Me neither.
We can agree on that, then.
www.meritcoba.com