The Dictionary Definition of Overrated

Rating: 4/10 (19 August 2008)

I saw this film once per decade in my first thirty years on Earth, and I've decided I don't need or want to see it again. It's a good film, and interesting from start to finish, but for me its I first saw this movie as a kid, and I was impressed (if rather confused). I had no idea it was supposed to be the best film ever, so it never occurred to me that anyone might think that.
Next time I saw the film I was in my teens, and I'd read Joseph Conrad's novel Heart of Darkness - thus, I was less impressed. By this point I was a little more into movies, so I'd seen more critically acclaimed classics too - another contributing factor to the film's diminishment in my eyes.
The last time I saw it was in my mid-to-late twenties, and I was honestly disappointed. When I next had the chance to watch the movie, a year or so ago, I passed.
Fans of Coppola and lovers of this movie will be ready by now to condemn me as a moron or philistine, but I truly believe this to be an overrated Hollywood mess.
It fails as an adaptation because of all the extraneous business: it's no longer about a man's journey to find Kurtz, it's about a seething mass of American national obsessions over Vietnam, war, race and imperialism.
Also, unlike Conrad's spare, to-the-point writings, the film deals almost exclusively in hyperbole. There are quiet moments, but they ring false in amidst the craziness.
As other reviews have pointed out, it's not really a war movie. However, its hard to see it as such since every scene is more or less obsessing over Vietnam.
Other reviews have also pointed out that it's not meant to be realistic, but I question that perception. It looks to me as if it *is* intended to be realistic in many ways - and the fact that it isn't is another of the film's failings in my eyes.
The racism of the film is also uncomfortable to me. Where Conrad's novel embodied the racism of its era (in which a white European did indeed have trouble viewing black Africans as human), this comparatively recent film embodies modern American racism by treating its nonwhite extras like so many cattle (no reference intended).
None of them have personalities or recognisable aims and objectives - they're seen only as faceless savages, as dangerous enemies, a mindless force which can be harnesses either by clever Communists or manipulative madmen.
The key performances are more interesting than actually good. Sheen isn't outstanding, certainly not at his best, and Fishburne is way underused. The big disappointment, however, is Marlon Brando. After such a long journey, so many death and traumas, its awful to realise that their objective is this old tubby loon who waddles around mumbling and being worshipped by unconvincing "savages".
I've never been a fan of Brando, who for me is like an older, fatter Al Pacino. He knows no restraint, and while many film lovers rate him all his performances seem pretty much the same to me... in that these are actors whose personalities get in the way of their acting. They always seem like themselves, whether its appropriate or not.
It's probably fair to point out that I'm not a Coppola fan, either. The phrase I used as a header here was originally something I said about The Godfather. Coppola's movies always come across bombastic and self-important, self-consciously "big" movies with heavy themes.
I do understand the film, and I appreciate that it has many moments of inspired cinematography and several truly amazing scenes. But for me, it never connects emotionally.
Too many characters and situations ring false. The structure is too messy, the use of pop music grates on my nerves, the plot-holes are increasingly apparent with every viewing, and to top it off I find the idea that this is adaptation of Conrad rather absurd. In many ways it's less true to the source than West Side Story is to Romeo and Juliet.
It's not a bad film, as such, but a deeply flawed film... and, from a personal point of view, sententious and unnecessary.