As soon as Gene said Apocalypse would probably be the last Veitnam movie, Oliver Stone said "hold my cocaine" and Kubrick started the first day of filming Full Metal Jacket
I'm sure Gene changed his mind about his feelings on Apocolypse Now. Especially considering it went on to become the most highly memorable, quoted, and otherwise well-respected film about Vietnam ever made.
I still think this is the greatest movie ever made. It wasn’t so much about Vietnam as it was about the line between hero and psychopath. Nearly every character tows that line. “Charging a man with murder in this place is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indianapolis 500.”
I agree with Roger. This is a great film. I remember walking out of the theater stunned the first time I saw it. Looking forward to the new “Final Cut” this summer in August.
New Final Cut? Sorry I hadn't been paying attention I guess. Is the new cut going to merge the theatrical version with material from the 2001 version? Or is it something else entirely?
Ryan Barry Hi, Ryan. Coppola announced that it will be a combination of the theatrical cut and Redux, but not all the footage will be in the new version. It runs three hours and three minutes I , so it’s about 19-20 minutes shorter than the Redux cut. It’s opening in mid-August and then it’ll be released in a 4-disc 4K and Blu-ray combo pack. This is the film’s 40th anniversary. Here’s an article that talks more about the new “Final Cut.” Enjoy! www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/film/2019/apr/29/apocalypse-now-the-final-cut-francis-ford-coppola-vietnam-movie-new-version
@@CR41489 Thanks, now I feel a bit more caught up with the news. The Redux version certainly had some pacing issues but I do hope that Coppola didn't cut out too much of the French sequence in the center of Redux. I guess a lot of people didn't like that scene but I found it fascinating. Seeing the film in 4K is gonna be incredible though-definitely looking forward to that. Thanks again for the update.
Ryan Barry No problem on the update. After reading the link I sent I believe it sounds like the French plantation scene from Redux will be intact. I also find it to be an interesting sequence in the Redux cut. The new cut opens on August 15th and then comes out on August 27th on home video. Hopefully it’ll be really good. 👍
@@CR41489 Thanks for the heads up. I always wondered why Kilgore's entrance(from a helicopter) was cut out of the theatrical release. IMO, it is one of the best character introductions in cinema history. This one cut scene is why I can never choose to watch the theatrical version over the Redux with it's pacing issues. So I guess that I will get my preferred cut in this 'Final Cut'.
I noticed that immediately. I have very good eyes, though. My first eye exam in grade school was so exceptional I was able to go home early that day and watch reruns of Seinfeld.
They never even mention Heart of Darkness as the inspiration for the film. The themes were lifted lock, stock and barrel from Conrad. And that was part of the confusion on the part of many upon first viewing in 1979. I remember as a 14-year-old when the film was released it was 100% understood to be a "Vietnam" film. The intervening decades have allowed its setting to lose much of its evening news emotional anguish leaving the deeper, Conradian themes to emerge. As such, Siskel's confusion at the time is understandable. Even Ebert's reasoning for liking the film rested less on the brilliance of the realization of Conrad's -descent-into-madness themes and more on the visceral war movie experience, which is ironic given the war-is-hell ethos of the film. It took Coppola himself years to work out how he would ultimately film the script. It is not really fair to criticize Siskel, or even praise Ebert, for liking or not-liking the film after one viewing. Siskel's point about ANY movie about Vietnam inevitably provoking emotion was true for the time.
Heart of Darkness was set during the Belgians foray in the Congo, a horrific piece of history. They shouldn't have been there, just like the Americans shouldn't have been in Vietnam.
Heart of Darkness is the starting point, yeah, but much of the script is based on stories Milius collected from dudes who had been over there, the surfing and so on. And it ain't fair to criticize Siskel? He says, the Brando character, eh, Nothing to see here. I beg to differ. I quote that bit at the end routinely, the horror, the horror. Dig his performance and his dialogue. The bit about the inoculated arms. Inspired.
@@davidmcmaster2083 To each his own. Coppola made a big deal about Heart of Darkness as an inspiration - that is certainly where he gets his themes. The rest is location and dialogue, all designed to support the themes.
How could Siskel miss it? Kurtz is a spent force, a broken man who shows Willard ‘the horror‘... When Willard goes to kill him, he says, “They we’re gonna make me a colonel for this, and I wasnt even in their fucking war anymore...”.... After he kills Kurtz, he’s standing there holding the book, looking down at everyone. As he walks down the steps, he drops his machete and everyone else drops their weapons with him... I get goose bumps every time! Ebert was right! 41 years later and we’re still talking about it...
I saw it with some college buddies when it came out and it blew us all away. When Robert Duvall said the line about napalm, a man in the audience got up and walked out, shouting something--I only heard him say "It ain't f---g perfume!" I think he was a veteran. Had a whole different perspective than us college boys.
You can’t necessarily be right or wrong about an opinion of a film. Although I completely agree with Ebert here, I don’t think Siskel is necessarily “wrong.” Besides, hindsight is 20/20. Most of the time, there’s no way to know what will be later considered a classic. Often times, future classics are negatively received initially.
you didnt have to grow up in chicago watching them - when they got together they were instantly shown all around the country on pbs - sneak previews was an insanely popular weekly show in the 1970s. and still is apparantly because here we are.
@JOE BLOW FROM COCOMO What makes an objectively great movie? What makes something “objectively great” in the first place? With a word like great, it’s completely subjective. Objective means nobody can disagree. Film criticism, by definition, cannot be objective. You can agree or disagree with their opinions. I disagreed with their opinions a lot, but I still respect their opinions because I could usually understand why they had them, even if I disagree with them. Professional film critics aren’t “professional” because they are right or wrong, it’s because people enjoy listening to them say their opinion. But even with the best critics, they are human, they have subjective opinions, and sure, they can be “wrong,” by which I mean have an unpopular opinion. Nothing about film criticism can be objective, except stating stuff like “Apocalypse Now was directed by Francis Ford Coppola and was released in 1979.” That’s literally it. But by the way, if you hate expect film critics to always agree with you and write them off if they don’t, then you probably don’t understand film criticism at all. And similarly, you should not always expect to agree with critics. It’s okay to hate a film critics love or love a film critics hate.
@JOE BLOW FROM COCOMO that’s not the role of a critic. It’s simply about conveying the emotions you be felt watching the film and whether the reader/viewer should be recommended to go.
Just the opening of that movie alone is imaginative. The ceiling fan and the whir of the helicopters. With The DOORS The End playing the whole time. Classic. Gene missed in his review this time. There are so many veterans that came back from Vietnam haunted by their experiences.
You have to say it? Are you saying someone is there forcing you to say it right now? If that is true blink your eyes twice. If it's not blink your eyes three times. And don't panic.
Francis Ford Coppola and Apocalypse was robbed of the Oscar for best picture in my book. But, then again, i don't hear a whole hell of a lot people talking "Kramer vs. Kramer" these days. People will continue to speak of Apocalypse Now long after we have left this world.
2 movies that couldnt be more different, both excellent...i dont see the point of arguing whats better or best. There is really no such thing as 1 best anything of a year.
Marty Sheen suffered a heart attack during filming, and Coppola forced everyone to keep it a secret from the studio to prevent loss of funding and a complete shutdown. “If Marty dies, we are fucked!”
I saw Apocalypse Final Cut in the movies for the 40th anniversary, and just as i did when seeing the original 1979 cut and with Redux i walked away with a smile on my face saying "Whoa! What a film!" :)
Yes, we read it when I was 7 and even put on a play. I wanted a speaking role but I was just one of the dead bodies during the big helicopter attack scene.
In my top 5 movie of all time list. Missed by both was the excellent acting of Martin Sheen and other unforgettable characters. Who will ever forget the look Jerry Zeismer gives and his “extreme prejuduce” line. G D Spradlin and his speech on how Kurtz has gone insane. Great supporting parts by everyone on the boat. This movie is also better today in 2021 than 1979.
No credits. They gave you a booklet like a Broadway show. Ended with the plane bombing the encampment. Up to the Brando scenes one of the greatest films of all time.
Thank you for uploading this. I always wanted to see this review. I watched the clip when Gene admitted his original review was a mistake and was always intrigued what he said. Always figure PBS would never air this again and hoped someone who recorded many years ago would.
The movie is based on the novella Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad. The journey up the river represents the journey of life and the characters Kurtz and Willard (Marlowe in the book) represent good, Willard, and evil, Kurtz, and shows how those two characters came to choose which of those paths to take after both being subject to the same temptations. Kurtz succumbing to them and Willard rejecting them even though he suffers in the process. It's Kurtz who the title of the book refers to. I guess Gene Siskel just couldn't see the symbolism in the story which explains the ending where Willard after killing Kurtz rejects the opportunity to assume his place as "king" of the hellish world he finds himself in and leaves
It's also about the insane, death-filled, horror-drenched meaninglessness & surreality & tragic absurdity of the U.S. war in Vietnam, as captured in Michael Herr's book "Dispatches"-which is the lesser-known but equally significant literary influence on this film.
That's right...as in that next to last shot where Sheen looks down at Kurtz' disciples after hacking him to death with the machete, looking like a sadistic madman a la Kurtz
I think there are multiple ways to interpret the ending, i.e. Kurtz's observations on the absurdity, the hypocrisy, and the horror of war. I agree with all the comments on this thread, but I'll add another observation about what Kurtz was getting at. He knew how to win the war. The trick was to embrace the horror rather than fear it, to remain pitiless and free of regret no matter the depths of inhumanity you had to descend to achieve your mission. This is what the inoculation story was about. Yet, he also knew that the powers that be would never accept this strategy on moral grounds. To the generals it was "moral" to bomb people to bits from the sky, but immoral to intimidate the enemy into submission by lopping off their heads and displaying them as trophies. The fundamental gulf between what was necessary to win this war and what the military was willing to do enraged Kurtz, initially, and eventually drove him to an obsessive desire to demonstrate the effectiveness, the genius, and the beauty of mindful brutality. Kurtz wasn't insane. He was intensely logical. His savage violence was not a product of madness, or a desire to win the war, or to satisfy his bloodlust, but rather a performance for the generals, in my opinion. The design was to show them how a war could successfully be waged with a small, dedicated army unconcerned with conventional (and stupid) rules of war. A big middle finger to his superiors who pretended that victory was possible by "acceptable" means. When Capt. Willard arrived one of the first things Kurtz asked was what the military brass was saying about him. What his old colleagues thought still mattered to him a great deal. It took me a few viewings to fully appreciate this. Coppola made a masterpiece the whole way through.
The classic action movie from the past has returned to theatres in IMAX for the movie's 40th anniversary. I saw the final cut of this movie 2 months ago and it was good, very good!
Wrong. It is every bit as much about Vietnam as it is the heart of darkness. It is influenced equally by both Joseph Conrad's famous story and Michael Herr's book "Dispatches".
I'm no huge Francis Coppola fan but I admit this is one of the top 10 movies of all time. There simply is too many fantastic scenes for this to not be on the list. Just the psychedelic scene featuring Roach ensures this movie is a HUGE THUMBS UP!
The ending as filmed was NOT at all planned when they actually made the film. The script had a more coherent ending but Brando (being Brando) didn't read it and didn't memorize any of his dialogue and he didn't like what was written for him. So, instead, he just made up all of his own dialogue and Coppola filmed it, took what he liked best and crafted whatever ending he could with it. The whole movie followed a very structured narrative up until the climax and it shows. That's why the ending feels so nonsensical. It really wasn't planned or meant to be "the entire point". It was just more that they didn't know how to end the film and just winged it. And luckily, it worked out for the most part and it fooled everybody. The ending was divisive when it was originally released. It wasn't just Siskel.
@@rustincohle2135 You're leaving out quite a lot. They abandoned Milius's RIDICULOUS "Rambo" ending LONG before Brando got there and Coppola had gone back to the CONRAD books ending - which is exactly what was shot. Brando didn't just "make up" his dialogue - he improvised, yes, but he was GUIDED by Coppola to arrive at a certain point and certain lines *in between* his improvisations. In the documentary, you literally see Coppola *telling him things to say and where to go*. The ending was not an accident - it was very carefully worked out, with the idea being that Willard would encounter nothing but sickness, madness and death at the end of the journey - which is the end of all of our journeys. As said, while they had arrived at the shoot with Milius's original ending, Coppola was NEVER happy with it and started re-writing it almost as soon as they got there.
I have to agree with Ebert here. That movie was one of the best of all time. Absolutely intense. Still holds up today. I showed this film to my girlfriend and she had never seen anything like it.
Oh, please! The ending as filmed was NOT at all planned when they actually made the film. The script had a more coherent ending but Brando (being Brando) didn't read it and didn't memorize any of his dialogue and he didn't like what was written for him. So, instead, he just made up all of his own dialogue and Coppola filmed it, took what he liked best and crafted whatever ending he could with it. The whole movie followed a very structured narrative up until the climax and it shows. That's why the ending feels so nonsensical compared to what preceded it. It really wasn't planned or meant to be "the entire point". It was just more that they didn't know how to end the film and just winged it. And luckily, it worked out for the most part and it fooled everybody. The ending was divisive when it was originally released. It wasn't just Siskel.
Wow, makes me wonder what modern movies will be classics in the future despite negative critical reception at the time they came out. Apocalypse Now is in my top 5 all time!
Modern films to be future classics? LOL I can count on one hand how many great films have been made in the past 20 years they are so bad. It used to be there were 20 great films per YEAR.
@@trhansen3244 I'm a bit more optimistic than you, but I kind of agree. I think there are still a lot of great films coming out every year (last year I watched 8 films I would consider "great"), but they're not mainstream. Big budget AND high quality only comes from films like Dune 2 or Oppenheimer which are exceedingly rare because their directors have clout.
Saw it the night before heading to boot camp. The friend who I saw it with was going the following month. He changed his MOS from Infantry to MP.. Nam was hell with great music.
Notice that little cut just underneath Willard's left eyelid. Oliver Stone had Sergeant Barnes cut Martin Sheen's very own son, Charlie, in the exact same spot.
My dad was a USAF forward air controller who was placed with the First Cav for a while but I dont think he remembers anything like that particular beach assault
Roger was right. Almost 50 years later the ending is still being debated. The ending is indeed “murky and vague” (said Leonard Maltin in his review) but that’s ok. Coppola famously didn’t know how to end it. Gene is right that There is a sense of anticlimax to it…but such was Vietnam. By plan, luck or accident the “vague and murky” ending allows for endless interpretations and debate. Like most great cinema it doesn’t provide answers, it just raises more questions.
I think the original theatrical cut of Apocalypse Now is the best. From the Redux version to the recent Final Cut it proves that first version required none of the extra scenes which weighed the film down, especially the pointless French plantation sequence. Thankfully with the Final Cut Coppola wisely dropped the sequence with the stranded Playboy bunnies, but decided the French plantation sequence was essential to the story. I wish I could have seen this in '79. It must have been an amazing experience to see on a big screen, Dolby sound blasting, and on 35mm film. It must have been an unforgettable experience. After seeing Eleanor Coppola 's Hearts of Darkness it is astounding the film was ever finished and released. It seemed to be on the verge of collapse at any given moment, but Coppola held the madness together and made it work in favour of the film. Between dealing with losing Martin Sheen after a heart attack, a typhoon that wiped out sets, crazy Dennis Hopper, and the unpredictable Marlon Brando it would have driven a lesser director insane. I doubt that we have seen the actual "final cut" and another which integrates hitherto unseen footage to make a true epic. Any footage of Brando is worth reinstating.
Yeah, I agree, I never thought the extra footage did anything for it. They're interesting scenes, but they take away from the momentum of the film and just stop it dead.
okay, this is where i agree with both. i remember that ending being very decisive to me. it's one of those endings where you are going to take it for what it is or you aren't. the same can be said about Full Metal Jacket. Apocalypse Now is a fantastic film but I agree with Siskel as well. as we might know now, they watched the original version. there have been four cuts of this film over the years. I would love to see the Final Cut to see if Francis Ford Coppola fully realize the vision he had for this film
Siskel is so full of himself he couldn't see the greatness before his eyes. He wouldn't allow himself to. The self-satisfied superiority of being a lone voice of reason, being right as he saw it, blinded him to the obvious. He plays 3 clips full of emotion, amazing cinematography, wonderful acting, and an unfolding story, and ignores it. They never even mention Heart of Darkness or what the movie actually even says about the nature of evil, war, and madness and how they all colluded in the jungle in Vietnam and Cambodia. Siskel missed the boat here. One of the best movies ever made.
A lone voice of reason?? Siskel's only beef with the film was the ending. And the ending was DIVISIVE when the film was released. It wasn't just Siskel. And the ending as filmed was not at all planned when they actually made the film. The script had a more coherent ending but Brando (being Brando) didn't read it and didn't memorize any of his dialogue and he didn't like what was written for him. So, instead, he just made up all of his own dialogue and Coppola filmed it, took what he liked best and crafted whatever ending he could with it. The whole movie followed a very structured narrative up until the climax and it shows. That's why the ending feels so nonsensical compared to what preceded it. It really wasn't planned or meant to be "the entire point". It was just more that they didn't know how to end the film and just winged it. And luckily, it worked out for the most part and it fooled everybody.
Wish the Oscars would change their minds and give the award for best picture to Apocalypse Now, because i don't hear too many people talking about Kramer vs. Kramer these days. Apocalypse Now will be talked about and discussed long after we leave this life.
@@AK-47ISTHEWAY some Dustin Hoffman/Meryl Streep flick they awarded to instead of Apocalypse. Same damn thing they did 20 years later when Saving Private Ryan was robbed in favor of Shakespeare in Love. I was like "what the fuck?!"
I got to see this amazing film in a few great theaters in 1979, some really nice old-school cinemas in Tacoma and Olympia, WA. Great screens, and you could smoke in theaters back then, or at least in the lobby while watching through the curtains. Man what a smokey movie...at that age my impulse-control was a bit lacking to say the least so I'd be lighting up every chance I got. All the characters smoked. We'd sneak beers into the theater too. Geez these days there's actual warning stickers on movie and tv posters if there are cigarettes being smoked let alone alcohol and drug usage.
As a Vietnam vet who took years to try to understand what was happening. I didn’t like this picture because it just doesn’t entertain me at all, and it certainly doesn’t educate me.
Gene Siskel is right and Ebert is right. It's an ambitious mess with a somewhat lackluster ending, but the first two acts are some of the greatest of all cinema and the third act, just on a technical level, is absolutely brilliant.
I don't know why the ending is so hard to get for many people. If you viewed and understood the ending of ' The Man Who Would Be King', you should be able to comprehend this...
@@DS-wk1kn Siskel's only beef with the film was the ending. And the ending was divisive when the film was released. It wasn't just Siskel. And the ending as filmed was not at all planned when they actually made the film. The script had a more coherent ending but Brando (being Brando) didn't read it and didn't memorize any of his dialogue and he didn't like what was written for him. So, instead, he just made up all of his own dialogue and Coppola filmed it, took what he liked best and crafted whatever ending he could with it. The whole movie followed a very structured narrative up until the climax and it shows. That's why the ending feels so nonsensical compared to what preceded it. It really wasn't planned or meant to be "the entire point". It was just more that they didn't know how to end the film and just winged it. And luckily, it worked out for the most part and it fooled everybody.
It's interesting that these two also had a massive disagreement on "Full Metal Jacket." In that case, Siskel thought the movie was brilliant but Ebert was unmoved by it.
I find their polarization on this film and Full Metal Jacket fascinating as well as I felt both are great films but frustrated that one of them did not like it. The Full Metal Jacket review was a classic by the way.
They are both right! I expected more from the ending. The Deer Hunter is more fulfilling with a tighter journey I was expecting much much more but... Could we really say the movie shouldn't have been made?. Brando's approach and process leaves such a mark it does point towards the sublime. However knowing someone is coming for you and not even fighting him with the bull being slaughtered is like come on!!!!!
@Michael Perkowski: I disagree -- Siskel was right here. Kurz is a massive letdown in the movie. Coppola originally had the right ending (Kurz converts Willard to his way of thinking), but he betrayed himself (and all of us) by not pulling it off . . . .
@@QED_ gene later said he was wrong about this film years later. He should said yes to this film he said it to Roger and front audience. coppola struggle to find a ending for this film if you heart of darkness documentary you see how much trouble it took to make film this film. This Sunday the 40th anniversary. Will be IMAX. Its a great film total disagree with you and your thoughts how it should ended. Coppola thought what the original ending was weak. That's also in the documentary.
@@QED_ Agree. In spite of himself and his cowardice later in retracting his pan, Siskel had the right idea here. Apocalypse Now is a movie that had great style and a promising first half, almost entirely squandered by the self-indulgent, overwrought wallow that followed. An overpraised, over-ambitious movie of my lifetime I could roughly compare it to might be MAGNOLIA (made 20 years later): another big, trendy bore that Roger felt he had to praise the great allegorical deep-dish-ness of it all, lest he be thought simple. At that time, Gene Shalit had to play the part of the regular joe meathead reviewer and shrug his shoulders at all the pretentiousness, while Ebert said _No, man it's deep!_ (a year previous, he called a true allegorical masterpiece, A TASTE OF CHERRY, his "most hated movie of all time").
@Zed Dravot When the movie begins, Willard and the US military are one side of things . . . and Kurtz is on the other side. So as viewers, we're either going to come to sympathize with Willard and the US military . . . or we're going to come to sympathize with Kurtz. Willard's trip up river then brilliantly demonstrates that to be on the side of Willard and the US military . . . is moral/aesthetic LUNACY. So by default, then, by the time we get to Kurtz . . . our sympathy should be with him. But the damn movie then contradicts itself by NOT making the corresponding case for Kurtz as a person. That's what should happen: Kurtz's personality should be a reflection of moral/aesthetic condemnation for everything that Willard has just been through. Willard realizes that he's been on the wrong side -- he's more sympathetic to Kurtz than he is to the US military. But it's too late (is how I might have ended it): Willard doesn't know that he's helped the US military find Kurtz -- and an air strike wipes out Kurtz and Willard both. The US military wins this battle . . . just as they did every battle of the war. And we all know how that ended up . . .
@@QED_ You've laid out a good case for why the movie betrays its own internal logic. I can dig the expressionistic tone they were going for, it just didn't add up to much for me. Another overambitious, aesthetically bold but narratively messy movie to me was Gance's NAPOLEON. Which coincidentally Coppola bought the rights to and seemingly has held in ransom since its early-Eighties revival. I saw a VHS copy, but because of Coppola I've never had the chance to see a good print of it. A little grudge I hold against the winemaker!
I came to this film as an English major ( my degree); I read Heart of Darkness several times before knowing anything about this movie. So I was thrilled with it, for no other reason than I didn't think HoD was filmable. I was wrong, obviously.
Wow never had of heard of them. What were they like? I was born in 1979. Also deathly allergic to peanuts (and all nuts to different degrees) so I've always been cautious with candy bars. I don't usually try ones I haven't had before. In fact, only recently did I learn that I can eat 100 Grand bars. Always assumed they had nuts
@@riverotter68 So one cherry-picked example of Ebert not being enthusiastic about a movie that only later was considered a classic, is supposed to be a complete refutation of my original point? Ebert saw value in many other films that weren't beloved at first but only later. The point is Ebert was overall a more openminded critic than Siskel.
This was one of Siskel's all time biggest gaffs when he gave this movie a thumbs down, so much so that he later had to recant his opinion when he realized how wrong he was...
I always felt the same way, top 10 then I saw it in IMAX on a 60ft ht. x 80 ft. widescreen during the summer 2019. Now it's top 5. There's really nothing else like it
I understand people no longer feel this is a good depiction of Nam. However, the end says it all. The men who went through this war lost their minds whether still in country or at home. I had a brother who when I saw this movie, I could have sworn this was his life story. So many scary things about this war and I felt they did a great job to show that even the person assigned to complete a task as insane as this, can lose his way. Who said "War is hell" anyway.
Wow. I'm so disappointed that Gene didn't like Apocolypse Now, probably the most famous and most well respected Vietnam War movie ever made. Only Platoon comes anywhere near the level of brilliance of this film. I think Gene probably changed his mind on this later down the road.
@@MrCaveman366 And all of them are weaker than the war itself. Only in America would a war that was in everyone’s living room have to be brought to the big screen, too.
Time has shown that Gene got it wrong this time. This film is Epic. It is about more than War to be sure. It is about the potential of Good and Evil within all Men.
Siskel's only beef was the ending but he wasn't wrong about it. The ending was divisive when the film was released. It wasn't just Siskel. The ending as filmed was not at all planned when they actually made the film. The script had a more coherent ending but Brando (being Brando) didn't read it and didn't memorize any of his dialogue and he didn't like what was written for him. So, instead, he just made up all of his own dialogue and Coppola filmed it, took what he liked best and crafted whatever ending he could with it. The whole movie followed a very structured narrative up until the climax and it shows. That's why the ending feels so nonsensical compared to what preceded it. It really wasn't planned or meant to be "the entire point". It was just more that they didn't know how to end the film and just winged it. And luckily, it worked out for the most part and it fooled everybody.
@@speedmastermarkiii I don't mean that Platonn is better, but it can still impress people, like a friend of mine who watched it for the first time last year.
This is one of the greatest films made. An excellent adaptation of Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, upon which it is based. There is a great documentary about the making of Apocalypse Now worth watching, Hearts of Darkness.
It's very well documented that this was a most difficult to make artictic masterpiece based on the Conrad's work. Roger got this one right or sure as it's one of the greatest films ever made.
I revere Siskel & Ebert - I watched their show religiously when it was on television in my youth. The one issue I have with this review is that it does not mention that Apocalypse Now is based on Joseph Conrad’s truly famous and revered novel, The Heart of Darkness. Otherwise, bravo!
Gene Siskle Dropping the ball big time. On one of the greatest films of all time. I'm pretty sure later in life he walked many of these statements back. Honestly here we are some 40 years later and no one is arguing about the ending. It worked. "The Horror The Horror" one of the most classics lines in hollywood history. And siskle says "All the way to the end and Brando never says anything" YIKES!
I rented _Apocalypse Now_ from Blockbuster Video back in 1988, and I still think it is one of the greatest, most brilliant films ever made. Not everything about it has to make sense. As Francis Ford Coppola himself said about it, "This film isn't _about_ Vietnam. This film _IS_ Vietnam." Perfectly well-said. *P.S.:* What if I told you that _Apocalypse Now_ was the film debut of Laurence Fishburne, then billed as Larry Fishburne? He was 15 years old when this film was made. Let that sink into your heads a bit.
He was something of a Kubrick fanboy. To me, FMJ has a great first act, the rest of the movie is completely forgettable. One of my least favorite Kubrick films. A Clockwork Orange takes that spot.
Pretty interesting reviews. The ending of the film is definitely a polarising one. I found it underwhelming the first time I saw it, but I've rewatched it numerous times since and it's probably my favourite film of all time. I wonder if Gene ever changed his mind on this one.
Neither one of these guys noticed that the movie was based on "The Heat of Darkness", and the war was only a dramatic and perfect back drop for that story. This movie is far more than just a war movie. And possibly the best movie ever made.
In the same way The Shawshank Redemption wasn't "A prison movie". A properly pretentious way to describe a sloggy, overbearing metaphorical mess. Yes, Gene could be simple at times, but he pegged this one right.
I think Siskel missed the point of the movie. The war is the setting, and the river is a metaphor for a journey into the mind, going from rational on the outside, to primitive as you go deeper to the center.
Siskel's only beef with the film was with the ending, not the film as a whole. And the ending was DIVISIVE in its original release. People either loved it or hated it-- they even mentioned this in the review! Were you not paying attention? Siskel's opinion of the film at the time was not unique. Plus, he changed his tune on the film over time. God, does no one understand the word "context" when they watch media from decades ago?
What Gene said about how easy it would be to make a tragic Vietnam film is true, and so I think he has that on Ebert's reasons for liking the film. However, Apocalypse Now is one of the best films ever made, - a beautiful mood piece. A masterpiece of pure cinema. Vittorio Stororo is the best ever cinematographer. Watch The Conformist. Incredible.
Watch Coppola's commentary for the Redux, he says the film is "about moral ambiguity: that's the whole point of the film." He meant, nevermind antiwar, that's what the film is about from the horse's mouth.
Seems like they knew each other's thoughts on movies before the reviews. Later on in the 80s and 90s, it was clear they didn't know, because they were often surprised by each other's review.
Yeah, I caught that too, I think it was how they formatted it, this was when they were working on PBS and I think it was the suits who said they should say if they did or didn't like it b4 showing clips and duscusding, when they went and moved to their own syndicated show, the format was Wat you remember
I agree with Gene Siskel about the end of the film. I was not only disappointed in the end, but the movie in general. I saw this movie when it was on a cable television channel after seeing the movie "Platoon" in the theater. I think I might have enjoyed "Apocalypse Now" more if I had not seen "Platoon" first.
"This film is gonna be debated for the next 50 years"
Ebert calling it right as always.
As soon as Gene said Apocalypse would probably be the last Veitnam movie, Oliver Stone said "hold my cocaine" and Kubrick started the first day of filming Full Metal Jacket
I'm sure Gene changed his mind about his feelings on Apocolypse Now. Especially considering it went on to become the most highly memorable, quoted, and otherwise well-respected film about Vietnam ever made.
@@maxxxmodelz4061 Gene Siskel did change his mind about Apocalypse Now. He later admitted his original review was wrong.
@@maxxxmodelz4061 No.
@@chicovoylez3216 Yes. Look it up. He changed his opinion on it later.
🤣🤣🤣 hold my cocaine.... I'm laughing cos its so true 👍
I still think this is the greatest movie ever made. It wasn’t so much about Vietnam as it was about the line between hero and psychopath. Nearly every character tows that line. “Charging a man with murder in this place is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indianapolis 500.”
Greatest movie ever made? You need to get out more.
@@TheTerryE Try to name a better one. I’ll accept maybe four titles.
@@Kilgore6549 I could name about 100 better films. Where would you like me to start? The 30s? The 40s? The 50s? The 60s? The 70s?
@@TheTerryE If there are hundreds, why couldn’t you name a single one from any decade?
@@Kilgore6549 Perhaps reading comprehension is beyond your grasp but I asked you a question before continuing.
I agree with Roger. This is a great film. I remember walking out of the theater stunned the first time I saw it. Looking forward to the new “Final Cut” this summer in August.
New Final Cut? Sorry I hadn't been paying attention I guess. Is the new cut going to merge the theatrical version with material from the 2001 version? Or is it something else entirely?
Ryan Barry Hi, Ryan. Coppola announced that it will be a combination of the theatrical cut and Redux, but not all the footage will be in the new version. It runs three hours and three minutes I , so it’s about 19-20 minutes shorter than the Redux cut. It’s opening in mid-August and then it’ll be released in a 4-disc 4K and Blu-ray combo pack. This is the film’s 40th anniversary.
Here’s an article that talks more about the new “Final Cut.” Enjoy!
www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/film/2019/apr/29/apocalypse-now-the-final-cut-francis-ford-coppola-vietnam-movie-new-version
@@CR41489 Thanks, now I feel a bit more caught up with the news. The Redux version certainly had some pacing issues but I do hope that Coppola didn't cut out too much of the French sequence in the center of Redux. I guess a lot of people didn't like that scene but I found it fascinating. Seeing the film in 4K is gonna be incredible though-definitely looking forward to that. Thanks again for the update.
Ryan Barry No problem on the update. After reading the link I sent I believe it sounds like the French plantation scene from Redux will be intact. I also find it to be an interesting sequence in the Redux cut. The new cut opens on August 15th and then comes out on August 27th on home video. Hopefully it’ll be really good. 👍
@@CR41489 Thanks for the heads up. I always wondered why Kilgore's entrance(from a helicopter) was cut out of the theatrical release. IMO, it is one of the best character introductions in cinema history. This one cut scene is why I can never choose to watch the theatrical version over the Redux with it's pacing issues. So I guess that I will get my preferred cut in this 'Final Cut'.
I’ve just noticed, after 40 years, that R. Lee Ermy was one of the chopper pilots!
Technical advisor too.
Yep, he was "flying" the loach scout helicopter.
*Ermey
I noticed that immediately. I have very good eyes, though. My first eye exam in grade school was so exceptional I was able to go home early that day and watch reruns of Seinfeld.
They never even mention Heart of Darkness as the inspiration for the film. The themes were lifted lock, stock and barrel from Conrad. And that was part of the confusion on the part of many upon first viewing in 1979. I remember as a 14-year-old when the film was released it was 100% understood to be a "Vietnam" film. The intervening decades have allowed its setting to lose much of its evening news emotional anguish leaving the deeper, Conradian themes to emerge. As such, Siskel's confusion at the time is understandable. Even Ebert's reasoning for liking the film rested less on the brilliance of the realization of Conrad's -descent-into-madness themes and more on the visceral war movie experience, which is ironic given the war-is-hell ethos of the film. It took Coppola himself years to work out how he would ultimately film the script. It is not really fair to criticize Siskel, or even praise Ebert, for liking or not-liking the film after one viewing. Siskel's point about ANY movie about Vietnam inevitably provoking emotion was true for the time.
Heart of Darkness was set during the Belgians foray in the Congo, a horrific piece of history. They shouldn't have been there, just like the Americans shouldn't have been in Vietnam.
they were film buffs not literary critics.
Damn straight: Vietnam is the setting, not the character in this movie. And you don't have to be a literary buff to read basic classics.
Heart of Darkness is the starting point, yeah, but much of the script is based on stories Milius collected from dudes who had been over there, the surfing and so on. And it ain't fair to criticize Siskel? He says, the Brando character, eh, Nothing to see here. I beg to differ. I quote that bit at the end routinely, the horror, the horror. Dig his performance and his dialogue. The bit about the inoculated arms. Inspired.
@@davidmcmaster2083 To each his own. Coppola made a big deal about Heart of Darkness as an inspiration - that is certainly where he gets his themes. The rest is location and dialogue, all designed to support the themes.
How could Siskel miss it? Kurtz is a spent force, a broken man who shows Willard ‘the horror‘... When Willard goes to kill him, he says, “They we’re gonna make me a colonel for this, and I wasnt even in their fucking war anymore...”....
After he kills Kurtz, he’s standing there holding the book, looking down at everyone. As he walks down the steps, he drops his machete and everyone else drops their weapons with him... I get goose bumps every time!
Ebert was right! 41 years later and we’re still talking about it...
yeah he was spot on. There's pretty much nothing else like it
Siskel is more analytical, barely sees the humaness
Showed this to my 16 year old son last year. It blew him away. He'd never seen anything like it.
I’ve watched hundreds of films and still this film leaves a real mark. This to me personally is the ultimate film.
I saw it with some college buddies when it came out and it blew us all away. When Robert Duvall said the line about napalm, a man in the audience got up and walked out, shouting something--I only heard him say "It ain't f---g perfume!" I think he was a veteran. Had a whole different perspective than us college boys.
I grew up in Chicago watching these two, and still love them. However I am amazed by how often they were wrong about classic movies.
You can’t necessarily be right or wrong about an opinion of a film. Although I completely agree with Ebert here, I don’t think Siskel is necessarily “wrong.” Besides, hindsight is 20/20. Most of the time, there’s no way to know what will be later considered a classic. Often times, future classics are negatively received initially.
Well, they’re no Pauline Kael.
you didnt have to grow up in chicago watching them - when they got together they were instantly shown all around the country on pbs - sneak previews was an insanely popular weekly show in the 1970s. and still is apparantly because here we are.
@JOE BLOW FROM COCOMO What makes an objectively great movie? What makes something “objectively great” in the first place? With a word like great, it’s completely subjective. Objective means nobody can disagree. Film criticism, by definition, cannot be objective. You can agree or disagree with their opinions. I disagreed with their opinions a lot, but I still respect their opinions because I could usually understand why they had them, even if I disagree with them. Professional film critics aren’t “professional” because they are right or wrong, it’s because people enjoy listening to them say their opinion. But even with the best critics, they are human, they have subjective opinions, and sure, they can be “wrong,” by which I mean have an unpopular opinion. Nothing about film criticism can be objective, except stating stuff like “Apocalypse Now was directed by Francis Ford Coppola and was released in 1979.” That’s literally it. But by the way, if you hate expect film critics to always agree with you and write them off if they don’t, then you probably don’t understand film criticism at all. And similarly, you should not always expect to agree with critics. It’s okay to hate a film critics love or love a film critics hate.
@JOE BLOW FROM COCOMO that’s not the role of a critic. It’s simply about conveying the emotions you be felt watching the film and whether the reader/viewer should be recommended to go.
Just the opening of that movie alone is imaginative. The ceiling fan and the whir of the helicopters. With The DOORS The End playing the whole time.
Classic. Gene missed in his review this time. There are so many veterans that came back from Vietnam haunted by their experiences.
The opening scene was the most entertaining part. Downhill from there.
@@TruthnautBegins There's always Avengers for you hon.
I watched Apocalypse Now Redux (with the added footage) recently and I have to say this is probably one of the top five greatest films ever made.
You have to say it? Are you saying someone is there forcing you to say it right now? If that is true blink your eyes twice. If it's not blink your eyes three times. And don't panic.
Francis Ford Coppola and Apocalypse was robbed of the Oscar for best picture in my book. But, then again, i don't hear a whole hell of a lot people talking "Kramer vs. Kramer" these days. People will continue to speak of Apocalypse Now long after we have left this world.
Kramer vs Kramer was a vastly overrated movie. APOCALYPSE NOW is far superior.
2 movies that couldnt be more different, both excellent...i dont see the point of arguing whats better or best. There is really no such thing as 1 best anything of a year.
@@eargasm1072 I agree to an extent. KRAMER vs KRAMER however is nothing more than a lifetime network movie.
@D2 E2 but The Tin Drum is good
Kramer vs Kramer is still takes about but no where near as much as apocalypse now
Captain Willard: "Who'se in charge here, Soldier?"
Private: "Ain't You?"
" Yeah."
i cant imagine watching this movie in theatres when it came out and not being anything short of blown away by it
I was 18 and blown away !!
I had a chance to see, but saw The Jerk instead in the same Cinemaplex.
Marty Sheen suffered a heart attack during filming, and Coppola forced everyone to keep it a secret from the studio to prevent loss of funding and a complete shutdown. “If Marty dies, we are fucked!”
Yeah frank Coppola is such a great man...😅
@@josephcontreras8930But he is (or WAS) a great film maker, and that matters more than being a good person.
Ebert predicted that this movie was going to be debated for the next 50 years... he was right. That blows my mind.
I saw apocalypse now in the the theatre in 1979...stunning movie.classic.
I saw Apocalypse Final Cut in the movies for the 40th anniversary, and just as i did when seeing the original 1979 cut and with Redux i walked away with a smile on my face saying "Whoa! What a film!" :)
Me too. I was 13.
I was 16 in 1979.
I read Heart of Darkness first. I was 11 when I saw this movie in the theatre. And suddenly I understood Conrad’s Novella.
You read Heart of Darkness that young? Impressive.
You read Heart of Darkness that young? That's depressing.
Yes, we read it when I was 7 and even put on a play. I wanted a speaking role but I was just one of the dead bodies during the big helicopter attack scene.
In my top 5 movie of all time list. Missed by both was the excellent acting of Martin Sheen and other unforgettable characters. Who will ever forget the look Jerry Zeismer gives and his “extreme prejuduce” line. G D Spradlin and his speech on how Kurtz has gone insane. Great supporting parts by everyone on the boat.
This movie is also better today in 2021 than 1979.
Rich G., Siskel did mention Sheen's great acting performance, along with that of Robert Duvall. You're right about the other points.
I would argue that apocalypse now is one of the greatest films ever made. I wish I could've been there in '79 to see it in theatres
I walked out of the theater with my mind blown
No credits. They gave you a booklet like a Broadway show. Ended with the plane bombing the encampment. Up to the Brando scenes one of the greatest films of all time.
Did you see the TNT version of Heart of Darkness with Tim Roth as Marlow. And John Malkovitch as Kurtz.
@@BradiKal61 Same thing happened to me when I watched X Files Fight the Future.
Thank you for uploading this. I always wanted to see this review. I watched the clip when Gene admitted his original review was a mistake and was always intrigued what he said. Always figure PBS would never air this again and hoped someone who recorded many years ago would.
The movie is based on the novella Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad. The journey up the river represents the journey of life and the characters Kurtz and Willard (Marlowe in the book) represent good, Willard, and evil, Kurtz, and shows how those two characters came to choose which of those paths to take after both being subject to the same temptations. Kurtz succumbing to them and Willard rejecting them even though he suffers in the process. It's Kurtz who the title of the book refers to. I guess Gene Siskel just couldn't see the symbolism in the story which explains the ending where Willard after killing Kurtz rejects the opportunity to assume his place as "king" of the hellish world he finds himself in and leaves
It's also about the insane, death-filled, horror-drenched meaninglessness & surreality & tragic absurdity of the U.S. war in Vietnam, as captured in Michael Herr's book "Dispatches"-which is the lesser-known but equally significant literary influence on this film.
That's right...as in that next to last shot where Sheen looks down at Kurtz' disciples after hacking him to death with the machete, looking like a sadistic madman a la Kurtz
I think there are multiple ways to interpret the ending, i.e. Kurtz's observations on the absurdity, the hypocrisy, and the horror of war. I agree with all the comments on this thread, but I'll add another observation about what Kurtz was getting at. He knew how to win the war. The trick was to embrace the horror rather than fear it, to remain pitiless and free of regret no matter the depths of inhumanity you had to descend to achieve your mission. This is what the inoculation story was about. Yet, he also knew that the powers that be would never accept this strategy on moral grounds. To the generals it was "moral" to bomb people to bits from the sky, but immoral to intimidate the enemy into submission by lopping off their heads and displaying them as trophies. The fundamental gulf between what was necessary to win this war and what the military was willing to do enraged Kurtz, initially, and eventually drove him to an obsessive desire to demonstrate the effectiveness, the genius, and the beauty of mindful brutality. Kurtz wasn't insane. He was intensely logical. His savage violence was not a product of madness, or a desire to win the war, or to satisfy his bloodlust, but rather a performance for the generals, in my opinion. The design was to show them how a war could successfully be waged with a small, dedicated army unconcerned with conventional (and stupid) rules of war. A big middle finger to his superiors who pretended that victory was possible by "acceptable" means. When Capt. Willard arrived one of the first things Kurtz asked was what the military brass was saying about him. What his old colleagues thought still mattered to him a great deal. It took me a few viewings to fully appreciate this. Coppola made a masterpiece the whole way through.
Yes, I actually read the book before I saw the movie when I was in high school. The novel was heavy and a tough read for me at that age.
The classic action movie from the past has returned to theatres in IMAX for the movie's 40th anniversary.
I saw the final cut of this movie 2 months ago and it was good, very good!
The film is not about Vietnam. It is about the heart of darkness.
Set in Vietnam.
@@johnrife7134 lmao
No, Heart of Darkness set in Vietnam. And that is different.
Wrong. It is every bit as much about Vietnam as it is the heart of darkness. It is influenced equally by both Joseph Conrad's famous story and Michael Herr's book "Dispatches".
It's about the senseless effects of a senseless war.
I'm no huge Francis Coppola fan but I admit this is one of the top 10 movies of all time. There simply is too many fantastic scenes for this to not be on the list. Just the psychedelic scene featuring Roach ensures this movie is a HUGE THUMBS UP!
The whole war was a psychological bad trip on a grand scale.
The film ends with the same lack of resolution that the war did. It wasn't supposed to make sense. That was the whole point Gene.
The ending as filmed was NOT at all planned when they actually made the film. The script had a more coherent ending but Brando (being Brando) didn't read it and didn't memorize any of his dialogue and he didn't like what was written for him. So, instead, he just made up all of his own dialogue and Coppola filmed it, took what he liked best and crafted whatever ending he could with it. The whole movie followed a very structured narrative up until the climax and it shows. That's why the ending feels so nonsensical. It really wasn't planned or meant to be "the entire point". It was just more that they didn't know how to end the film and just winged it. And luckily, it worked out for the most part and it fooled everybody. The ending was divisive when it was originally released. It wasn't just Siskel.
@@rustincohle2135 You're leaving out quite a lot. They abandoned Milius's RIDICULOUS "Rambo" ending LONG before Brando got there and Coppola had gone back to the CONRAD books ending - which is exactly what was shot. Brando didn't just "make up" his dialogue - he improvised, yes, but he was GUIDED by Coppola to arrive at a certain point and certain lines *in between* his improvisations. In the documentary, you literally see Coppola *telling him things to say and where to go*. The ending was not an accident - it was very carefully worked out, with the idea being that Willard would encounter nothing but sickness, madness and death at the end of the journey - which is the end of all of our journeys. As said, while they had arrived at the shoot with Milius's original ending, Coppola was NEVER happy with it and started re-writing it almost as soon as they got there.
1:50, boy Gene guessed wrong on the future of Vietnam war films
He's wrong as usual.
Yea, me thinks Oliver Stone and Stanley Kubrick had a thing or two to say about that. :)
Gene.. ur waaaay off. Loved this film.
I loved Gene, but he was way off many times
@King Greed sure but that was like 20 years later
Just reminded me to get the blue ray version, love this damn movie too much
I have to agree with Ebert here. That movie was one of the best of all time. Absolutely intense. Still holds up today. I showed this film to my girlfriend and she had never seen anything like it.
"Film that loses its clarity and conviction towards the end." Yeah, just like the war it's depicting! What did you expect, Gene, Mrs. Miniver?
😆😆
Oh, please! The ending as filmed was NOT at all planned when they actually made the film. The script had a more coherent ending but Brando (being Brando) didn't read it and didn't memorize any of his dialogue and he didn't like what was written for him. So, instead, he just made up all of his own dialogue and Coppola filmed it, took what he liked best and crafted whatever ending he could with it. The whole movie followed a very structured narrative up until the climax and it shows. That's why the ending feels so nonsensical compared to what preceded it. It really wasn't planned or meant to be "the entire point". It was just more that they didn't know how to end the film and just winged it. And luckily, it worked out for the most part and it fooled everybody. The ending was divisive when it was originally released. It wasn't just Siskel.
To see Lawrence Fishbourne skinny and babyfaced and the same with Martin Sheen- time passes when your watching a Vietnam film.
Wow, makes me wonder what modern movies will be classics in the future despite negative critical reception at the time they came out. Apocalypse Now is in my top 5 all time!
Modern films to be future classics? LOL I can count on one hand how many great films have been made in the past 20 years they are so bad. It used to be there were 20 great films per YEAR.
@@trhansen3244 I'm a bit more optimistic than you, but I kind of agree. I think there are still a lot of great films coming out every year (last year I watched 8 films I would consider "great"), but they're not mainstream. Big budget AND high quality only comes from films like Dune 2 or Oppenheimer which are exceedingly rare because their directors have clout.
Saw it the night before heading to boot camp. The friend who I saw it with was going the following month. He changed his MOS from Infantry to MP.. Nam was hell with great music.
Notice that little cut just underneath Willard's left eyelid. Oliver Stone had Sergeant Barnes cut Martin Sheen's very own son, Charlie, in the exact same spot.
This is probably one of the longest if not the longest movie review by Siskel and Ebert; and that says something by itself.
My dad was a USAF forward air controller who was placed with the First Cav for a while but I dont think he remembers anything like that particular beach assault
Gene Siskel never read Heart of Darkness. That's why he didn't get Brando's portrayal of Kurtz.
Roger was right. Almost 50 years later the ending is still being debated. The ending is indeed “murky and vague” (said Leonard Maltin in his review) but that’s ok. Coppola famously didn’t know how to end it. Gene is right that There is a sense of anticlimax to it…but such was Vietnam. By plan, luck or accident the “vague and murky” ending allows for endless interpretations and debate. Like most great cinema it doesn’t provide answers, it just raises more questions.
I think the original theatrical cut of Apocalypse Now is the best. From the Redux version to the recent Final Cut it proves that first version required none of the extra scenes which weighed the film down, especially the pointless French plantation sequence. Thankfully with the Final Cut Coppola wisely dropped the sequence with the stranded Playboy bunnies, but decided the French plantation sequence was essential to the story. I wish I could have seen this in '79. It must have been an amazing experience to see on a big screen, Dolby sound blasting, and on 35mm film. It must have been an unforgettable experience. After seeing Eleanor Coppola 's Hearts of Darkness it is astounding the film was ever finished and released. It seemed to be on the verge of collapse at any given moment, but Coppola held the madness together and made it work in favour of the film. Between dealing with losing Martin Sheen after a heart attack, a typhoon that wiped out sets, crazy Dennis Hopper, and the unpredictable Marlon Brando it would have driven a lesser director insane. I doubt that we have seen the actual "final cut" and another which integrates hitherto unseen footage to make a true epic. Any footage of Brando is worth reinstating.
Yeah, I agree, I never thought the extra footage did anything for it. They're interesting scenes, but they take away from the momentum of the film and just stop it dead.
Col. Kurtz to Gene: " I am beyond your timid, ignorant reviews and so I am beyond caring."
Ebert for the win.
okay, this is where i agree with both. i remember that ending being very decisive to me. it's one of those endings where you are going to take it for what it is or you aren't. the same can be said about Full Metal Jacket. Apocalypse Now is a fantastic film but I agree with Siskel as well. as we might know now, they watched the original version. there have been four cuts of this film over the years. I would love to see the Final Cut to see if Francis Ford Coppola fully realize the vision he had for this film
Siskel is so full of himself he couldn't see the greatness before his eyes. He wouldn't allow himself to. The self-satisfied superiority of being a lone voice of reason, being right as he saw it, blinded him to the obvious. He plays 3 clips full of emotion, amazing cinematography, wonderful acting, and an unfolding story, and ignores it. They never even mention Heart of Darkness or what the movie actually even says about the nature of evil, war, and madness and how they all colluded in the jungle in Vietnam and Cambodia. Siskel missed the boat here. One of the best movies ever made.
A lone voice of reason?? Siskel's only beef with the film was the ending. And the ending was DIVISIVE when the film was released. It wasn't just Siskel. And the ending as filmed was not at all planned when they actually made the film. The script had a more coherent ending but Brando (being Brando) didn't read it and didn't memorize any of his dialogue and he didn't like what was written for him. So, instead, he just made up all of his own dialogue and Coppola filmed it, took what he liked best and crafted whatever ending he could with it. The whole movie followed a very structured narrative up until the climax and it shows. That's why the ending feels so nonsensical compared to what preceded it. It really wasn't planned or meant to be "the entire point". It was just more that they didn't know how to end the film and just winged it. And luckily, it worked out for the most part and it fooled everybody.
Gene later changed his mind. He said he made a mistake. He said yes then.
I hope so.
He should not have gotten it wrong the first time.
Wish the Oscars would change their minds and give the award for best picture to Apocalypse Now, because i don't hear too many people talking about Kramer vs. Kramer these days.
Apocalypse Now will be talked about and discussed long after we leave this life.
@@apr8189 What the hell is Kramer vs Kramer? Kramer as in the Seinfeld character?
@@AK-47ISTHEWAY some Dustin Hoffman/Meryl Streep flick they awarded to instead of Apocalypse. Same damn thing they did 20 years later when Saving Private Ryan was robbed in favor of Shakespeare in Love. I was like "what the fuck?!"
I got to see this amazing film in a few great theaters in 1979, some really nice old-school cinemas in Tacoma and Olympia, WA. Great screens, and you could smoke in theaters back then, or at least in the lobby while watching through the curtains. Man what a smokey movie...at that age my impulse-control was a bit lacking to say the least so I'd be lighting up every chance I got. All the characters smoked. We'd sneak beers into the theater too. Geez these days there's actual warning stickers on movie and tv posters if there are cigarettes being smoked let alone alcohol and drug usage.
They sell alcohol at movie theaters now. You cannot bring your own liquor but you can definitely drink in theaters.
As a Vietnam vet who took years to try to understand what was happening. I didn’t like this picture because it just doesn’t entertain me at all, and it certainly doesn’t educate me.
Gene Siskel is right and Ebert is right. It's an ambitious mess with a somewhat lackluster ending, but the first two acts are some of the greatest of all cinema and the third act, just on a technical level, is absolutely brilliant.
A mess? Put down the crack pipe.
I don't know why the ending is so hard to get for many people.
If you viewed and understood the ending of ' The Man Who Would Be King', you should be able to comprehend this...
@@DS-wk1kn Siskel's only beef with the film was the ending. And the ending was divisive when the film was released. It wasn't just Siskel. And the ending as filmed was not at all planned when they actually made the film. The script had a more coherent ending but Brando (being Brando) didn't read it and didn't memorize any of his dialogue and he didn't like what was written for him. So, instead, he just made up all of his own dialogue and Coppola filmed it, took what he liked best and crafted whatever ending he could with it. The whole movie followed a very structured narrative up until the climax and it shows. That's why the ending feels so nonsensical compared to what preceded it. It really wasn't planned or meant to be "the entire point". It was just more that they didn't know how to end the film and just winged it. And luckily, it worked out for the most part and it fooled everybody.
Notice Lee Ermey at 3:48.
Good catch Brian!! I didn't know that was him!
It's interesting that these two also had a massive disagreement on "Full Metal Jacket." In that case, Siskel thought the movie was brilliant but Ebert was unmoved by it.
I find their polarization on this film and Full Metal Jacket fascinating as well as I felt both are great films but frustrated that one of them did not like it. The Full Metal Jacket review was a classic by the way.
Everyone gets it wrong sometimes. Gene seemed to get it wrong more often than Roger, though.
They are both right! I expected more from the ending. The Deer Hunter is more fulfilling with a tighter journey I was expecting much much more but... Could we really say the movie shouldn't have been made?. Brando's approach and process leaves such a mark it does point towards the sublime. However knowing someone is coming for you and not even fighting him with the bull being slaughtered is like come on!!!!!
Gene got it way wrong on this one. Years later he say he was wrong on this movie.
@Michael Perkowski: I disagree -- Siskel was right here. Kurz is a massive letdown in the movie. Coppola originally had the right ending (Kurz converts Willard to his way of thinking), but he betrayed himself (and all of us) by not pulling it off . . . .
@@QED_ gene later said he was wrong about this film years later. He should said yes to this film he said it to Roger and front audience. coppola struggle to find a ending for this film if you heart of darkness documentary you see how much trouble it took to make film this film. This Sunday the 40th anniversary. Will be IMAX. Its a great film total disagree with you and your thoughts how it should ended. Coppola thought what the original ending was weak. That's also in the documentary.
@@QED_ Agree. In spite of himself and his cowardice later in retracting his pan, Siskel had the right idea here. Apocalypse Now is a movie that had great style and a promising first half, almost entirely squandered by the self-indulgent, overwrought wallow that followed.
An overpraised, over-ambitious movie of my lifetime I could roughly compare it to might be MAGNOLIA (made 20 years later): another big, trendy bore that Roger felt he had to praise the great allegorical deep-dish-ness of it all, lest he be thought simple. At that time, Gene Shalit had to play the part of the regular joe meathead reviewer and shrug his shoulders at all the pretentiousness, while Ebert said _No, man it's deep!_ (a year previous, he called a true allegorical masterpiece, A TASTE OF CHERRY, his "most hated movie of all time").
@Zed Dravot When the movie begins, Willard and the US military are one side of things . . . and Kurtz is on the other side. So as viewers, we're either going to come to sympathize with Willard and the US military . . . or we're going to come to sympathize with Kurtz.
Willard's trip up river then brilliantly demonstrates that to be on the side of Willard and the US military . . . is moral/aesthetic LUNACY. So by default, then, by the time we get to Kurtz . . . our sympathy should be with him.
But the damn movie then contradicts itself by NOT making the corresponding case for Kurtz as a person. That's what should happen: Kurtz's personality should be a reflection of moral/aesthetic condemnation for everything that Willard has just been through. Willard realizes that he's been on the wrong side -- he's more sympathetic to Kurtz than he is to the US military.
But it's too late (is how I might have ended it): Willard doesn't know that he's helped the US military find Kurtz -- and an air strike wipes out Kurtz and Willard both. The US military wins this battle . . . just as they did every battle of the war. And we all know how that ended up . . .
@@QED_ You've laid out a good case for why the movie betrays its own internal logic. I can dig the expressionistic tone they were going for, it just didn't add up to much for me.
Another overambitious, aesthetically bold but narratively messy movie to me was Gance's NAPOLEON. Which coincidentally Coppola bought the rights to and seemingly has held in ransom since its early-Eighties revival. I saw a VHS copy, but because of Coppola I've never had the chance to see a good print of it. A little grudge I hold against the winemaker!
I came to this film as an English major ( my degree); I read Heart of Darkness several times before knowing anything about this movie. So I was thrilled with it, for no other reason than I didn't think HoD was filmable. I was wrong, obviously.
The Marathon bars at 0:31. God, how I miss those things.
Wow never had of heard of them. What were they like? I was born in 1979. Also deathly allergic to peanuts (and all nuts to different degrees) so I've always been cautious with candy bars. I don't usually try ones I haven't had before. In fact, only recently did I learn that I can eat 100 Grand bars. Always assumed they had nuts
@@MarvinMonroe they were basically just long strands of chocolate and caramel. They're the US equivalent of Cadbury's Curly Wurly's in the UK.
They bleep "balls" but leave in the racist slur. Love the 1970's
Are you going to be ok little boy?
@@tentcater4710 What?
@@tentcater4710 Are you alright there chief?
@@tentcater4710 revise comment to make sense
Gene did call the documentary that came out sometime later, about the making of "Apocalypse Now," the best movie of whatever year that was.
Wowzers, Gene was totally out to lunch. And then some.
As far as Nam movies are concerned,, for me,, there is a trifecta of movies that are ridiculously awesome, and this is one of those three.
Ebert was so much more forward thinking than Siskel. Siskel couldn’t seem to see past his own literal expectations
Ebert didn't like Brazil
@@riverotter68 Yeah, and?
@@ParentsNightIn how is it considered today?
@@riverotter68 So one cherry-picked example of Ebert not being enthusiastic about a movie that only later was considered a classic, is supposed to be a complete refutation of my original point? Ebert saw value in many other films that weren't beloved at first but only later.
The point is Ebert was overall a more openminded critic than Siskel.
@@ParentsNightIn The Jerk, The Warriors, Pee Wee's Big Adventure, Field of Dreams, The Fisher King..
This was one of Siskel's all time biggest gaffs when he gave this movie a thumbs down, so much so that he later had to recant his opinion when he realized how wrong he was...
Well, there were a lot of people, like my Vietnam veteran Dad, who didn't like the film when it came out in 1979, either.
i took my korean vet dad to see the movie and he also hated it
I want them back. Roger and Siskel. It would have been something to see their take on the films of the 21st century.
Like what comic book movies?
Can't believe Gene on this one. I usally always agreed with him and this is one of my favorites.
Siskel's only beef was the ending-- and it wasn't just Siskel. The film's ending was divisive upon release. Critics either loved it or hated it.
I love you Eric Stran!!!!!!! You have so much footage of E & S in their prime!!!!!!!
That's S & E.
@@DS-wk1kn thx
Yep
Hard to believe Gene didnt go for Apocalypse Now. I love it myself, I do see Siskels point, but good outweighs the bad.
Siskel would rescind his review of this movie as seen on their 500th episode special
Only after he realized he was the only person in the world to dislike this masterpiece, haha
One of my ten favorite films
I always felt the same way, top 10 then I saw it in IMAX on a 60ft ht. x 80 ft. widescreen during the summer 2019. Now it's top 5. There's really nothing else like it
I'm afraid on this review, Gene Siskel landed on a fraction.
I understand people no longer feel this is a good depiction of Nam. However, the end says it all. The men who went through this war lost their minds whether still in country or at home. I had a brother who when I saw this movie, I could have sworn this was his life story. So many scary things about this war and I felt they did a great job to show that even the person assigned to complete a task as insane as this, can lose his way. Who said "War is hell" anyway.
Wow. I'm so disappointed that Gene didn't like Apocolypse Now, probably the most famous and most well respected Vietnam War movie ever made. Only Platoon comes anywhere near the level of brilliance of this film. I think Gene probably changed his mind on this later down the road.
Platoon is weaker than Full metal jacket.
@@SvenTviking both are weaker than «The Deer hunter»
@@MrCaveman366 And all of them are weaker than the war itself. Only in America would a war that was in everyone’s living room have to be brought to the big screen, too.
@@MrCaveman366 lol The deer Hunter is a piece of shit.
@@SvenTviking Apocolypse now >>> Full Metal Jacket > Platoon
Time has shown that Gene got it wrong this time. This film is Epic. It is about more than War to be sure. It is about the potential of Good and Evil within all Men.
Siskel's only beef was the ending but he wasn't wrong about it. The ending was divisive when the film was released. It wasn't just Siskel. The ending as filmed was not at all planned when they actually made the film. The script had a more coherent ending but Brando (being Brando) didn't read it and didn't memorize any of his dialogue and he didn't like what was written for him. So, instead, he just made up all of his own dialogue and Coppola filmed it, took what he liked best and crafted whatever ending he could with it. The whole movie followed a very structured narrative up until the climax and it shows. That's why the ending feels so nonsensical compared to what preceded it. It really wasn't planned or meant to be "the entire point". It was just more that they didn't know how to end the film and just winged it. And luckily, it worked out for the most part and it fooled everybody.
Lawrence Fishburn was 16 when he acted in that movie! Great film!
14
Gene Siskel:"this the last Vietnam War movie"
Oliver Stone:"watch this!"
Stanley Kubrick and R. Lee Ermey:"you ain't seen nothing yet!"
Who cares about Platoon anymore? Full Metal Jacket, on the other hand...
@@speedmastermarkiii I don't mean that Platonn is better, but it can still impress people, like a friend of mine who watched it for the first time last year.
Sly Stallone and Chuck Norris:" not before us!
I fucking love Apocalypse Now.
I agree with Roger on this one.
This is one of the greatest films made. An excellent adaptation of Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, upon which it is based.
There is a great documentary about the making of Apocalypse Now worth watching, Hearts of Darkness.
It's very well documented that this was a most difficult to make artictic masterpiece based on the Conrad's work. Roger got this one right or sure as it's one of the greatest films ever made.
I think Gene's points are well taken but I tend to agree with Roger on this one.
I revere Siskel & Ebert - I watched their show religiously when it was on television in my youth. The one issue I have with this review is that it does not mention that Apocalypse Now is based on Joseph Conrad’s truly famous and revered novel, The Heart of Darkness. Otherwise, bravo!
Roger is so correct......
Sometimes it's hard to see classics in the noise.
Gene Siskle Dropping the ball big time. On one of the greatest films of all time. I'm pretty sure later in life he walked many of these statements back. Honestly here we are some 40 years later and no one is arguing about the ending. It worked. "The Horror The Horror" one of the most classics lines in hollywood history. And siskle says "All the way to the end and Brando never says anything" YIKES!
Ebert nailed it, a memorable movie, never forgotten. Duval was unbelievable as Col. Kilgore, just amazing !!
I rented _Apocalypse Now_ from Blockbuster Video back in 1988, and I still think it is one of the greatest, most brilliant films ever made. Not everything about it has to make sense. As Francis Ford Coppola himself said about it, "This film isn't _about_ Vietnam. This film _IS_ Vietnam." Perfectly well-said.
*P.S.:* What if I told you that _Apocalypse Now_ was the film debut of Laurence Fishburne, then billed as Larry Fishburne? He was 15 years old when this film was made. Let that sink into your heads a bit.
I'm surprised Gene didn't like Apocalypse Now but liked Full Metal Jacket, I'd expect the opposite.
He was something of a Kubrick fanboy. To me, FMJ has a great first act, the rest of the movie is completely forgettable. One of my least favorite Kubrick films. A Clockwork Orange takes that spot.
Pretty interesting reviews. The ending of the film is definitely a polarising one. I found it underwhelming the first time I saw it, but I've rewatched it numerous times since and it's probably my favourite film of all time. I wonder if Gene ever changed his mind on this one.
Neither one of these guys noticed that the movie was based on "The Heat of Darkness", and the war was only a dramatic and perfect back drop for that story. This movie is far more than just a war movie. And possibly the best movie ever made.
they didnt stay to watch the credits
The irony is, Brando was unfit for the role. He's literally the hammy elephant in the room. Duval should have played Kurtz; but who plays Kilgore
Gene didn't get it. This movie had nothing to do with "The Vietnam War".
In the same way The Shawshank Redemption wasn't "A prison movie". A properly pretentious way to describe a sloggy, overbearing metaphorical mess. Yes, Gene could be simple at times, but he pegged this one right.
I think Siskel missed the point of the movie. The war is the setting, and the river is a metaphor for a journey into the mind, going from rational on the outside, to primitive as you go deeper to the center.
It was a miracle Gene Siskel made a living as a film critic, he was extremely wrong many many times with classic awesome films
@TheBrabon1 you are correct.
Siskel's only beef with the film was with the ending, not the film as a whole. And the ending was DIVISIVE in its original release. People either loved it or hated it-- they even mentioned this in the review! Were you not paying attention? Siskel's opinion of the film at the time was not unique. Plus, he changed his tune on the film over time. God, does no one understand the word "context" when they watch media from decades ago?
One of my favs. I'll watch A.N Redux every couple of years. And Heart of Darkness is a great doc.
I love the popcorn machine.
What Gene said about how easy it would be to make a tragic Vietnam film is true, and so I think he has that on Ebert's reasons for liking the film. However, Apocalypse Now is one of the best films ever made, - a beautiful mood piece. A masterpiece of pure cinema. Vittorio Stororo is the best ever cinematographer. Watch The Conformist. Incredible.
Watch Coppola's commentary for the Redux, he says the film is "about moral ambiguity: that's the whole point of the film." He meant, nevermind antiwar, that's what the film is about
from the horse's mouth.
Seems like they knew each other's thoughts on movies before the reviews. Later on in the 80s and 90s, it was clear they didn't know, because they were often surprised by each other's review.
Yeah, I caught that too, I think it was how they formatted it, this was when they were working on PBS and I think it was the suits who said they should say if they did or didn't like it b4 showing clips and duscusding, when they went and moved to their own syndicated show, the format was Wat you remember
And this is why Rog is the greatest movie critic of all time
Gene's favorite movie of all time was "Saturday Night Fever". Enough said.
Still a better movie than APOCAPLYSE NOW. Art's subjective, dude. Get over it.
@@FungusMossGnosis 🤣🤣🤣 No fucking way.
I think both movies are great, but I certainly prefer Saturday Night Fever.
I loved Saturday Night Fever.
Ebert right once again.
Yes he does
They seemed completely unaware that this was an adaptation of Heart of Darkness. They didn't mention that once.
It wasn't publicized as an adaptation of Heart of Darkness when it was released-- Heart of Darkness is not even listed in the credits of the film.
I agree with Gene Siskel about the end of the film. I was not only disappointed in the end, but the movie in general. I saw this movie when it was on a cable television channel after seeing the movie "Platoon" in the theater. I think I might have enjoyed "Apocalypse Now" more if I had not seen "Platoon" first.
No. I saw Apocalypse Now before Platoon and still thought it was crap.
roger ebert passed away on this date 7 years ago hard to beleave its been that long