list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Apocalypse Now on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Apocalypse_Now/1555/default.aspx Title: Apocalypse Now
Year: 1979
Director: Francis Ford Coppola
Plot: One of a cluster of late-1970s films about the Vietnam War, Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now adapts the Joseph Conrad novella Heart of Darkness to depict the war as a descent into primal madness. Capt. Willard (Martin Sheen), already on the edge, is assigned to find and deal with AWOL Col. Kurtz (Marlon Brando), rumored to have set himself up in the Cambodian jungle as a local, lethal godhead. Along the way Willard encounters napalm and Wagner fan Col. Kilgore (Robert Duvall), draftees who prefer to surf and do drugs, a USO Playboy Bunny show turned into a riot by the raucous soldiers, and a jumpy photographer (Dennis Hopper) telling wild, reverent tales about Kurtz. By the time Willard sees the heads mounted on stakes near Kurtz's compound, he knows Kurtz has gone over the deep end, but it is uncertain whether Willard himself now agrees with Kurtz's insane dictum to "Drop the Bomb. Exterminate them all." Coppola himself was not certain either, and he tried several different endings between the film's early rough-cut screenings for the press, the Palme d'Or-winning "work-in-progress" shown at Cannes, and the final 35 mm U.S. release (also the ending on the video cassette). The chaotic production also experienced shut-downs when a typhoon destroyed the set and star Sheen suffered a heart attack; the budget ballooned and Coppola covered the overages himself. These production headaches, which Coppola characterized as being like the Vietnam War itself, have been superbly captured in the documentary, Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse. Despite the studio's fears and mixed reviews of the film's ending, Apocalypse Now became a substantial hit and was nominated for eight Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actor for Duvall's psychotic Kilgore, and Best Screenplay. It won Oscars for sound and for Vittorio Storaro's cinematography. This hallucinatory, Wagnerian project has produced admirers and detractors of equal ardor; it resembles no other film ever made, and its nightmarish aura and polarized reception aptly reflect the tensions and confusions of the Vietnam era. ~ Lucia Bozzola, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 97
Number of Lists: 118
Number of blog posts: 12
Number of discussion threads: 8
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 01:05:30 GMTApocalypse Now1979Francis Ford CoppolaOne of a cluster of late-1970s films about the Vietnam War, <a href="/players/P____85868/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Francis Ford Coppola</a>'s Apocalypse Now adapts the Joseph Conrad novella Heart of Darkness to depict the war as a descent into primal madness. Capt. Willard (<a href="/players/P___111083/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Martin Sheen</a>), already on the edge, is assigned to find and deal with AWOL Col. Kurtz (<a href="/players/P_____8070/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Marlon Brando</a>), rumored to have set himself up in the Cambodian jungle as a local, lethal godhead. Along the way Willard encounters napalm and Wagner fan Col. Kilgore (<a href="/players/P____88530/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Robert Duvall</a>), draftees who prefer to surf and do drugs, a USO Playboy Bunny show turned into a riot by the raucous soldiers, and a jumpy photographer (<a href="/players/P____94825/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Dennis Hopper</a>) telling wild, reverent tales about Kurtz. By the time Willard sees the heads mounted on stakes near Kurtz's compound, he knows Kurtz has gone over the deep end, but it is uncertain whether Willard himself now agrees with Kurtz's insane dictum to "Drop the Bomb. Exterminate them all." Coppola himself was not certain either, and he tried several different endings between the film's early rough-cut screenings for the press, the Palme d'Or-winning "work-in-progress" shown at Cannes, and the final 35 mm U.S. release (also the ending on the video cassette). The chaotic production also experienced shut-downs when a typhoon destroyed the set and star Sheen suffered a heart attack; the budget ballooned and Coppola covered the overages himself. These production headaches, which Coppola characterized as being like the Vietnam War itself, have been superbly captured in the documentary, Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse. Despite the studio's fears and mixed reviews of the film's ending, Apocalypse Now became a substantial hit and was nominated for eight Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actor for Duvall's psychotic Kilgore, and Best Screenplay. It won Oscars for sound and for <a href="/players/P___112513/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Vittorio Storaro</a>'s cinematography. This hallucinatory, Wagnerian project has produced admirers and detractors of equal ardor; it resembles no other film ever made, and its nightmarish aura and polarized reception aptly reflect the tensions and confusions of the Vietnam era. ~ Lucia Bozzola, All Movie Guide97Tag Target (>10)1181284http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t04913q69vp.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Apocalypse_Now/1555/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/risselada/archive/2009/2/2/40144.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Risselada Blog
Post Date: 2/2/2009 12:43:12 PM
Body: If you are interested in cinematography, great cinematography, and great cinematographers, Cinematographer Style would probably be both a highly interesting and highly frustrating experience. Keep reading to find out why! First of all, as an irrelevant piece of information (you can skip this paragraph if you just want to hear about the movie itself) I first heard about this movie from one of my former roommates. He was quite a young guy that I found on craig's list who was studying cinematography at Columbia College in Chicago. He mentioned that he knew a guy who was working on this production, and I think he may have even visited the set one day they were filming one of the cinematographers in the film. Anyways he made the whole thing sound very exciting and epic. A couple months later, after never moving anything else into the apartment except for a few articles of clothing and his guitar and sleeping on our couch until 2 PM every day, and after failing to pay any rent, he showed up in the middle of the night bloody and beat up after going back to a mafia owned bar that he had recently been fired from. After that he never really showed up again. Just one of a series of interesting roommate stories I had at that apartment. But again, that's all irrelevant. Anyways, the structure of the movie Cinematographer Style is a montage of interviews with many famous cinematographers. And when I say many I mean one hundred and ten! This is actually not a number that you should be excited about, although the filmmakers don't seem to realize. With a running time of 86 minutes, this means that on average each person gets an average of fifty seconds of speaking time. Of course in actuality the more famous and respected cinematographers get more speaking time, but when you look at the special features and realize that at least for Vittorio Storaro and Gordon Willis that the filmmakers got at least close to an hour of quite interesting footage you wonder why they felt the need to pack so many people into this movie. And the first five minutes of the movie are just all of the 110 cinematographers in the movie reciting their name (for some of them this is probably about a fourth of the time they'll even get on screen, so why bother?). And at the end of the movie there is actually a piece of text stating something to the effect that due to scheduling there were many cinematographers they wanted in the movie that they couldn't get, and they suggest that maybe there should be a sequel! What's the point of stuffing more people in there if that just means that everyone else gets less time to talk? The reason I'm frustrated by this is because many of the people clearly have very interesting things to say, but they cut back and forth between people that we don't really get any sense of these people individually or their fully story. Again, you can watch the specials features to hear Vittorio and Gordon speak longer, but you lose that chance with a lot of other people in the film. One other frustration is that, although you know these people have done some amazing work and they are making a lot of specific comments about their work, you never seen a single shot from any of their movies. Maybe the filmmakers couldn't get the rights to show segments from these movies. Or maybe they thought it wouldn't be fair to select which movies to show and which not to. Either way, it's hard to hear these people talking about their artwork which is in the same medium in which their interview is being shown to you, and yet you don't get to see any examples of it. A lot of the cinematographers come to the same conclusions, and in the special features you can hear the director kind of prompt the interviewee to say certain things such as "the idea is more important than the tool or technique." But to hear each artists approach to this conclusion is what's interesting, not hearing a 110 headed monster coming to one single conclusion. So in conclusion if you are are interested in cinematography at all you should watch this movie, but you may be frustrated by the quantity of interviews over the chance to really focus on any one person and the lack of examples of their work. Spout usually asks us to include recommendations for other movies if you like the one that is being reviewed. In this case, I would recommend some of the movies that these great cinematographers actually worked on: O Brother, Where Art Thou? (Roger Deakins), Memento (Wally Pfister), Apocalypse Now (Vittorio Storaro), One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (Haskell Wexler), The Godfather Part II (Gordon Willis) Rating: 7/10
]]>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 17:43:12 GMTRisseladaRisselada Blog2/2/2009 12:43:12 PMIf you are interested in cinematography, great cinematography, and great cinematographers, Cinematographer Style would probably be both a highly interesting and highly frustrating experience. Keep reading to find out why! First of all, as an irrelevant piece of information (you can skip this paragraph if you just want to hear about the movie itself) I first heard about this movie from one of my former roommates. He was quite a young guy that I found on craig's list who was studying cinematography at Columbia College in Chicago. He mentioned that he knew a guy who was working on this production, and I think he may have even visited the set one day they were filming one of the cinematographers in the film. Anyways he made the whole thing sound very exciting and epic. A couple months later, after never moving anything else into the apartment except for a few articles of clothing and his guitar and sleeping on our couch until 2 PM every day, and after failing to pay any rent, he showed up in the middle of the night bloody and beat up after going back to a mafia owned bar that he had recently been fired from. After that he never really showed up again. Just one of a series of interesting roommate stories I had at that apartment. But again, that's all irrelevant. Anyways, the structure of the movie Cinematographer Style is a montage of interviews with many famous cinematographers. And when I say many I mean one hundred and ten! This is actually not a number that you should be excited about, although the filmmakers don't seem to realize. With a running time of 86 minutes, this means that on average each person gets an average of fifty seconds of speaking time. Of course in actuality the more famous and respected cinematographers get more speaking time, but when you look at the special features and realize that at least for Vittorio Storaro and Gordon Willis that the filmmakers got at least close to an hour of quite interesting footage you wonder why they felt the need to pack so many people into this movie. And the first five minutes of the movie are just all of the 110 cinematographers in the movie reciting their name (for some of them this is probably about a fourth of the time they'll even get on screen, so why bother?). And at the end of the movie there is actually a piece of text stating something to the effect that due to scheduling there were many cinematographers they wanted in the movie that they couldn't get, and they suggest that maybe there should be a sequel! What's the point of stuffing more people in there if that just means that everyone else gets less time to talk? The reason I'm frustrated by this is because many of the people clearly have very interesting things to say, but they cut back and forth between people that we don't really get any sense of these people individually or their fully story. Again, you can watch the specials features to hear Vittorio and Gordon speak longer, but you lose that chance with a lot of other people in the film. One other frustration is that, although you know these people have done some amazing work and they are making a lot of specific comments about their work, you never seen a single shot from any of their movies. Maybe the filmmakers couldn't get the rights to show segments from these movies. Or maybe they thought it wouldn't be fair to select which movies to show and which not to. Either way, it's hard to hear these people talking about their artwork which is in the same medium in which their interview is being shown to you, and yet you don't get to see any examples of it. A lot of the cinematographers come to the same conclusions, and in the special features you can hear the director kind of prompt the interviewee to say certain things such as "the idea is more important than the tool or technique." But to hear each artists approach to this conclusion is what's interesting, not hearing a 110 headed monster coming to one single conclusion. So in conclusion if you are are interested in cinematography at all you should watch this movie, but you may be frustrated by the quantity of interviews over the chance to really focus on any one person and the lack of examples of their work. Spout usually asks us to include recommendations for other movies if you like the one that is being reviewed. In this case, I would recommend some of the movies that these great cinematographers actually worked on: O Brother, Where Art Thou? (Roger Deakins), Memento (Wally Pfister), Apocalypse Now (Vittorio Storaro), One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (Haskell Wexler), The Godfather Part II (Gordon Willis) Rating: 7/10 http://www.spout.com/groups/Filmgaming/Re_Recast_HIGH_FIDELITY_2000_Top_5_Challenge/563/36206/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: dreamtupelo
Post To: Filmgaming
Post Date: 10/11/2008 6:34:09 PM
Body: Cast of 70's pop-stars who would never appear on a Rob Gordon mix tape:Billy Joel ... Rob GordonKaren Carpenter ... LauraPaul Simon ... Dick (the quiet one)Meatloaf ... Barry (the Jack Black one)Diana Ross ... Marie De SalleCher ... Charlie NicholsonCarly Simon ... LizKris Kristoferson ... Ian 'Ray' RaymondNeil Diamond ... Middle aged customer (the guys won't help him)Jimmy Buffet ... Louis, the cool customerJames Taylor ... Marco (the guy Charlie falls for)Johnny Cash ... Himselfand as for Top Five:Top Five Seventies Directors Who Could Get Me To See High Fidelity Despite The Above Cast:5. Roger Corman4. John Cassavetes 3. Robert Altman2. Bob Rafelson1. Hal AshbyTop Five Films We'd Have A Blast Recasting:5. One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest4. Apocalypse Now 3. It's A Wonderful Life2. Casablanca1. The Godfather Saga (1, 2 & 3-who doesn't want to recast Sofia?)
]]>Sat, 11 Oct 2008 22:34:09 GMTdreamtupeloFilmgaming10/11/2008 6:34:09 PMCast of 70's pop-stars who would never appear on a Rob Gordon mix tape:Billy Joel ... Rob GordonKaren Carpenter ... LauraPaul Simon ... Dick (the quiet one)Meatloaf ... Barry (the Jack Black one)Diana Ross ... Marie De SalleCher ... Charlie NicholsonCarly Simon ... LizKris Kristoferson ... Ian 'Ray' RaymondNeil Diamond ... Middle aged customer (the guys won't help him)Jimmy Buffet ... Louis, the cool customerJames Taylor ... Marco (the guy Charlie falls for)Johnny Cash ... Himselfand as for Top Five:Top Five Seventies Directors Who Could Get Me To See High Fidelity Despite The Above Cast:5. Roger Corman4. John Cassavetes 3. Robert Altman2. Bob Rafelson1. Hal AshbyTop Five Films We'd Have A Blast Recasting:5. One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest4. Apocalypse Now 3. It's A Wonderful Life2. Casablanca1. The Godfather Saga (1, 2 &amp; 3-who doesn't want to recast Sofia?) http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/10/4/35893.aspx Post By: pippin06
Post To: Reel Thoughts
Post Date: 10/4/2008 11:36:11 AM
Body: What's the AFI Project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here: http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx Apocalypse Now is on the following AFI lists: The Original Top 100 (#28)100 Movie Quotes (#12 - Colonel Kilgore: "I love the smell of napalm in the morning.")The Revised Top 100 (#30) I borrowed this film again from my parents; I think they live in the 70s sometimes. This is the second time I watched Apocalypse Now. The first time, I fell asleep. The second time, I almost fell asleep - in a different spot - but still, the eyes were droopy. I'm not sure why that is. The second time, I definitely enjoyed the film much more. Like Citizen Kane, it seems to get better with age and multiple viewings, though that's a bit problematic to me when you're watching films that are supposed to be the greatest of all American movies... I digress - and recognize my own biases in that statement. Apocalypse Now is based on Joseph Conrad's novella Heart of Darkness, which I read before watching the film, several years ago. I really enjoyed the book. I found it to be a compelling depiction and study of the human psyche in extreme situations. Francis Ford Coppola, who co-wrote the screenplay and directed this film adaptation, simply takes key plot points from the story and the larger themes, applies them to the Vietnam War, and, through a legendary all-star cast, runs with them a few miles, creating an intense, distrurbing, and well-constructed film that actually deserves very much to be on these greatest lists (and, perhaps, a few others on which it wasn't included). Captain Willard (Martin Sheen) is a special ops officer in the Army who has already undertaken a few classified and suspicious assignments and served at least one tour in Vietnam. While clearly afflicted with post-traumatic stress and waiting in Saigon, a broken man married to the mission if not to his wife, Willard is tapped by high-ranking officers (including one played by Harrison Ford) to "terminate" an AWOL colonel, Kurtz (Marlon Brando). Kurtz made his name as something of a renegade officer, devising and undertaking successful campaigns, but he began crossing lines, losing his capacity for reason and restraint in the process. Thus, Willard, escorted by a battalion commanded by Colonel Kilgore (Robert Duvall), who would rather surf than shoot, and aboard a navy boat staffed by some green officers (including a very young Laurence - I mean, Larry - Fishburne) with the exception of the boat's pilot, navigates the Vietnamese jungle on-river, headed toward Cambodia, where Kurtz has allegedly set up a cult-like stronghold with followers who seem to worship him. Dennis Hopper also plays a disciple photojournalist, whom Willard encounters upon reaching Kurtz's camp. Let me start by focusing on what Apocalypse Now won Oscars for - and so deservedly. I think this movie must have some of the greatest cinematography in all of film. Others have said it, and I'm just going to jump on this bandwagon, but the photography in this film is beyond words breathtaking, and what's really cool is that I got to rewatch this film on a widescreen TV. The use of the camera, the lighting, the color hues - this film is one of the best shot films that I can remember, and I doubt there are many competitors. From the opening frames, when the helicopters appear from nowhere on opposite sides of the screen, to the panoramic shots of the air assault led by Kilgore, to the night scenes in the camps they visit, to Kurtz's nightmarish stronghold, this film is kind of beautiful in an intensely disturbing way. Great care was taken with the photography to completely envelop the viewer in this insane place. The sound is also really good, and since I was able to experience this film in a home theater set up, I particularly noticed it. There is constant background noise from machine guns to grenades to jungle noises to explosions to thunder - the only time the film grows truly quiet, notably, is when Kurtz is delivering his monologue about morality and judgement. The use of sound - and also, the renowned soundtrack including the opening use of the Doors' "The End" - did more to suspend my disbelief than any other aspect of the film. It helped to tangibly immerse me into this crazy place and time known as the Vietnam War quite effectively. The performances were also brilliant. Martin Sheen apparently suffered a heart attack while making this film, and I can certainly see why. Despite the legendarily fraught-with-problems film shoot, his character was one of extreme intensity, and he seemed overtaken by Willard and vice-versa. This is, as hindsight informs us, truly the role of his career. Everyone was good, though, from Duvall to Hopper to Albert Hall (the Chief). The only performance that felt a little less connected, a little less real, was actually Brando's, but that could be owing to the character he was trying to play. Kurtz is an exemplar of when moral ambiguity becomes no longer ambiguous, and Brando infused him with a kind of collected insanity that was all at once disarming and disaffecting - it's hard to say whether it was the man or the character in the end. My only problem with this film - my only problem - is how the pacing slows to a dead crawl when Willard finally reaches Kurtz. The film is already slow, deliberately building in intensity toward an outcome to be anticipated and feared and allowing the audio and visual components to work themselves into the viewer's brain, but when Willard encounters Kurtz for the first time, the film sputters to a halt. As a result, the ending - the entire ending - feels anticlimactic. You know what's going to happen, you just don't know how. The All Movie Guide says it best (see below): "Apocalypse Now is an elaborate but often haphazard construction that starts to run out of gas at the three-quarter point without delivering a satisfying ending, and Marlon Brando's often lackadaisical performance as Col. Kurtz never lives up to the massive buildup the story gives it." This statement summarizes exactly how I felt about the movie once it faded to a credit-less close (but then I watched the tacked-on credits afterward). Like AMG notes, this film is filled with moments that make it a bona fide classic. In fact, I'm surprised it didn't make more lists - I thought for sure it would have been on the heart-pounding list. The scene at the bridge - the boundary to Cambodia - is one of the scariest in the whole picture, not to mention the final sequence beginning with Willard, emerging like a snake from the fire-hued water. I also would have expected this film to pop up on the Best Songs list - "The End" wasn't written for the film, but there are songs on this list that weren't originally attached to their corresponding movies, and this song was so perfect and utilized in such a perfect way. Who knows why the AFI voted the way it did? Now onto personal ratings: I've thought about this long and hard, and the bottom line is the disjointed nature of the last quarter of the film knocks it down from being a masterpiece or even perfectly entertaining for me. I think it deserves an 8.5 for being between very good and perfectly entertaining - I was tempted to give it a straight (but crazy) 8, but the cinematography and technical elements of this film are so good, it seems a shame to rate the film only an 8. Yet, I can't bring myself to love the film. It's close - but I don't love it. I love the first three quarters, but I got frustrated in the back nine, and I know I'm not the only one who feels that way. Thus, it can't really past the test. Also, because of the seemingly sleep-inducing nature, I don't know if I could hope to stay awake trying to watch it again, and it's kind of an intense film that really can't be pulled out for a giggle when one is looking for a movie to watch. In any event, whether you find the film a masterpiece or a flawed execution of an idea and/or concept, what I truly feel about the film is that it still executes exactly what it intended. The re are moments in this film that are so absurd, so disturbing, so beyond description, they paint a searing portrait of the absurdity of Vietnam and war in general - and make them mythic at the same time. This is a rare quality and renders the film recommendable for that reason alone. So, watch Apocalypse Now - but don't watch it before bedtime. Trust me.
]]>Sat, 04 Oct 2008 15:36:11 GMTpippin06Reel Thoughts10/4/2008 11:36:11 AMWhat's the AFI Project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here: http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx Apocalypse Now is on the following AFI lists: The Original Top 100 (#28)100 Movie Quotes (#12 - Colonel Kilgore: "I love the smell of napalm in the morning.")The Revised Top 100 (#30) I borrowed this film again from my parents; I think they live in the 70s sometimes. This is the second time I watched Apocalypse Now. The first time, I fell asleep. The second time, I almost fell asleep - in a different spot - but still, the eyes were droopy. I'm not sure why that is. The second time, I definitely enjoyed the film much more. Like Citizen Kane, it seems to get better with age and multiple viewings, though that's a bit problematic to me when you're watching films that are supposed to be the greatest of all American movies... I digress - and recognize my own biases in that statement. Apocalypse Now is based on Joseph Conrad's novella Heart of Darkness, which I read before watching the film, several years ago. I really enjoyed the book. I found it to be a compelling depiction and study of the human psyche in extreme situations. Francis Ford Coppola, who co-wrote the screenplay and directed this film adaptation, simply takes key plot points from the story and the larger themes, applies them to the Vietnam War, and, through a legendary all-star cast, runs with them a few miles, creating an intense, distrurbing, and well-constructed film that actually deserves very much to be on these greatest lists (and, perhaps, a few others on which it wasn't included). Captain Willard (Martin Sheen) is a special ops officer in the Army who has already undertaken a few classified and suspicious assignments and served at least one tour in Vietnam. While clearly afflicted with post-traumatic stress and waiting in Saigon, a broken man married to the mission if not to his wife, Willard is tapped by high-ranking officers (including one played by Harrison Ford) to "terminate" an AWOL colonel, Kurtz (Marlon Brando). Kurtz made his name as something of a renegade officer, devising and undertaking successful campaigns, but he began crossing lines, losing his capacity for reason and restraint in the process. Thus, Willard, escorted by a battalion commanded by Colonel Kilgore (Robert Duvall), who would rather surf than shoot, and aboard a navy boat staffed by some green officers (including a very young Laurence - I mean, Larry - Fishburne) with the exception of the boat's pilot, navigates the Vietnamese jungle on-river, headed toward Cambodia, where Kurtz has allegedly set up a cult-like stronghold with followers who seem to worship him. Dennis Hopper also plays a disciple photojournalist, whom Willard encounters upon reaching Kurtz's camp. Let me start by focusing on what Apocalypse Now won Oscars for - and so deservedly. I think this movie must have some of the greatest cinematography in all of film. Others have said it, and I'm just going to jump on this bandwagon, but the photography in this film is beyond words breathtaking, and what's really cool is that I got to rewatch this film on a widescreen TV. The use of the camera, the lighting, the color hues - this film is one of the best shot films that I can remember, and I doubt there are many competitors. From the opening frames, when the helicopters appear from nowhere on opposite sides of the screen, to the panoramic shots of the air assault led by Kilgore, to the night scenes in the camps they visit, to Kurtz's nightmarish stronghold, this film is kind of beautiful in an intensely disturbing way. Great care was taken with the photography to completely envelop the viewer in this insane place. The sound is also really good, and since I was able to experience this film in a home theater set up, I particularly noticed it. There is constant background noise from machine guns to grenades to jungle noises to explosions to thunder - the only time the film grows truly quiet, notably, is when Kurtz is delivering his monologue about morality and judgement. The use of sound - and also, the renowned soundtrack including the opening use of the Doors' "The End" - did more to suspend my disbelief than any other aspect of the film. It helped to tangibly immerse me into this crazy place and time known as the Vietnam War quite effectively. The performances were also brilliant. Martin Sheen apparently suffered a heart attack while making this film, and I can certainly see why. Despite the legendarily fraught-with-problems film shoot, his character was one of extreme intensity, and he seemed overtaken by Willard and vice-versa. This is, as hindsight informs us, truly the role of his career. Everyone was good, though, from Duvall to Hopper to Albert Hall (the Chief). The only performance that felt a little less connected, a little less real, was actually Brando's, but that could be owing to the character he was trying to play. Kurtz is an exemplar of when moral ambiguity becomes no longer ambiguous, and Brando infused him with a kind of collected insanity that was all at once disarming and disaffecting - it's hard to say whether it was the man or the character in the end. My only problem with this film - my only problem - is how the pacing slows to a dead crawl when Willard finally reaches Kurtz. The film is already slow, deliberately building in intensity toward an outcome to be anticipated and feared and allowing the audio and visual components to work themselves into the viewer's brain, but when Willard encounters Kurtz for the first time, the film sputters to a halt. As a result, the ending - the entire ending - feels anticlimactic. You know what's going to happen, you just don't know how. The All Movie Guide says it best (see below): "Apocalypse Now is an elaborate but often haphazard construction that starts to run out of gas at the three-quarter point without delivering a satisfying ending, and Marlon Brando's often lackadaisical performance as Col. Kurtz never lives up to the massive buildup the story gives it." This statement summarizes exactly how I felt about the movie once it faded to a credit-less close (but then I watched the tacked-on credits afterward). Like AMG notes, this film is filled with moments that make it a bona fide classic. In fact, I'm surprised it didn't make more lists - I thought for sure it would have been on the heart-pounding list. The scene at the bridge - the boundary to Cambodia - is one of the scariest in the whole picture, not to mention the final sequence beginning with Willard, emerging like a snake from the fire-hued water. I also would have expected this film to pop up on the Best Songs list - "The End" wasn't written for the film, but there are songs on this list that weren't originally attached to their corresponding movies, and this song was so perfect and utilized in such a perfect way. Who knows why the AFI voted the way it did? Now onto personal ratings: I've thought about this long and hard, and the bottom line is the disjointed nature of the last quarter of the film knocks it down from being a masterpiece or even perfectly entertaining for me. I think it deserves an 8.5 for being between very good and perfectly entertaining - I was tempted to give it a straight (but crazy) 8, but the cinematography and technical elements of this film are so good, it seems a shame to rate the film only an 8. Yet, I can't bring myself to love the film. It's close - but I don't love it. I love the first three quarters, but I got frustrated in the back nine, and I know I'm not the only one who feels that way. Thus, it can't really past the test. Also, because of the seemingly sleep-inducing nature, I don't know if I could hope to stay awake trying to watch it again, and it's kind of an intense film that really can't be pulled out for a giggle when one is looking for a movie to watch. In any event, whether you find the film a masterpiece or a flawed execution of an idea and/or concept, what I truly feel about the film is that it still executes exactly what it intended. The re are moments in this film that are so absurd, so disturbing, so beyond description, they paint a searing portrait of the absurdity of Vietnam and war in general - and make them mythic at the same time. This is a rare quality and renders the film recommendable for that reason alone. So, watch Apocalypse Now - but don't watch it before bedtime. Trust me. http://www.spout.com/blogs/ibetolis/archive/2008/9/15/35181.aspx Post By: Ibetolis
Post To: Film for the Soul
Post Date: 9/15/2008 8:01:44 PM
Body: Apocalypse Now (Francis Ford Coppola, 1979)Talk about setting a tone.With Apocalypse Now, Coppola came out blazing.A whooshing noise, heard but offscreen, is placed when a helicopter drifts into view, almost dreamlike in it's approach, heading towards a lush green jungle. The first chimes of 'The Doors' haunting and atmospheric 'The End' starts to chime, primary coloured smoke starts to fill the screen and that beautiful jungle explodes, a raging inferno engulfing the landscape.Welcome to hell on earth. The madness and the poetic, the perverse and the divine, such an arresting display of visual and audio effects has hardly been bettered than this opening gambit. The face of Martin Sheen, Captain Willard, starts to fade into view, the sound of the helicopters rotor blades transform in to the sound of a ceiling fan and we find ourselves in a hotel room in Saigon.The stories behind the film, the demise of Coppola and the craziness that engulfed the cast and crew can wait for another day, for now let's just soak up this brilliant scene. Enjoy.'Shit, I'm still only in Saigon' Originally posted on:Film for the Soul
]]>Tue, 16 Sep 2008 00:01:44 GMTIbetolisFilm for the Soul9/15/2008 8:01:44 PMApocalypse Now (Francis Ford Coppola, 1979)Talk about setting a tone.With Apocalypse Now, Coppola came out blazing.A whooshing noise, heard but offscreen, is placed when a helicopter drifts into view, almost dreamlike in it's approach, heading towards a lush green jungle. The first chimes of 'The Doors' haunting and atmospheric 'The End' starts to chime, primary coloured smoke starts to fill the screen and that beautiful jungle explodes, a raging inferno engulfing the landscape.Welcome to hell on earth. The madness and the poetic, the perverse and the divine, such an arresting display of visual and audio effects has hardly been bettered than this opening gambit. The face of Martin Sheen, Captain Willard, starts to fade into view, the sound of the helicopters rotor blades transform in to the sound of a ceiling fan and we find ourselves in a hotel room in Saigon.The stories behind the film, the demise of Coppola and the craziness that engulfed the cast and crew can wait for another day, for now let's just soak up this brilliant scene. Enjoy.'Shit, I'm still only in Saigon' Originally posted on:Film for the Soul http://www.spout.com/groups/Best_Cinematography_In_Film/Re_Great_Cinematography/275/32782/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: Best Cinematography In Film
Post Date: 7/20/2008 1:45:08 AM
Body: I got into photography when I was in the junior high. I joined a couple of groups, took assigned artistic shots, learned about lighting, color, shutter speed etc.. I really loved still photography as an art and throughout high-school, I was on the newspaper and yearbook staff as a photographer. I think this is the reason that cinematography has always been the one aspect of motion pictures that has held the most weight for me. Well, I could talk about a lot of different shots and films. (Here's my list of good stuff) But, for my money, the discussion of my favorite example of great cinematography starts and ends with Apocalypse Now. This was probably the first film I ever fell in love with on an artistic level and it's unique in the fact that throughout the years, I have maintained a love for this movie. I can't really think of any movies that I first saw when I was in high-school and I still feel the same way about. The cinematographer in that film was Vittorio Storaro, who's had his share of great shots with Bernardo Bertolucci's The Conformist and The Last Emperor. But the one shot of his that has been the most influential in my life had to be when Capt. Willard (Sheen) pops his head out of the water towards the "end" of Apocalypse Now. The combo of dim light and the brilliant moon reflecting off of the water created a perfect and completely unforgettable moment that captured beautifully by the camera.
]]>Sun, 20 Jul 2008 05:45:08 GMTleeroy711Best Cinematography In Film7/20/2008 1:45:08 AMI got into photography when I was in the junior high. I joined a couple of groups, took assigned artistic shots, learned about lighting, color, shutter speed etc.. I really loved still photography as an art and throughout high-school, I was on the newspaper and yearbook staff as a photographer. I think this is the reason that cinematography has always been the one aspect of motion pictures that has held the most weight for me. Well, I could talk about a lot of different shots and films. (Here's my list of good stuff) But, for my money, the discussion of my favorite example of great cinematography starts and ends with Apocalypse Now. This was probably the first film I ever fell in love with on an artistic level and it's unique in the fact that throughout the years, I have maintained a love for this movie. I can't really think of any movies that I first saw when I was in high-school and I still feel the same way about. The cinematographer in that film was Vittorio Storaro, who's had his share of great shots with Bernardo Bertolucci's The Conformist and The Last Emperor. But the one shot of his that has been the most influential in my life had to be when Capt. Willard (Sheen) pops his head out of the water towards the "end" of Apocalypse Now. The combo of dim light and the brilliant moon reflecting off of the water created a perfect and completely unforgettable moment that captured beautifully by the camera. http://www.spout.com/blogs/the_american_dream/archive/2008/7/13/32488.aspx Post By: The_American_Dream
Post To: The_American_Dream Blog
Post Date: 7/13/2008 10:40:31 AM
Body: FORWARD: Once again, I am perusing deeper themes while looking at only a few movies. However, this review will probably not serve as a review per-say, where an amount of discussion is spent over the qualities of the movies. The movies cited are as examples to discuss deeper themes of character and qualities attributed to a movies plot. "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" is to be my chief example for this review, for the reason that after speaking with an individual who had seen some of this movie they had come to the conclusion that they did not like it based on the personification of the characters. In this movies case, the question can be honestly raised, whether or not that was the point. The facts of "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" are well researched, and it is therefore evident that what this film is laying down is an amount of truth that is not often seen in movies of its genre. Westerns in general are very character driven, it is rooted in the fabric of the western in that they are so often about the rouge bandits traversing the desert looking for a bank to rob. This is very different from the reverse of this which comes up too particularly in war films where the characters are usually driven by something past what they can actually change. In ether case, what is being seen is an example of the marriage between character and story. Back to "The Assassenation of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford". This movie becomes an example of the kind of movie people do really like to see, because the plot is totally driven by the characters themselves. This fact makes the events more unpredictable, when there is something that sets the characters going besides their own driving force, one motif will dominate the film. In war movies, you can count on it that those tried and true motifs will play through the film; you cannot get three inches into most war films without all the heroism, camaraderie, in the face of evil blood thirsty Nazi's. It is when war films spin the trials of the war toward an individual that they surpass what interest can be drawn by the basic motifs, "Paths of Glory" takes the war time base and spins it toward a more individualistic perspective. The simple fact of all this is, letting the character take the wheel of a movie will always lead to twists and turns for a more interesting plot. Frankly, "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" breaks from the bounds of the classic western by not letting itself all the way into that genre where, although character driven, the characters come almost pre-pacaged for the movie. So, to the contrary of what my fellow movie watcher said, the characters in "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" might not be totally admirable but that is not the goal of this movie. By not being admirable, they give the story dimension that is lost in movies that suffocate in the motifs of their genre. It is easy to say 'Maybe the characters where supposed to be like that.' but harder to say why that would be the case. The movies here allow for great story to come from the less admirable but necessary character. Just for the sake of continued discussion, characters do not need to be less admirable for the plot to be more interesting. "Lars and the Real Girl" show this. Again, a movie that is totally character driven and not lost to any particular theme. "Lars and the Real Girl" may have taken the easy way out by choosing not to really fit into any particular genre, set that aside, and the chance is made to break stereotypes that might have arisen had the movie fit into a particular genre. And again, "Lars and the Real Girl" has only admirable characters. It is true that sometimes an audience to this movie might not find the characters admirable, but it is only ever the case that changes in character are temporal and come from the plot driven by those living it. The facts of character and story are simply that you cannot have one without the other, that is really obvious. But sometimes less obvious is what blending of character and themes of plot make for the most interesting experience. In the end, the more character is in the experience, the more interesting and versatile experience can be. It does not always limit a movie to have the plot come before the character holding it, "Apocalypse Now" does not loose the interest of experiencing the movie just because the main character is driven by things he could not control. The perfect mix of character and story is only a generalization, but it is safe one to make and has very clear cut reasons for being.
]]>Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:40:31 GMTThe_American_DreamThe_American_Dream Blog7/13/2008 10:40:31 AMFORWARD: Once again, I am perusing deeper themes while looking at only a few movies. However, this review will probably not serve as a review per-say, where an amount of discussion is spent over the qualities of the movies. The movies cited are as examples to discuss deeper themes of character and qualities attributed to a movies plot. "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" is to be my chief example for this review, for the reason that after speaking with an individual who had seen some of this movie they had come to the conclusion that they did not like it based on the personification of the characters. In this movies case, the question can be honestly raised, whether or not that was the point. The facts of "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" are well researched, and it is therefore evident that what this film is laying down is an amount of truth that is not often seen in movies of its genre. Westerns in general are very character driven, it is rooted in the fabric of the western in that they are so often about the rouge bandits traversing the desert looking for a bank to rob. This is very different from the reverse of this which comes up too particularly in war films where the characters are usually driven by something past what they can actually change. In ether case, what is being seen is an example of the marriage between character and story. Back to "The Assassenation of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford". This movie becomes an example of the kind of movie people do really like to see, because the plot is totally driven by the characters themselves. This fact makes the events more unpredictable, when there is something that sets the characters going besides their own driving force, one motif will dominate the film. In war movies, you can count on it that those tried and true motifs will play through the film; you cannot get three inches into most war films without all the heroism, camaraderie, in the face of evil blood thirsty Nazi's. It is when war films spin the trials of the war toward an individual that they surpass what interest can be drawn by the basic motifs, "Paths of Glory" takes the war time base and spins it toward a more individualistic perspective. The simple fact of all this is, letting the character take the wheel of a movie will always lead to twists and turns for a more interesting plot. Frankly, "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" breaks from the bounds of the classic western by not letting itself all the way into that genre where, although character driven, the characters come almost pre-pacaged for the movie. So, to the contrary of what my fellow movie watcher said, the characters in "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" might not be totally admirable but that is not the goal of this movie. By not being admirable, they give the story dimension that is lost in movies that suffocate in the motifs of their genre. It is easy to say 'Maybe the characters where supposed to be like that.' but harder to say why that would be the case. The movies here allow for great story to come from the less admirable but necessary character. Just for the sake of continued discussion, characters do not need to be less admirable for the plot to be more interesting. "Lars and the Real Girl" show this. Again, a movie that is totally character driven and not lost to any particular theme. "Lars and the Real Girl" may have taken the easy way out by choosing not to really fit into any particular genre, set that aside, and the chance is made to break stereotypes that might have arisen had the movie fit into a particular genre. And again, "Lars and the Real Girl" has only admirable characters. It is true that sometimes an audience to this movie might not find the characters admirable, but it is only ever the case that changes in character are temporal and come from the plot driven by those living it. The facts of character and story are simply that you cannot have one without the other, that is really obvious. But sometimes less obvious is what blending of character and themes of plot make for the most interesting experience. In the end, the more character is in the experience, the more interesting and versatile experience can be. It does not always limit a movie to have the plot come before the character holding it, "Apocalypse Now" does not loose the interest of experiencing the movie just because the main character is driven by things he could not control. The perfect mix of character and story is only a generalization, but it is safe one to make and has very clear cut reasons for being. http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Games/Re_Desert_Island/598/30579/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: lopezdash
Post To: Movie Games
Post Date: 6/5/2008 7:04:05 PM
Body: [quote user="leeroy711"]I think Ive got it: Miller's Crossing - I've sat through this movie soooo many times, I don't think I could go very long without watching it. Fiddler On The Roof - I have to through a musical in there, that way if the island happens to be populated with monkeys, I could train them to do some of my favorite numbers. "Matchmonkey, matchmonkey, please make me a match................." You know something like that. Apocalypse Now - I'm not sure why, this just seems like the type of movie I'd like to sit through over and over while stranded on a desert island. The funny thing is, I probably still won't watch the redux........... 3 HOURS IS LONG ENOUGH[/quote] If you're going to have a musical, it might as well be that one. Great choice!
]]>Thu, 05 Jun 2008 23:04:05 GMTlopezdashMovie Games6/5/2008 7:04:05 PM[quote user="leeroy711"]I think Ive got it: Miller's Crossing - I've sat through this movie soooo many times, I don't think I could go very long without watching it. Fiddler On The Roof - I have to through a musical in there, that way if the island happens to be populated with monkeys, I could train them to do some of my favorite numbers. "Matchmonkey, matchmonkey, please make me a match................." You know something like that. Apocalypse Now - I'm not sure why, this just seems like the type of movie I'd like to sit through over and over while stranded on a desert island. The funny thing is, I probably still won't watch the redux........... 3 HOURS IS LONG ENOUGH[/quote] If you're going to have a musical, it might as well be that one. Great choice! http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Games/Re_Desert_Island/598/30575/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: Movie Games
Post Date: 6/5/2008 6:00:41 PM
Body: I think Ive got it: Miller's Crossing - I've sat through this movie soooo many times, I don't think I could go very long without watching it. Fiddler On The Roof - I have to through a musical in there, that way if the island happens to be populated with monkeys, I could train them to do some of my favorite numbers. "Matchmonkey, matchmonkey, please make me a match................." You know something like that. Apocalypse Now - I'm not sure why, this just seems like the type of movie I'd like to sit through over and over while stranded on a desert island. The funny thing is, I probably still won't watch the redux........... 3 HOURS IS LONG ENOUGH
]]>Thu, 05 Jun 2008 22:00:41 GMTleeroy711Movie Games6/5/2008 6:00:41 PMI think Ive got it: Miller's Crossing - I've sat through this movie soooo many times, I don't think I could go very long without watching it. Fiddler On The Roof - I have to through a musical in there, that way if the island happens to be populated with monkeys, I could train them to do some of my favorite numbers. "Matchmonkey, matchmonkey, please make me a match................." You know something like that. Apocalypse Now - I'm not sure why, this just seems like the type of movie I'd like to sit through over and over while stranded on a desert island. The funny thing is, I probably still won't watch the redux........... 3 HOURS IS LONG ENOUGH http://www.spout.com/blogs/smooth_j/archive/2008/5/8/28381.aspx Post By: Smooth_J
Post To: Smooth_J Blog
Post Date: 5/8/2008 7:30:06 PM
Body: This was one of my most difficult decisions…there is an undisputed number 1 spot, which will be revealed when I get to writing something that will successfully pay homage to the film itself, but this spot was tough. I thought it was clear-cut for a while, but then I recently saw a film that I really wanted to add. Both films are pretty bleak, pretty disturbing, and pretty strange; and both are definite classics, outstanding films from legendary directors. So, after much deliberation, here is number 2 and number 2½. 2. Apocalypse Now I have always been intrigued by this movie. I saw a good deal of it on AMC when I was about 12 years old, and promptly set to begging my parents to let me go out and buy/rent it. Finally, after ragging them for the better part of two years, I bought a copy of it. It completely and utterly blew my mind. Never had I seen such brilliant film-making. The viewer is sucked completely into the unstable mind of veteran special-ops agent Willard, on a journey down a savage river that loses all sense of time, reality, and purpose. He is sent out to kill a man he does not even know; and is meant to learn about through transcripts and letters documenting his rise and fall. No one knows when this expedition will end—but all seem to know that it will inevitably end in tragedy. Martin Sheen gives a supremely understated and powerful performance…while it is not exactly a showy role, it is one that was probably extremely difficult to pull off, in that a lot of the film is him sitting on the boat examining documents about Kurtz. However, he does the job famously. Robert Duvall is hilarious (yet somewhat unsettling) in his classic and brilliant small role. His character (Col. Kilgore) is a larger than life character, perfectly representing the bizarre truths about Americans, military types especially; it is pretty self-explanatory what I mean when you look at the fact that they bomb and pillage a Vietnamese town (perfectly edited to Cry of the Valkries) only for the opportunity to see one of Willard’s men, a professional surfer, showcase his talents. It really illustrates the exploitative nature of the American military, hitting the mark perfectly, just as the rest of the film does in illustrating the chaos and madness of not only the Vietnam war, but war in general. Say what you want about Marlon Brando’s performance, but I found it to be deeply and strangely unsettling. This could be because he was facing the same sort of issues at that time in his life; he was becoming increasingly reclusive and separating himself more and more from humanity, believing that he was above everybody else. This attitude was perfect to portray Kurtz, a man who is trapped by his own insanity. Some of his monologues are peculiar yet greatly profound. The beginning and ending sequences are almost entities in themselves when you talk about this film. Both are trippy, stylish, and edited to awesome music and sounds. In the beginning, the song is ironically The End by The Doors, in the most perfect sequence of any film I have ever seen. As the film and Willard descend into madness, this song is chronicling it, as well as the sound of helicopter rotors as the fan spins. The ending is just beautiful—Kurtz clearly wants Willard to be the one to kill him, before offering him the last temptation by giving him a glimpse of his philosophy. I still get the chills as Willard rises out of the red water…it’s completely incredible. As is the entire movie. 2½ . A Clockwork Orange Now, I only recently saw this movie, but I really just had to include it here up near my top two, since I was really taken aback by its power. This movie actually has a more personal meaning to me; my mom and dad constantly tell the story of their first date, during which my dad took my mom to see this movie, and my mom dumped him soon following, for the reason that she was so immensely disturbed by it. I’ve always thought this was hilarious, and I’ve always wanted to see it out of curiosity. I would have to watch it again to write a full analysis, but it was worth mentioning. I was especially amazed by the scene by the water where Alex puts his “droogs” back in their place—slow motion imagery melded with music in its finest form. And this was only one of about a dozen scenes that really stuck out in my mind. Stanley Kubrick was a total genius.
]]>Thu, 08 May 2008 23:30:06 GMTSmooth_JSmooth_J Blog5/8/2008 7:30:06 PMThis was one of my most difficult decisions&hellip;there is an undisputed number 1 spot, which will be revealed when I get to writing something that will successfully pay homage to the film itself, but this spot was tough. I thought it was clear-cut for a while, but then I recently saw a film that I really wanted to add. Both films are pretty bleak, pretty disturbing, and pretty strange; and both are definite classics, outstanding films from legendary directors. So, after much deliberation, here is number 2 and number 2&frac12;. 2. Apocalypse Now I have always been intrigued by this movie. I saw a good deal of it on AMC when I was about 12 years old, and promptly set to begging my parents to let me go out and buy/rent it. Finally, after ragging them for the better part of two years, I bought a copy of it. It completely and utterly blew my mind. Never had I seen such brilliant film-making. The viewer is sucked completely into the unstable mind of veteran special-ops agent Willard, on a journey down a savage river that loses all sense of time, reality, and purpose. He is sent out to kill a man he does not even know; and is meant to learn about through transcripts and letters documenting his rise and fall. No one knows when this expedition will end&mdash;but all seem to know that it will inevitably end in tragedy. Martin Sheen gives a supremely understated and powerful performance&hellip;while it is not exactly a showy role, it is one that was probably extremely difficult to pull off, in that a lot of the film is him sitting on the boat examining documents about Kurtz. However, he does the job famously. Robert Duvall is hilarious (yet somewhat unsettling) in his classic and brilliant small role. His character (Col. Kilgore) is a larger than life character, perfectly representing the bizarre truths about Americans, military types especially; it is pretty self-explanatory what I mean when you look at the fact that they bomb and pillage a Vietnamese town (perfectly edited to Cry of the Valkries) only for the opportunity to see one of Willard&rsquo;s men, a professional surfer, showcase his talents. It really illustrates the exploitative nature of the American military, hitting the mark perfectly, just as the rest of the film does in illustrating the chaos and madness of not only the Vietnam war, but war in general. Say what you want about Marlon Brando&rsquo;s performance, but I found it to be deeply and strangely unsettling. This could be because he was facing the same sort of issues at that time in his life; he was becoming increasingly reclusive and separating himself more and more from humanity, believing that he was above everybody else. This attitude was perfect to portray Kurtz, a man who is trapped by his own insanity. Some of his monologues are peculiar yet greatly profound. The beginning and ending sequences are almost entities in themselves when you talk about this film. Both are trippy, stylish, and edited to awesome music and sounds. In the beginning, the song is ironically The End by The Doors, in the most perfect sequence of any film I have ever seen. As the film and Willard descend into madness, this song is chronicling it, as well as the sound of helicopter rotors as the fan spins. The ending is just beautiful&mdash;Kurtz clearly wants Willard to be the one to kill him, before offering him the last temptation by giving him a glimpse of his philosophy. I still get the chills as Willard rises out of the red water&hellip;it&rsquo;s completely incredible. As is the entire movie. 2&frac12; . A Clockwork Orange Now, I only recently saw this movie, but I really just had to include it here up near my top two, since I was really taken aback by its power. This movie actually has a more personal meaning to me; my mom and dad constantly tell the story of their first date, during which my dad took my mom to see this movie, and my mom dumped him soon following, for the reason that she was so immensely disturbed by it. I&rsquo;ve always thought this was hilarious, and I&rsquo;ve always wanted to see it out of curiosity. I would have to watch it again to write a full analysis, but it was worth mentioning. I was especially amazed by the scene by the water where Alex puts his &ldquo;droogs&rdquo; back in their place&mdash;slow motion imagery melded with music in its finest form. And this was only one of about a dozen scenes that really stuck out in my mind. Stanley Kubrick was a total genius. http://www.spout.com/groups/Best_movie_quotes/Re_Some_quotes_I_use_a_lot/17/27869/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Smooth_J
Post To: Best movie quotes
Post Date: 4/26/2008 10:53:46 PM
Body: That was sort of an ironic jibe on my part, Anchorman has some of the greatest quotes... And I forgot to add a couple of my personal favorites: "Never get out of the boat."-Captain Willard, Apocalypse Now "Order some golf shoes, otherwise we'll never get out of this place alive!"-Duke, Fear and Loathing "Is that what you're asking me? Is there something wrong with anything?"-Anton Chigurh, No Country for Old Men (That and basically the entire exchange with that gas station guy.) "Don't fight it son. Confess quickly! If you hold out too long you could jeopardize your credit rating."-Brazil
]]>Sun, 27 Apr 2008 02:53:46 GMTSmooth_JBest movie quotes4/26/2008 10:53:46 PMThat was sort of an ironic jibe on my part, Anchorman has some of the greatest quotes... And I forgot to add a couple of my personal favorites: "Never get out of the boat."-Captain Willard, Apocalypse Now "Order some golf shoes, otherwise we'll never get out of this place alive!"-Duke, Fear and Loathing "Is that what you're asking me? Is there something wrong with anything?"-Anton Chigurh, No Country for Old Men (That and basically the entire exchange with that gas station guy.) "Don't fight it son. Confess quickly! If you hold out too long you could jeopardize your credit rating."-Brazil http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/war/MemberTagFilms.aspxwar
Number of films tagged: 6176

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 607

]]>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 04:50:24 GMT6176179607Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/amazing/MemberTagFilms.aspxamazing
Number of films tagged: 179

Number of people who tagged: 156

Number of times used: 253

]]>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 05:49:13 GMT179156253Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/beautiful/MemberTagFilms.aspxbeautiful
Number of films tagged: 259

Number of people who tagged: 149

Number of times used: 416

]]>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:08:38 GMT259149416Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/death/MemberTagFilms.aspxdeath
Number of films tagged: 4306

Number of people who tagged: 140

Number of times used: 526

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:27:13 GMT4306140526Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/brilliant/MemberTagFilms.aspxbrilliant
Number of films tagged: 179

Number of people who tagged: 137

Number of times used: 285

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:28:43 GMT179137285Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/dark/MemberTagFilms.aspxdark
Number of films tagged: 223

Number of people who tagged: 137

Number of times used: 390

]]>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:40:47 GMT223137390Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/action/MemberTagFilms.aspxaction
Number of films tagged: 318

Number of people who tagged: 111

Number of times used: 459

]]>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 20:48:03 GMT318111459Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/drama/MemberTagFilms.aspxdrama
Number of films tagged: 525

Number of people who tagged: 102

Number of times used: 624

]]>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:39:10 GMT525102624Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/intense/MemberTagFilms.aspxintense
Number of films tagged: 162

Number of people who tagged: 81

Number of times used: 249

]]>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:07:45 GMT16281249Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/cult/MemberTagFilms.aspxcult
Number of films tagged: 449

Number of people who tagged: 71

Number of times used: 162

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:20:54 GMT44971162Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/epic/MemberTagFilms.aspxepic
Number of films tagged: 63

Number of people who tagged: 58

Number of times used: 104

]]>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:08:37 GMT6358104Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/violent/MemberTagFilms.aspxviolent
Number of films tagged: 97

Number of people who tagged: 57

Number of times used: 153

]]>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 04:28:06 GMT9757153Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/original/MemberTagFilms.aspxoriginal
Number of films tagged: 77

Number of people who tagged: 52

Number of times used: 94

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:02:07 GMT775294Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/assassination/MemberTagFilms.aspxassassination
Number of films tagged: 1052

Number of people who tagged: 44

Number of times used: 90

]]>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:55:14 GMT10524490Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/vietnam/MemberTagFilms.aspxvietnam
Number of films tagged: 307

Number of people who tagged: 38

Number of times used: 67

]]>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 13:01:54 GMT3073867Tag