|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Jun 17, 2022 18:41:55 GMT
Just watched this for the first time in decades
Still one of the all time greats
A few more musings as and when?
What about you?
When was the last time you saw it?
What do you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Jun 17, 2022 19:07:30 GMT
Incredible film – a very bold adaptation of Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness that completely changes the setting but successfully preserves the allegorical elements.
|
|
|
|
Post by zeopold on Jun 17, 2022 20:28:21 GMT
Just watched this for the first time in decades I loved it up to the bit where Brando sits around mumbling, which seems to go on forever. Duvall as Kilgore was the star of the picture for me  |
|
|
|
Post by stu77 on Jun 17, 2022 22:14:20 GMT
Great film much better than the overrated Deer Hunter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Jun 18, 2022 10:15:17 GMT
Great film much better than the overrated Deer Hunter. Hell yeah 100% Only seen Deer Hunter the once and it dragged Apocalypse Now, despite it's length, flies by - I even love the Brando scenes |
|
|
|
Post by zeopold on Jun 18, 2022 21:58:42 GMT
'This is Romeo Foxtrot, shall we dance?'
|
|
|
|
Post by doug61 on Jun 21, 2022 14:44:20 GMT
Deer Hunter would be a much better film if the cut the wedding scene by 70%. Apocalypse arguably had a similar problem with length, hence the plantation scenes and others being cut and then recut for the "redux" version.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Jun 21, 2022 15:50:48 GMT
Deer Hunter would be a much better film if the cut the wedding scene by 70%. Apocalypse arguably had a similar problem with length, hence the plantation scenes and others being cut and then recut for the "redux" version. True. I've seen the redux version in the cinema which was over three hours. Still loved it The version I watched the other night is the original cut (c2.5 hrs) which is still the best I thought it might drag but if flew by. It really stands up. Might be the greatest film of all time? What do you say? (Open question) If not AN then what? |
|
|
|
Post by zeopold on Jun 22, 2022 10:22:51 GMT
Deer Hunter would be a much better film if the cut the wedding scene by 70%. Might be the greatest film of all time? No, that would be 'Citizen Kane'. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Jun 22, 2022 12:05:22 GMT
It's a goodie but not the greatest for me. I'd happily never watch it again whereas I hope to rewatch, say, AN, Godfathers 1 + 2, Good Fellas, Manhattan, Some Like It Hot, The Gold of Sierra Madre, Raging Bull... coz I luv em
|
|
|
|
Post by zeopold on Jun 22, 2022 14:32:41 GMT
It's a goodie but not the greatest for me. There are many more entertaining films, but in terms of innovation and cinematic craft it dwarfs all others, with the possible exception of a couple of DW Griffith titles (which are certainly questionable from an ethical standpoint). |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Jun 22, 2022 14:42:16 GMT
I sure as hell am not about to start watching The Birth of a Nation
What next, Leni Riefenstahl?
I'll stick with Scorsese and Copolla thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by doug61 on Jun 22, 2022 15:24:51 GMT
Deer Hunter would be a much better film if the cut the wedding scene by 70%. Apocalypse arguably had a similar problem with length, hence the plantation scenes and others being cut and then recut for the "redux" version. True. I've seen the redux version in the cinema which was over three hours. Still loved it The version I watched the other night is the original cut (c2.5 hrs) which is still the best I thought it might drag but if flew by. It really stands up. Might be the greatest film of all time? What do you say? (Open question) If not AN then what? Well, greatest and favourite are different of course. Greatest I would put "The Godfather", "Casablanca", "Lawrence Of Arabia" ahead of it, just off the top of my head. Favourite? It would be somewhere in my top 20, as would those others mentioned above (Casablanca, probably top 5) |
|
|
|
Post by doug61 on Jun 22, 2022 15:32:45 GMT
It's a goodie but not the greatest for me. There are many more entertaining films, but in terms of innovation and cinematic craft it dwarfs all others, with the possible exception of a couple of DW Griffith titles (which are certainly questionable from an ethical standpoint). Can't agree, Like "Touch Of Evil" with the famous opening single shot, there's a sense of "showiness" that affects it somewhat. It's a great film undoubtedly, but I wouldn't place it at the top. Also of course, like comparing football teams from different periods, it can be very difficult because audience expectations, use of colour palette etc etc etc all change through times as do styles of acting. Griffiths name occurs because he was so early, but it's like putting "Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" in lists, it is almost impossible with the distance from the medium to understand the reaction at that time and make sensible comparisons. As an aside, whoever stuck that soundtrack on "Metropolis" should be publicly executed. |
|
|
|
Post by zeopold on Jun 22, 2022 16:03:41 GMT
I sure as hell am not about to start watching The Birth of a Nation We've covered the art vs ethics debate before, and IIRC you stated that you can still enjoy 'Rock n' Roll Parts 1 and 2' in spite of the artist's repellent crimes. By the same token, Griffith (and his DOP Billy Bitzer) devised many of the techniques modern filmmakers take for granted, objectionable content notwithstanding. Part of the charm of 'Kane' for me is the undisguised gusto with which Welles showcased his breathtaking innovations. |
|
