The film was good viewing. Rather confusing though, particularly when dealing with Kurtz's character. I'm semi-positive I understand what it was all about, being a kind of reflection of US involvement in the Vietnam war.
The backstory of the production of the film is rather fascinating. I'll be hunting 'Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse' sooner or later. I think (I think I think) that I would have liked to have seen Keitel as Willard. Sheen's face was too kind. I've just read from two sources that also suggest that Keitel would have made a more forceful Willard (though one contends that Sheen does not succeed, while the other does).
I had been expecting Brando to be grossly overweight. Like morbidly so. He wasn't too bad, though his accent didn't match the character. I just kept hearing Don Vito. Would have been interesting if Brando could have starved himself to depict Kurtz as he was in the novel. Again, I had no clue what Kurtz was all about... insanity, madness themes, bla.
Gah, I've lost my way with this shamble of a review. Urgh... other positives: great directing, lots of nice details, loved the horror elements (scary), I dig Robert Duvall (we all do, right?). Negatives: electronic flavoured score was dodgy, last half hour or so (with Brando) was anti-climactic
An analogy I thought up a few nights ago (and reminded to me by Ebert): the movie is like a series of paintings, perhaps like Goya's Black Paintings. As a whole, you might not like them, but individually they can be quite brilliant.
Postscript: Fascinating to read of a 289 minute 'version' of the film. Lots of raw footage and stuff. 'Flight of the Valkyries' sequence is thirty minutes, kinda shows how extensive Coppola went.
No comments:
Post a Comment