JayDee's Movie Musings

I have to agree with both sides here.


Apocalypse is a decent movie overall if you allow the good points to outweigh the bad, basically if you take the whole thing as, well, whole, it's a decent film.

But like JayDee, I found it quite bland and unappealing story wise.

Visually it's a great film, storytelling though... it just sorta, well, is. To be brutally honest, I was a little bored at times too.
I get the whole point of the film and I get the attraction... but I didn't like it much either.

__________________

I have to disagree with your rating and assessment here JayDee, in my opinion Apocalypse Now is definitely a masterpiece.

I've seen it a number of times, both the original version and the redux version, and I have been amazed by it every time.

I just felt the story lacked direction, which may sound strange given its straight-ahead linear nature, but the main crux of the story didn't greatly interest me, and I failed to really engage with any of the characters. I also felt that the film didn't really tie itself to the Vietnam war in a way. I want a war film to really place me in the war its tackling and the issues that went along with it. This felt like it could have taken place during any war.

Don't really see how this is much of a criticism, just because the film wasn't what you expected in terms of a war film, doesn't mean it's not great for me. In fact I was almost the opposite you, because it focussed more on the horrors of humans rather than war I felt it was much stronger.

The slow, dreary trip down the river was great for me, and allowed us to really get in to the mind of the exhausted Sheen who finds himself become increasingly 'insane' as he gets further down, it starts off all fast and fun but he soon begins to realise just why a man might become insane, when they meet the fellow officers just before the Kurtz plantation, he sees the mess and state the soldiers are in with no control and no proper organisation, he can see everything is a mess.

And the ending I love too, this is a constant complaint that I always hear but I really don't know why they hate it so much. Kurtz is brilliantly protrayed by Brando for me, and his simplistic character makes it even more horrifying, this is just a normal man who has seized an opportunity of power, he's no superman or psychopath at all, just a man. I loved his lair too, the fact that it was so casual for me was what made it great, loved Dennis Hopper's crazy little character as well.

And the end certainly didn't leave a sour taste in my mouth, the part where he walks out, everyone drops their weapons and bow down to him is horryfing, for a split second you could imagine how easily it would be for him to takeover these people and establish himself as leader, how he has the people at his fingertips and really adds something to the whole story of Kurtz going insane and setting up this camp, then there's the music at the end which is brilliant as well.

__________________

I can agree with you about the ending.It wasn't bad for me but it is worse than the rest of the film.But with such a build up,it's not so surprising that the end didn't met many viewer's expectations.

__________________
"Anything less than immortality is a complete waste of time."

That is a very good review. I kinda felt the same way about Apocalypse Now. I really liked the movie until the final half hour (and it was like one of those out-of-body experiences, when you really feel you're inside the movie and you're living with the characters), but the ending disappointed me.

However, I feel that I will love this film after another viewing, because unlike the first time (during which I couldn't wait for Sheen's character to finally meet Colonel Kurtz), during the second viewing I will try to analyze the horror, which is what the movie is about. This is why after another viewing, I think I will fully appreciate this film. Because I will not be looking forward to 'meeting' Kurtz anymore. I will not be looking forward to the ending. I believe that the reason why this film is considered a masterpiece, is because of what it is about, and it is about what war causes to people, therefore the ending shouldn't really be seen as a disappointing one.

Speaking from experience and with apologies to those who love it unconditionally, the third act is more about Brando overeating and adlibbing up the wazoo.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Wow. Well that review certainly stirred up a reaction. I return to 7 responses and 7 reps. I was anticipating a bit of a backlash as I know Apocalypse Now is quite a sacred cow for numerous people, but buoyed to see quite a bit of support for my throughts as well.

Thanks Blue. And welcome to the thread. Same goes to Mingusings and Mark Rodriguez. And perhaps Masterman, not sure if you maybe posted once before.

Fair enough. As always this is merely my opinion, not like I'm presenting this as a cast iron assessment which should now be the standard, go-to opinion of the film. Not everyone is going to be in agreement, even people that generally are. For example honeykid liked/loved much of my top 100 list but hated a good deal of my top 10. Rodent and I seem to have very similar taste but I didn't like Starship Troopers which is one of his absolute favourites. And Mark and I agree on quite a bit, but I remember leaving him baffled with my Van Damme love. Of course I love people telling me 'great review' and agreeing with my views, but opposing views are also welcome. Will perhaps try and address some of your points later but ran out of time for the moment.

I seem to remember you writing a review of your own for Apocalypse Now. Feel free to post it here as a rebuttal of sorts if you like.


Oh and Brodinski, should have made it clear it was the 'normal' version, not Redux.

__________________

Plot – Heavenly Creatures details a true life murder that rocked the nation of New Zealand, and made headlines all over the world in 1954. Two young girls, Pauline Parker (Lynskey) and Juliet Hulme (Winslet), form an intensely close friendship in 1950s New Zealand which would eventually result in the murder of Parker's mother. The two girls formed a vividly real and elaborate fantasy world where they felt happier than they did in normal life. When their friendship and the fantasy are threatened by the possibility of them being parted, the two girls come up with an unspeakably disturbing idea that would ensure they remained together - to remove the obstacle that was Pauline's mother.

I think Heavenly Creatures is really quite a rare film. It's a film that achieves the rare accomplishment of being both beautiful and horrific. Telling the true story of close friends Pauline Parker and Juliet Hulme; two teenage girls who murdered Pauline's mother in an attempt to keep them from being separated, it takes a potentially difficult and undoubtedly troubling subject but tells it wonderfully with a real grace and artistry. I always find a case like this to be darkly fascinating, a case where you get that incredible phenomenon of folie a deux. I'm always amazed when such unique and troubled individuals are able to find each other, and form a connection; whether it be friend or lovers or whatever. And sadly when they do so it usually spells trouble for anyone in their path.

Given the nature of its subject matter it's a film that could very easily fall apart if the young actresses portraying the two central roles weren't up the task. Thankfully Heavenly Creatures has no need to worry about that, featuring as it does two terrific showings from Kate Winslet and Melanie Lynskey. Both just teenagers at the time, what they were able to accomplish is really very impressive. Amazingly it was the feature film debut for both actresses, and for Lynskey (just 16 at the time) this was actually her first acting gig whatsoever. As well as great credit for the two ladies themselves, credit must go to Jackson and whoever else was involved in unearthing such two gems.

Film trivia – Peter Jackson employed a number of factors as he strived for authenticity where possible. The voice-over readings that Melanie Lynskey provided from her character's diary were actually word for word extracts from Pauline Parker's own diary from that time, uncovered during the police investigation and a large part of the trial. The film was also shot almost exclusively at genuine locations were the real events actually transpired. This included visiting the actual spot where the murder occurred. According to Jackson, when they got there it was eerily quiet; all of the birds stopped singing and the place just did not feel right. As a result they moved the filming a couple of hundred yards along the path.

Inhabiting two quite disparate characters, Winslet and Lynskey deliver two dynamic and fearless performances. Winslet imbues Juliet with quite an ebullient and dramatic character, full of charisma; someone comfortable as the centre of attention. While Lynskey's Pauline is a much more moody, sour faced and brooding individual; the classic outcast. Together however they find in each other a kindred spirit, or even a soulmate of sorts. The friendship they create is alluring, and we really feel for them when they display the hysterical pain they feel when the threat of losing each other looms over them. Indeed in many ways Jackson eschews the typical crime film facets that you may expect to find here, instead choosing to focus on the incredible friendship that these two characters shared and how dark a direction it sadly took.

The film's greatest success (amongst its many successes) is in its ability to place us in the minds of these two girls who committed such an unspeakable act. While we never get to the stage of sympathising with the girls the film successfully relates and helps us understand why it happened. By contrasting their real lives with the fantasy world that they have created, we understand why the fantasy world begins to bleed through into reality for the girls, and why they go to such lengths to try and realise it. We are made to see events through the eyes of the girls; to see how harsh and cruel the treatment at the hands of their parents appears to them, and how welcome a refuge their fantasy world is for these two unique souls. Bonded by similar experiences in childhood (Juliet suffered from tuberculosis, while Pauline suffered from osteomyelitis) which left both of them bedridden for much of their early years, they struggle to find their place in the world until they meet each other and create their own religion of a sort, constructing a fantasy world they call The Fourth World. They believed that they could enter this dimension through a spiritual enlightenment they gained as a result of the friendship.

Peter Jackson does a terrific job at presenting the contrast of these worlds through his visuals. The fantasy scenes are just as the girls would see them; beautiful, enchanting and really quite ethereal. The world is classic fairytale stuff. And inhabiting this world are the archetypal characters and situations of such a world – kings and queens, marriages and murders. The girls write down these stories and create the characters in clay. Jackson follows suit by giving us full-size clay figures for the girls to interact with in their delusions; giving them quite a quaint and fanciful feel to the scenes. Back in 1994 the special effects may have been a fine example of the current technology but now look a little dated. But I actually think that helps the film. It gives them more of a homemade vibe which fits with the idea of it being creations of the girls, just as the clay figures are.

Film trivia – Well not so much film trivia, as the facts of the true case. Following a sensational and high-profile trial, the girls were both convicted of the murder and spent five years in prison. A condition of their release was that they would never see each other again. At the time of the film's release it was discovered that Juliet Hulme had actually achieved a highly successful career as a crime novelist, using the name Anne Perry. Both ladies now live thousands of miles away from the location where the murder took place, and yet apparently and amazingly live just 90 miles apart by pure coincidence; both in Scotland. Perry lives in the village of Portmahomack, while Parker (who now goes by Hilary Nathan) lives on one of the Orkney islands.

In absolute contrast to this beautiful fantasy however is the grim reality of what actually happened, and that likewise is presented in a stirring fashion by Jackson. The sequence which depicts the actual murder of Pauline's murder is powerful, disturbing and immensely affecting. It sees the two girls and Pauline's mother walking along a wildlife trail, and is a very eerie and tense experience. The wait is absolutely brutal. With the characters walking in silence as a beautiful but haunting piece of score music plays, the scene seems to take an absolute age before arriving at its inevitable conclusion. And the sounds that the mother makes after she is cracked over the head are bone-chilling; a mix of pain, shock and the stupefying effect of the blow. It's a unnervingly animal like shriek. And the scene has so much more impact than any gory, convoluted death in trash like Saw or Hostel ever could.

1994 is a highly revered year in cinema. A year often listed as one of the the absolute greats, certainly in the modern era at least. It was a year that saw the release of numerous big hitters and perennial favourites - Pulp Fiction, Leon, Shawshank Redemption, Ed Wood, Forrest Gump, Lion King, Speed, Natural Born Killers, The Crow, Hoop Dreams etc. Well I certainly feel that Heavenly Creatures deserves its place amongst those.

Conclusion - This was the film that proved to be Peter Jackson's calling card for Hollywood, and it isn't hard to see why. It's a bold and visionary piece of film-making. The first time I saw this film it was one of those that really stuck with me for a considerable time, and while its effect may have slightly lessened on repeated viewings, that still holds true. A powerful film.

I remember when this came out and everyone who saw it seemed to be completely blown away by Winslet and Lynskey. I don't know if it was just because she was British, but all the talk of Winslet was just how big she could be.

I know I'm not a fan of the LOTR films (and would expect those to be favoured) but I still think this is Jackson's best, as well as his most interesting film.

Obviously this is a good review, but I'll mention it just because I know you get a kick out of it, JD.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

Great review own this one

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

Thanks nebbit.

No way!!!!! Seriously?!!! I would never have guessed!

You're getting as bad as Sexy with his Whoopi pictures when it comes to throwing in little shots at the LotR films! The only surprise is that you passed up a chance at also taking a shot at Scotland! Something along the lines of "well it's no wonder that two people of questionable sanity were attracted to Scotland!"

Well thank you kind sir. All the time and effort I put in I appreciate hearing it. And while I don't think I'm brilliant at it or anything I do think I've improved sufficiently to a point where I'm actually rather proud of many of my reviews.

Re: Apocalypse Now.

It's a fantastic movie I've seen several times, including the Redux version, although it's been over ten years since my last viewing.

I feel it's one of the most original and creative film adaptations of a novel I've ever seen.

There's many ways of viewing Apocalypse Now. I don't feel that seeing it as a 'straight-ahead linear' narrative, as you suggest, is the best way to approach or appreciate it.

Just as Conrad's Heart of Darkness was an exploration of the crazy savagery of the European colonial project in Africa, Apocalypse Now is an exploration of the absurdity, the bizarre, the craziness, the savagery, and the futility of the Vietnam War.

It is a contemplation of the ways that people cope, try to stay sane, or even perversely thrive in such an extreme situation. Or, as in Kurtz's case, fully embrace the extremity and go over the edge into insanity.

The scenes and characters variously depict patriotic jingoism; escape into sex, drugs and rock n roll (what a fantastic soundtrack!); corruption; and of course the fear and terror that underlie it all - and the denial of that terror.

Rather than a linear narrative, I see the film as more of a series of portraits and vignettes. That's why Apocalypse Now stands equally well as the version released in 1979 or the Redux version. The 1979 release eliminated three long scenes, but there is no understanding lost or confusion added by these omissions.

I do think that the Redux version adds an extra dimension, particularly to the theme of denial; specifically, the time Willard spends with the French colonial family, who, despite the impending doom of their lifestyle, are still doing their best to live it up in the jungle.....As well as an additional great scene involving the Playboy bunnies.

There's much more to say about the film, but those are the main things that strike me at the moment.

JayDee - Your review gave me the push to finally see Heavenly Creatures. Not sure what was stopping me, but thank you. Blown away. Absolutely blown away.

Thanks for taking the time to contribute your thoughts CelluloidChild. Welcome to the thread.


Delighted to hear it man. And you're welcome. Always great when you encourage people to watch a film and it ends up being a big hit. Think that's quite a few films now you've watched due to my reviews that you've either liked or loved.

And exactly how 'blown away' were you? Enough that your top 100 list is already out of date?

There's been a few, yeah. All the President's Men, Searching for Sugar Man and Heavenly Creatures, from what I remember, and I'm sure there's a couple more I'm forgetting.

Enough that with a rewatch or two, my top 20 could already be out of date. Damn you!

Well there was Lars and the Real Girl which was the first one. I remember you also contacting and repping me a long while after I posted about The King of Kong but can't remember if you actually watched it as a result of me, or if you were just congratulating me after the fact for also being a fan. Did you actually read my review of Heavenly Creatures first to inspire you to watch it? Or was it just seeing the name put it in your mind?

And wow! I didn't realise it was that big a hit. Top 20 huh? I had been quite happy just with your thanks, but hearing how big an impact it made I think I deserve more than just a thank you. How about cash?! That way I can also claim to be a professional critic who has been paid for my reviews!

I'm annoyed though that in just two lines in the movie tab you covered something I forgot to in some 1000 words or so - the fact that even in this film Jackson was able to include his streak of black humour that is so prevalent throughout his films.

And I also saw that you watched and liked The Mighty Ducks. Oh Skepsy, this really could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

Ah yes. Pretty sure King of Kong was thanks to you as well. So five altogether and plenty more we agree on.

I tend not to read reviews before I see the film but I did read your conclusion, and after seeing the rating I felt I needed to watch it. I read the whole review afterwards.

I can pay you in hugs or monopoly money, your call.

Haha, yeah, I did. It seems to get a lot of stick but I thought it was a great way to wile away a mindless couple hours. Lots of fun.

Are you a fan of the sport? I got into it big time about two years ago but this is the first Hockey movie I've seen. Want to try and see Mystery, Alaska, Slap Shot and Miracle soon too.

That's not bad at all considering two have made your top 100 list (King of Kong and Lars) with Heavenly Creatures seeming set to follow. You really owe me big time buddy! Will need to perhaps get a few from your top 100 list to start the pay back.

.......and absolutely loved it yes?!

Hmmm.....I'm not sure about that. Though I'm a little concerned you listed hugs as the top option.

Well that's good to hear. Been a while since I've revisited the Mighty Ducks films but I've loved them for a long, long time. Did you actually seek it out or did you just happen to catch it on TV or what?

Not really. Tried a few times but a tough sport to keep track of on TV I found. Did go to a few games here in Glasgow though and quite enjoyed it. I honestly can't remember the last time I saw Mystery, Alaska but I do remember really enjoying it at the time. And you've got the Mighty Ducks sequels of course!

Yeah! Get to it.

No, it was awful.



Just wanted something fun and a not too strenuous watch, I guess. Plus I realised I'd never seen a Hockey movie so I was kinda drawn to it.

Can't say that I enjoyed it so much it inspired me to rush out and get the sequels. But maybe someday.

It's the only sport I'm really into so I make the effort to keep up. I saw a game in Nottingham last year and had a blast, and I'm hoping to get to see a Rangers game when I'm in New York in October.

You damned cake-eater you!

^ And for those confused it's a Mighty Ducks reference. And just about the lamest insult I've ever heard!

I had actually been wondering whether Heavenly Creatures would inspire you to resurrect your own reviews thread but what would be the point? In the wake of my review it would be like the guy that paints lines on the roads following Van Gogh!

For someone who likes to throw out a whenever someone talks about a great member or loving a member you're being rather forward!

Well enough of this one on one conversation, back to the reviews. And yes this post is merely so the next reviews aren't hidden at the bottom of a page!