It wasn't trying to be realistic. The movie gets more and more surreal as it goes on. I think FFC was trying to capture the madness and pain of war, something like that. I think he succeeded, though I've never been to war myself. It's definitely a great film, at any rate, IMHO.

It wasn't trying to be realistic? The first 2 hours were clearly a shot at depicting the Vietnam war as realistic as possible; it was even filmed int he Phillipines for crying out loud. That is an aim at realism.

Surreal is a decent description, but I don't know if that's the exact word I'd use here...a little surreal, but more just unreal.

I said in my review on IMDB that he succeeded, and that was my extrapolation as well, and in that way yes, he succeeded and it was technically a great movie, but all in all the unrealistic nature of the ending as well as a big lack of plot and character development once it gets to the final half hour took away from it. There was plenty of opportunity to come up with a better plot and far more Brando character development that would have made it more enjoyable, but the final half an hour when it was all said and done felt hollow for what it could have been in those departments.

One review of it hit the nail on the head when they said that there is no emotional attachment to either Sheen or Brando, and that was true. That may be a big reason I ended up not liking the story much also. In addition, I agreed with them that this has no rewatch value except for Kilgore's funny moments. It's not an enjoyable movie, even though it is technically compelling and excellent.

Technically it was great, but as a whole it was frankly unlikable. The most likable parts were the very beginning with Harrison Ford and Duvall in the middle as Kilgore. It was an interesting concept, but I don't think they truly pulled it off because Brando wasn't developed enough and the plot fell flat along with the lack of realism.

I still gave it an 8 because technically it was a 9 or a 10.

The fact that it was shot in the Philippines is somehow evidence that it was an attempt at realism?

That makes no sense. The fact that they shot it in a place that could reasonably pass for Vietnam doesn't mean that the film was going for some kind of ultra realistic tone. It begins fairly realistically and progressively becomes more mad. Look at the imagery during some of the final sequences when the assassination occurs. It's practically hellish.

Why do you single out the last half hour as plotless? The entire movies about this journey to kill Kurtz and what happens to the characters on the way.

If you're looking for characters you can care about or connect with, maybe this wasn't the movie for you. Kurtz and Sheen's character weren't really sympathetic, but I sure thought they were interesting.

@FlyingSaucersAreReal said:

The fact that it was shot in the Philippines is somehow evidence that it was an attempt at realism?

That makes no sense. The fact that they shot it in a place that could reasonably pass for Vietnam doesn't mean that the film was going for some kind of ultra realistic tone. It begins fairly realistically and progressively becomes more mad. Look at the imagery during some of the final sequences when the assassination occurs. It's practically hellish.

Why do you single out the last half hour as plotless? The entire movies about this journey to kill Kurtz and what happens to the characters on the way.

If you're looking for characters you can care about or connect with, maybe this wasn't the movie for you. Kurtz and Sheen's character weren't really sympathetic, but I sure thought they were interesting.

The movie sucked. I didn't like it. It's overrated.

@glomps and nibbles said:

I never liked the end too. Hated it, if i have to be honest. Willard should have not done what he did in the end. This movie has stood the test of time and will forever be regarded one of cinemas best experiences. Marlon saved this film.

You are an errand boy sent by grocery clerks to collect a bill.

Totally totally totally agree. This used to be my favorite movie ages ago, but after I gave it some thought I realize it's pretty hypocritical. Coppola interviews indicate this was his "anti violence" movie, supposed to be punctuated by Willard dropping the knife at the end as if he arrived at some Gandhian epiphany. Sure, after he hacks Kurtz to pieces, how convenient. Not to mention I could never watch it again after I read that the Buffalo slaughter/decapitation was real and Coppola provided the buffalo and filmed it with 3 cameras (despite him playing it off as he happened to capture a tribal ritual). Chalk this up as an "anti violence" flick that actually glorifies violence but the director won't admit it. Technically speaking, I agree with the OP, it's really well done, but as a work of art it's pretty conflicted in its apparent message.

@glomps and nibbles said If Willard had decided to leave the island in peace or even let's say joined forces with Kurtz, this movie would have been in my top 10 any day and any time. And i have called this movie a classic in my post earlier just because of Marlon. Exceptional on every level.

Now THAT would've made a landmark work of art. It would've really made the statement that there is a way out of "the horror" through wisdom.

About Coppola's wife suggesting the slaughter, no way 😳 The two of them would've had a great future in snuff films.

Yeah killing animals for food, or to defend yourself against a rabid platypus attack is one thing, but killing for entertainment? Very hard line drawn there. No matter how great a film is, I can't sit through it feeling entertained if the director felt the need to kill something or someone in the name of art (like Tarkovsky's "Andrei Rublev" supposedly one of the best films ever made but I won't watch it because of a horse slaughter).

Getting way off topic, if you're a Bowie fan check out his concept album "Outside" about a future where murders are legal if they're done for the sake of art. Bowie plays the role of an art detective investigating whether a ghastly murder was in fact art, or just for thrills. Someone needs to make a movie out of that one!!

@glomps I'm hanging my head in shame because I've never heard of King Diamond before today (even though I looooove 80s-90s metal). Just checked out the first song "At the Graves" and I'm blown away, will listen to the whole thing. Thanks for the tip!

The last Metallica album I listened to was Metallica (1991)... figured it couldn't get much better than that. Early 90s was the best for metal... I gotta ask since I see the kitty in your avatar, are you a fan of Type O Negative? Their singer Peter Steele, in addition to being a hulking 6'7" metal vampire, was a total animal/cat lover who wrote a bunch of songs that were actually about his cats (Bloody Kisses, Death in the Family, etc). If he were alive today I'm sure he'd be right with us wanting to kick Coppola's ass for that buffalo thing...