thomega wrote:Surprise: Hearts of Darkness will be released in the UK on Aug. 21, 2006: listed at play.com
It's looking as though Play.com may have screwed up this listing. The title has been changed from Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse to European Mavericks: Hearts of Darkness, and the description has been removed. So far as I can tell, no other retailers have listed the Bahr/Hickenlooper doc, nor does it appear yet on Metrodome's site.
Incidentally Fletch-- I went back & dug out my Paramount VHS of HOD; the director's attribution is interesting; it says "Directed by" Bahr/Hickenlooper, and then beneath that it says "documentary footage directed by Eleanor Coppola." My suspicion is the Bahr/Hicken team were there for polish & professionalism purposes, i e giving her footage an arrangement & logic whereby the film feels like a Worthy & Important Doc on a subject of interest to a lot of individuals. So we were both right-- all three "directed" it, it seems.
HerrSchreck wrote:Incidentally Fletch-- I went back & dug out my Paramount VHS of HOD; the director's attribution is interesting; it says "Directed by" Bahr/Hickenlooper, and then beneath that it says "documentary footage directed by Eleanor Coppola." My suspicion is the Bahr/Hicken team were there for polish & professionalism purposes, i e giving her footage an arrangement & logic whereby the film feels like a Worthy & Important Doc on a subject of interest to a lot of individuals. So we were both right-- all three "directed" it, it seems.
Yeah, that's what I figured too. I think that Bahr/Hickenlooper took Coppola's footage and just applied a structure to it and probably did all the more recent interview footage with cast and crew members.
After careful scene-specific comparisons of all three DVD incarnations of Apocalypse Now, I can't discern any difference in quality between the trio of 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen transfers (yes, I know - it's been opened up slightly to a 2.20:1 ratio; fret not purists, as this home video controversy is addressed in the extras). Both the theatrical and "Redux" cuts look magnificent, with deep, rich blacks, crisp delineation and eye-popping, opulent colors. Storaro's sumptuous visuals look appropriately vivid here; it's a satisfyingly lush representation for both cuts (although "Redux" has a slight edge in terms of color saturation).
I still have trouble believing that this release consists of two double-layered, single sided discs...but surely the flaws of such a presentation would be apparent to the reviewer?
I'm still going to hold out on the purchase, but this review has made me more hopeful.
Dylan wrote:So the aspect ratio has been "opened up" to 2.20:1? Great news...is a DVD Beaver comparison underway?
I think that Mr Jones is taking a clumsy guess here; from what he states in the review, the transfers appear to be the same as before. Indeed, we certainly need a DVD Beaver comp on this one. But, as the extras are so extensive, it would seem churlish for a fan to skip this low-priced package, regardless of the picture quality. A shame that Hearts of Darkness could not be included at this stage, but it sounds like it is on track, according to Aubry.
2:1 is fucking lame, Vittorio! Too late now, but we should have assumed they would re-visit these titles and bombarded VS's email with complaints. That is just totally unacceptable.
It's being sold at Citcuit City next week for 12.99 with
free exclusive 20 minutes bonus DVD (includes added & expanded scenes from Apocalyspe [sic] Now Redux, the destruction of Kurtz compound with Coppola commentary & trailers.
Looks like the "complete dossier" is only complete if you buy it from Circuit City. The horror... the horror...
It's too bad the extra disc is limited, it contains some essential materials. I mean, I feel the original trailers should be mandatory. Thanks to the bonus disc we can have it. Also, more interviews with Coppola and Co. about the added scenes found in the Redux version. And the Kurtz compound destruction is there as well. I don't understand why these things wouldn't be included on the main set as they are indeed important. The bonus disc has a nice menu which goes nicely with the others.
As for the main discs, I am pretty happy about them. I think the film looks stunning (even if it is slighty cropped) and the bonus items are really top notch. Personally, I could listen to Coppola ramble on all day about filmmaking, and his commentaries are generally my favorites. The extra scenes from the workprint were a great bonus. Brando's reading of the Hollow Men was not quite as impressive as it sounded on paper. It played like some sort of music video. In the docs you can see some of the footage shot by Mrs. Coppola for the “Hearts of Darknessâ€
Joe Buck wrote:Aside from the mild irritation that the movie is spread out over 2 discs (we don't need no steenking intermission!), I have very little to complain about. It's a terrific set and I'll certainly add it to my top 5 of 2006 (along with Complete Arkadin & Streetcar Named Desire). And all this for a mere $12.99!
Yeah, I was pleased with this set as well.
A lot of people are bitching about the omission of Hearts of Darkness and this bit of revisionism is a bit troubling but the checkered past of the production has been documented extensively elsewhere, most notably in The Apocalypse Now Book by Peter Cowie which is excellent btw. I'd like to know what the "legal issues" were with the doc but oh well.
That being said, Coppola's commentary for the movies is actually quite good. I like how he kicked things off by telling the story of how the opening sequence came together by accident: it was actually filler footage from one of the cameras during the “Ride of the Valkyriesâ€
Is the disc in the package. I called my local store and got a kid who didn't have any idea. He thought the bonus disc was separate and didn't think his store had any.
I know this is a little bit off topic, but I just watched Rumble Fish last night and I wanted to share my thoughts. Conventional wisdom says that Coppola's last film worth a damn was Apocalypse Now (ok, so we're on topic now), and his entire output after that can pretty much be ignored. Most people will tell you he burned out while making that film. I think they're wrong, and I've figure out that most (not all of course) of the people that tell you these negative things about Coppola haven't seen more than one film by him from after 1980, usually The Godfather Part 3. I've now seen The Outsiders, Rumble Fish, and The Godfather Part 3 and I've been quite impressed by all of them. Granted, none of the films were as good as anything he did in the 70's, but I still think their bad reputation is undeserved. The Outsiders and Rumble Fish are smaller, personal projects, and as such are hard to compare to something like The Godfather. The meticulous craft and beautiful style are still very evident. I just ordered The Cotton Club because it was on sale, and I can't wait, despite all of the negative reviews. What does everyone think about his 80's work and beyond?
bfackler wrote:Is the disc in the package. I called my local store and got a kid who didn't have any idea. He thought the bonus disc was separate and didn't think his store had any.
jackson_browne wrote:The Outsiders and Rumble Fish are smaller, personal projects, and as such are hard to compare to something like The Godfather. The meticulous craft and beautiful style are still very evident. I just ordered The Cotton Club because it was on sale, and I can't wait, despite all of the negative reviews. What does everyone think about his 80's work and beyond?
Having been a big fan of the books that they are based on, I thought that Coppola did a great job with both The Outsiders and Rumble Fish -- both of which I saw as an impressionable young lad so that probably helped. Not only do they enhance the experience of the books but also act as intriguing opposites of one another with The Outsiders as the Gone with the Wind meets Rebel Without A Cause and Rumble Fish as the Camus for teens mixed with all sorts of stylistic homages to Orson Welles.
I haven't seen The Cotton Club in a while but remember being really taken with the cinematography and set design. I'd also like to cast my vote for Tucker being something of an underrated film in Coppola's filmography... a nice nostalgia piece with Jeff Bridges excellent (as always) as the irrepressible car manufacturer and in a weird way kinda anticipated Tim Burton's Ed Wood as a biopic of an enthusiastic dreamer who gets beat down by the system.
jackson_browne wrote:What does everyone think about his 80's work and beyond?
I haven't seen The Cotton Club in a while but remember being really taken with the cinematography and set design. I'd also like to cast my vote for Tucker being something of an underrated film in Coppola's filmography... a nice nostalgia piece with Jeff Bridges excellent (as always) as the irrepressible car manufacturer and in a weird way kinda anticipated Tim Burton's Ed Wood as a biopic of an enthusiastic dreamer who gets beat down by the system.
I liked Tucker as well (I think a sign of it being underrated is that it was only shown on British TV for the first time in 2004 - a full ten years after Godfather III was first shown!), but I guess the downturn in his critical reputation probably came with the mauling over Godfather III (which I enjoyed, I know what people mean when they call the first two classics, III isn't but it isn't terrible either), the melodramatics and fakeness of Bram Stoker's Dracula (which is actually the whole point), and the only one I'm with critics on, the complete rubbish and creepiness that was Jack. I think that would have singlehandedly killed many directors careers off entirely and combined with the rather extreme criticism of the previous two films as well as his work on the 'Thomas Lee' directed Supernova and a John Grisham adaptation at a time when people were getting tired of yet more Grisham films led to people giving up on him I think.
I hope there's more and better to come. I would agree that his 80s work is fine. I suppose that while it was good it just didn't capture 'mass' audiences the way his previous work had. Looking at it that way I understand why a return to the Godfather and Bram Stoker's Dracula were chosen. Whatever the reaction to them, they certainly seemed to be noticed!
From Dave Poland's blog re: Coppola's Q&A at the Apocalypse Now press conference in LA recently:
Joseph asked in another entry about Hearts of Darkness. It came up in the audience questions and Mr. Coppola explained that the reason HOD is not in this "complete" Apocalypse set is that it is a separate movie... and he still has some issues with it.
He left it by promising he would work towards a DVD release and thought he would like to do a commentary track for it to set the record straight.
I agree with what's been said about Rumblefish and Outsiders. I wanna throw Peggy Sue Got Married into the mix. It's not a masterpiece by any means but it is quite good. I suppose at the time it was dismissed since Back To The Future had just dealt with similar themes. But I certainly like the film (and hope that someday a better addition arrives with Coppola commentary). Also, it has one of my favorite scores. Nick Cage goes nuts with his character.
I thought The Rainmaker was a terrific film. I watch it all the time. Great cast. Another film in need of a better DVD release (the current Paramount disc looks like garbage. Terrible transfer.)
For educational purposes, "One From The Heart" can't be beat. I mean, he obviously went too far and substituted style for substance, but the creativity of that picture is mindblowing. Incredible trick shots. Like a Citizen Kane of the '80, visually anyway. And the DVD examines all aspects of filmmaking. It's a great educational tool.
So, yeah, perhaps his work has been a bit hit or miss since Apocalypse Now, but I'd say the good outweighs the bad…I won't mention “Jackâ€
