RETROSPECT: "Apocalypse Now" Remembered

Steven Spielberg's Jaws. Werner Hertzog's Aguirre: The Wrath of God. Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. Ridley Scott's Blade Runner. James Cameron's The Abyss and Titanic. What do all of these films have in common? Two things: they've all suffered "production nightmares" behind the scenes, and yet have gone on to become acclaimed and celebrated films. 

Films, by definition, are the results of what is put into them and what is expressed through them by means of story and/or theme, for better or worse. Some films turn out to be great and/or memorable (as the aforementioned), in spite of these issues. Others, unfortunately, are a clear indication of what went wrong, whether by studio interference, cast and crew conflicts, or so forth.

How is it that the former have succeeded while the latter have failed? A better question: what does this say about filmmaking in general? Should a film be judged merely on its behind-the-scenes drama, or on the final product? Let's look briefly at another prime example: Francis Ford Coppola's 1979 war epic, Apocalypse Now. 

The 1979 theatrical release poster

"The horror!" 

Based on Joseph Conrad's esoteric novel "Heart of Darkness," an American soldier (Martin Sheen) is tasked with finding and assassinating a rogue American colonel (Marlon Brando), all while going through the horrors and traumas of the Vietnam war. 

Filmed in 1976, the production troubles of Apocalypse Now were so great, that a documentary feature was made in 1991, titled Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse. Sheen suffered a heart attack. Brando arrived on set unprepared and overweight. Actor Dennis Hopper had an alcohol and cocaine addiction (although he would come clean years later). A hurricane destroyed the film's sets, delaying and increasing production from six weeks to sixteen months. The budget skyrocketed, that Coppola (who lost 100 lbs, and even contemplated suicide, in the process) mortgaged his home and his Napa Valley winery to finish the film. Coppola then spent the next three years editing the film. 

The film stands as (and remains) a poetic yet psychological fever dream, and a haunting, harsh, and maddening examination of the horrors and traumas of war (including dehumanization from it). It still holds many iconic moments, from the napalm bombing set to Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" (complete with Robert DuVall's signature "I love the smell of napalm in the morning") to Brando's commanding and haunting presence. Coppola declared at the 1979 Cannes Film Festival (where the film first premiered, and eventually won the prestigious Palme d'Or award), "[This] film is not about Vietnam. It is Vietnam." 

The 2001 "Redux" poster

The 2019 "Final Cut" poster

A "redux" edition was released in 2001, with almost an hour of additional footage, including new scenes at a French base in Vietnam and some (unnecessarily) featuring Playboy playmates from the USO sequence, as well as expanded scenes with Duvall and Brando, respectfully. This version proved "too long" for many critics and viewers.

Recently, Coppola went back and reassembled the film into a new "final cut" in celebration of the film's 40th anniversary. Just as Ridley Scott declared with Blade Runner's 2007 "final cut," Coppola considers this version of Apocalypse Now to be the definitive version. Either way, it remains, perhaps, the most surreal and psychological (and most maddening) take on war ever made for film, with Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket from 1987 coming close behind. (There's also Terrence Malick's more meditative The Thin Red Line from 1998 to consider.) 

REVIEW: "Spider-Man: Far From Home" or, Avengers: Infinity Epilogue

Okay, we can all agree that the ending of Avengers: Infinity War emotionally wrecked us for almost a year. Yet, despite some cinematic "therapy" (and much-needed cheers) from subsequent Marvel films Ant-Man and the Wasp, Captain Marvel, and of course the record-breaking Avengers: Endgame, this writer couldn't help wondering, prior to Endgame's teaser trailer release, "Will Spider-Man's next MCU adventure (the globe-trotting sequel, Far From Home) take place before Infinity War or after Endgame?"

It's no secret by now that the resulted film, which finds Peter Parker (a terrific Tom Holland)'s overseas vacation with his classmates hijacked by supposedly-otherworldly forces, turned out to be the latter.

[WRITER'S NOTE: If you haven't seen Avengers: Endgame, this review contains minor SPOILERS from that film and this one. I highly recommend seeing that film before seeing Far From Home. In fact, just go and watch both films before reading this review.]

"You do not ghost Nick Fury!"

A full-circle epilogue of sorts to the first three phases of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (now officially known as the "Infinity Saga), Peter Parker and millions of others have reappeared from a "re-Snap" by the Avengers, as well as the impact of the loss of a mentor on Peter's part. Not to mention a five year gap where half the world's population has been absent and hasn't aged (while everyone else has), and are dealing with sudden, quick changes. 

A European trip that starts out (at least for Peter) as a way to get away from recent events, turns into an international espionage adventure of current world events (hence the film's title), including the supposed opening of a "multiverse" and the arrival of Mysterio (who, in the comics, is one of Spider-Man's greatest adversaries, but is portrayed here as an alternate ally). Peter, for his part, doesn't want to carry the burden of the Avengers' legacy ("Who's the next Iron Man?") and wrestles between the world's needs and his own wants. He obviously wants to just be a "friendly neighborhood" hero, and have a normal teenage life on this trip, and doubts taking up hero responsibility because of the loss of a friend and mentor.

Tom Holland and Jake Gyllenhall

The first half of Far From Home (at least on first viewing) seems standard issue coming-of-age superhero story, and doesn't feel very cinematic. The second half, however, gets better, more exciting and unpredictable (like Mysterio himself), with unexpected twists and directions far more interesting than the trailers suggest. (The "Elemental" monsters, for one, initially resemble villains from Spidey's rouge's gallery, for those familiar with the comics.)

"These days, people will believe anything."

They definitely got Mysterio's look right (ditto Peter's black stealth suit and upgraded red-and-blue leotard), as well as the perfect actor to play him. Jake Gyllenhall, after all, is no stranger to complex characters, considering his impressive and versatile resume which includes roles from Nightcrawler, Southpaw, and of course Donnie Darko. The filmmakers definitely pull the wool over our eyes, as far as the story goes, what with surprising themes of false mentorship and deception.

And Marvel's underappreciated specialty (and emphasis) on character relationships between Peter and others that give the story solidity, whether it's with Aunt May (Marisa Tomei), Happy Hogan (Jon Favreau), Nick Fury (the always commanding Samuel L. Jackson), his best friend Ned (Jacob Batalon, hysterical) or his secret crush MJ (the multi-talented Zendaya). In fact, the chemistry among Holland, Zendaya, and Batalon, in terms of teenage romance, quirks, and comedy, is thoroughly genuine and believable, as are scenes between Holland and Gyllenhall.

Zendaya and Tom Holland

"What are you going to do now?"

If Endgame was the end of one saga for Marvel, then Far From Home is the beginning of another one. And it's an entertaining roller coaster at that. As for what's next for the MCU? For one thing, hints of an aforementioned "multiverse" could be seen later in Phase Four with a Doctor Strange sequel, one of many MCU films and Disney+ series that Marvel head-honcho Kevin Feige announced at this year's San Diego Comic Con.

As Nick Fury says in Far From Home, "Be ready for anything."

RETROSPECT: "The Matrix" Revisited

"What is the Matrix?" 

I'll never forget seeing the first ads for The Matrix in 1999. It's one of the first films I can recall that made people go, "What is this?" Its confusing-yet-intriguing plot (which seemed to take place in a virtual world) couldn't even be described, save for some seriously cool images of slick wardrobes, sunglasses, and visual effects. Oh, and Keanu Reeves (forever immortalized) leaning back and dodging bullets in slow-motion while the camera seems to be moving at normal speed. 

This latter visual effect (known as "bullet time") has become the film's most iconic (and, in subsequent years, most imitated or parodied) image. And nothing like it had ever been seen on-screen before or since. 

The same for the film's revolutionary editing by Zach Staenberg (which makes the story convoluted and even weird on first viewing, yet bold and original nonetheless). Ditto the Wachowski's direction and script, which combines elements of science-fiction, Eastern and/or Greek philosophy and spirituality, Biblical themes, dystopic imagery (with black and green color palettes), Alice in Wonderland, The Wizard of Oz, martial arts, anime (a la Akira or Ghost in the Shell), Asian cinema, manga, comic books, video game action, a precursor to virtual reality, and most certainly cyberpunk. (That is, "a genre of science fiction set in a lawless subculture of an oppressive society dominated by computer technology.") I know of no other film from the 90s (besides Pulp Fiction) that qualifies as pastiche, yet stands as its own original thing.

"Bullet time" has revolutionized visual effects in movies since 1999

Star Wars: The Phantom Menace may have been the most financially successful sci-fi (and event) movie of 1999, but it's arguably (perhaps, agreeably) clear that The Matrix was the most influential and game-changing sci-fi film in comparison. 

And its visual effects, sound design, cinematography, and fight choreography (courtesy Woo-Ping Yuen, who worked on Ang Lee's Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill in subsequent years) are much more visceral on the big screen. 

Some themes and thematic elements (e.g., "the chosen hero to save mankind," technology turning on the world) may not hold up as well today. But the elements that do, regarding the difference between fantasy and reality, are the most astounding and thought-provoking, more specifically the themes of what we choose to believe or want to believe (hence, the blue and red pills), as well as what is and/or what we allow to be, including what we have allowed technology to do. Just as these themes or ideas are reflected in various characters as the fearless Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss), the mysterious and philosophizing Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne), the traitorous Cypher (Joe Pantoliano), who has a complex perspective on both "worlds"; the sentinel virus known as Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving, who has a complex and dimensional moment on-screen with Fishburne), it's the hero's journey from the perspective of Neo (Reeves), an office worker by day and computer hacker by night, that also helps ground the story as he (and audiences) discover the difference between the life he's known and the "real" world outside it, as well as his calling in it. 

At the same time, there seems to be a double-edged sword to some of these themes, ideas and/or worldviews. Certain aforementioned characters may have been "set free" from the virtual reality they've been enslaved to (by witnessing the dark, bleak, and nightmarish reality controlled by machines). Yet they appear back in there as rogues like they're still part of it (and with slick style). In other words, in the real world, things are very dystopic and almost simple; in the Matrix, they can be and do anything ("There is no spoon"), to the point of even controlling aspects of their own "reality." They can even have various knowledge programs implanted into their subconscious ("I know kung fu"). 

The red pill or the blue pill?

Then there's the film's supposed glorification of violence (the main reason for the R-rating), particularly in its infamous hallway battle and last half-hour (guns and bullets galore), as well as its disturbing soundtrack, which features such artists as Rage Against the Machine, and shock rockers Marilyn Manson and Rob Zombie. 

Set during the end of the 20th Century, the film's release stands alongside other films dealing with the revolt of human technology, specifically James Cameron's first two Terminator films and Ridley Scott's Blade Runner. It even inadvertently set the stage for other sci-fi action/thrillers, like Steven Spielberg's A.I.: Artificial Intelligence (released in 2001, like the iconic Stanley Kubrick film before it) and Minority Report (2002), as well as two back-to-back Matrix sequels (2003's less-received Reloaded and Revolutions) and several animated shorts (titled The Animatrix collectively). A fourth installment is officially in the works, likely due to Keanu Reeves' stellar year in 2019. 

We haven't come as far with technology these days as letting giant robots or machines rule over us. (I hope that that never is the case.) The same can't be said, though, for various case studies of phone usage and screen time, especially among young adults and kids these days. (WALL*E arguably got that aspect right.)

Who says art doesn't reflect reality? "Woah," indeed.