Movie Review #10

Gangs of New York (2002)
Directed by Martin Scorsese
Screenplay by Jay Cocks and Steven Zaillian and Kenneth Lonergan
Story by Jay Cocks

Rating: 7.25/10.00 or *** (out of 4)

From the director of such masterpieces as Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and GoodFellas comes perhaps one of his most ambitious motion pictures. Gangs of New York is a gruesome and violent look at our American roots, how the streets built what would eventually become our country as we know it today. The film quickly takes any of our glorified and grandiose ideas of our American past and rips them apart with savage intensity.

Scorsese is one of the best directors of our time. He has shown us powerful characters, amazing images, wonderful dramatic sequences, and life-changing stories. Scorsese's power is visual, acoustic, and literal. Critics and fans expect a lot from this director now, and usually the director succeeds admirably. With such works in the 90s as GoodFellas, Casino, and Bringing out the Dead, Scorsese has shown that he can still make great motion pictures that prove his worth in the director's chair. However, Scorsese has the occasional miss (Kundun comes readily to mind.), and Gangs of New York (although far from Kundun's failure) is probably an example of this.

Gangs of New York stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz, who have both proven their acting abilities. However, Daniel Day-Lewis far exceeds the talent these two portray in this film. Day-Lewis, as Bill the Butcher, probably has the best performance of 2002. He portrays his character with such a conflicting sense of power and tragedy that we not only hate Bill, we also somewhat feel for him. Day-Lewis is why this film should be seen.

The story of Gangs of New York is quite simple. The movie begins in 1846 New York City. A gang war is about to occur between the "Nativists" and the "Dead Rabbits." The "Nativists", led by Bill the Butcher, like neither blacks nor immigrants and show it readily in the streets. The "Dead Rabbits" are led by Priest Vallon (Liam Neeson), an Irish-American. The opening sequence gives the viewer a sense of awe. We see Priest Vallon walking through the torch-lit catacombs leading his men into battle. When the battle almost begins, the doors are opened. The viewer almost gets a sense that they are exiting hell (The doors are opened almost operatically, showing the snowy white streets of lower Manhattan outside.). Then the battle begins, and Priest Vallon becomes one of the many victims of the gang war that day. Vallon's son Amsterdam witnesses his father's death. Bill the Butcher kills the man, and we see right away young Amsterdam's anger.

The gang war at the beginning of the movie is breath-taking. The scene, set against the almost pure white snow, is eerily silent for all of its noise. We hear the clashes of swords, the groans of dying men, and the war-cries of battle, but after it is all over, we hear nothing but the quiet winds in the snow-ridden streets. After Vallon's death, we see the results of the gang-war, bloodied snow and dozens of dead men. This is the most powerful sequence of the movie, and it shows that Scorsese can still sweep us away with his masterful visual technique.

Next, we are taken to the Civil War years of New York City. Young Amsterdam has grown up to his lower 20s (and is now played by DiCaprio), and he has returned to the Five Points to avenge his father's death. Basically, the rest of the movie follows this path. Amsterdam finally meets Bill once again (his identity unbeknownst to Bill), and suddenly (to the somewhat surprised Amsterdam) Bill becomes quite fatherly to Amsterdam, and here we see the tragedy of Bill's character. Bill is quite conflicted with care and evil. He kills men savagely because he wants to, but we learn some of the reasons for his violent ways throughout the film (either by dialogue or by pure observation). This could not have been so powerful without Day-Lewis' nearly flawless portrayal of this very difficult character. Bill later finds out Amsterdam's plan, and the rest of the film takes on a more sinister turn. In a wonderfully shot scene, Amsterdam first attempts to kill Bill on the anniversary of his father's death (something celebrated at the Five Points). This wonderfully shot scene has such power beneath it. Amsterdam's simple but pure anger is shown against the pure will of Bill the Butcher. The result is a rather amazing scene.

Intertwined in this plot is the pickpocket Jenny Everdeane (Cameron Diaz), once romantically involved with Bill, now growingly interested in Amsterdam, yearned by Amsterdam's friend and at first only recognizer Johnny Sirocco (Henry Thomas). Everdeane frays the friendship between Amsterdam and Johnny, which results in Bill learning of Amsterdam's true identity. We also learn of Everdeane's deep sense of loyalty and regret to Amsterdam, especially in late scenes of the film. I found Diaz's character Jenny underdeveloped although screen time was far insignificant compared to DiCaprio and Day-Lewis. Jenny was important enough to deserve more development in the time she was onscreen, however. Her character seemed to be more of convenience than of importance.

Other subplots were also unfulfilled, mainly involving the supporting roles in this film. Supporting performances were tremendous, however, and should not go unmentioned. Jim Broadbent, as Tweed, is magnificent as the ruler of Tammany Hall. John C. Reilly and Brendan Gleeson are also noteworthy in their supporting roles as Happy Jack and Monk McGinn, respectively. Gleeson appropriately portrays his character with a sense of urgency but a far larger sense of loyalty. And Neeson, as Priest Vallon, still shows his acting capability magnificently. Neeson deserved more screen time in this film.

Through these roles, we see the corruptness in American democracy and the wretchedness of living on the streets at these times. Votes were counted and re-counted and at other times were sold. Fires were left burning because of competing groups earning rewards out of their service. Looting was mainstream; politics was ruled by dagger and fear. Draft riots nearly brought the city to its demise. And the climatic scenes involving the final gang war between Bill and Amsterdam and the military's efforts to silence the anti-war draft almost ensured it. But somehow, the city survived, shown in an artsy final sequence.

The film is grandiose, ambitious, and flawed. Jenny Everdeane, in the end, seemed somewhat unnecessary to me. Supporting characters deserved more screen time and character development. DiCaprio was good in his performance of Amsterdam, but he was not great. He was far exceeded by the masterful Day-Lewis; this proved to be somewhat troubling, however, as I'll further explain shortly. The story was fairly simple but was muddled in other subplots. The movie also played a little too long as I was feeling a little restless by the end of the movie (The ending somewhat made up for this, however.).

There is a powerful scene during the film between Amsterdam and Bill. Bill discusses what drives the society he knows: fear. This riveting scene was brought to light by the power behind the words uttered by Bill the Butcher. Amsterdam was fairly silent during the scene, listening to the awing words Bill was saying. It was a great scene, but the scene shows many troubling things about the movie. Day-Lewis *knew* his character. DiCaprio seemed almost humbled by his. The movie could have been better with a better performance by DiCaprio. It made the movie somewhat uneven, especially since many times through the film, I almost felt more -- much more -- for the antagonist rather than for the protagonist.

Although I have some problems with the film, I still readily recommend it. It's a bit long, but it's definitely worth the price of a ticket to see it at the theaters, and it remains one of the better films of 2002.

Readers' Comments

Today, I begin a weekly entry entitled "Readers' Comments," where I put some suggestions, questions, comments, even other readers' reviews on this website. Names will not be used unless readers submit reviews or unless the person requests that I do so. Readers comments will be in normal font. My comments are in italics.

Roger Ebert has a section on his website entitled "Great Movies." Will you do the same?

--Probably not. All of my entries so far (and I don't see this changing) are done within a week after I watch a film. Basically, I choose films that I haven't seen before or that I feel I need to see again. Since the choices are purely random and are not necessarily seeking the "great movies" that I have been subjected to or suggested as seeing, the section really doesn't seem necessary, especially since my entries for this section would be so variable in time.--

If you're looking for an Ethan and Joel Coen movie to see, I suggest The Hudsucker Proxy.

You should see About Schmidt. Great movie.

What about some Rings reviews?

Any chance you can submit a review of any of the Star Wars movies?

What about a review of some Scorsese films?

Can I get some Hitchcock reviews, please?

--Look for me watching some of these in the near future.--

So where's the Alias page????? Buffy page?????? Crossing Jordan page???? Ok that last one went too far, but still? I don't have the time or the energy to sit through a whole movie (unless it's Jackie Chan), so how about some TV plots. Did you see Alias Sunday? Sloan rigged it so he not only stole $10 million from the Alliance, but his wife is still alive. Sydney and Michael had their first and only date. And everything always works out in the end. Does the technology exist that someone could have a chip implanted in their neck and it not only records their biorhythms, but their conversations too? That seemed a bit much for me. Don't forget the big Alias show after the Superbowl in two weeks. Buffy has a new episode tonight. More later. So what are your opinions on Tomb Raider the movie? TR 2 will be out this summer...Say can you plug my webpage on your website?

www.geocities.com/c_rau/uglyvolleyballnets.html Some day this will be a website and the address will be shorter.

--Ok, this one is from my sister, Carrie. Mrs. Dow, I would be honored to advertise your website on my page. Go check it out, everyone!

Now, as for the TV plots...don't expect too many of them since I rarely watch television. I may send a review of a TV show I've watched once in a while, but this site is almost entirely designed for movie reviews. As for the time issues and movies, think about this. You watch the TV show Alias, with 22 episodes per year, each an hour a piece. I watch one two hour movie and can move on with my life. You certainly have the time and the energy to do the same. And Jackie Chan? Come on. Jet Li is cooler.--

Have you seen any movies that you would give four stars to?

--Certainly, but not recently. Here are some of my four star movies (There are more, but these should do for now.)

One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest
2001: A Space Odyssey
The Godfather
The Godfather Part II
Cool Hand Luke
The Deer Hunter
Raging Bull
Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
American Beauty
Memento
Donnie Darko
Goodfellas
Star Wars/The Empire Strikes Back
Casino
Following
Road to Perdition
Paths of Glory
Lawrence of Arabia
The Bridge on the River Kwai

...and many others--

You like Scorsese, Kubrick, and the Coen brothers??? Where's the taste? In all seriousness, I've watched several of their movies, and I can't seem to get into them or get anything out of them. Any suggestions?

--Wow, I don't know what to tell you. I can say this, though. These directors are acquired tastes. You either like them, or you don't. Kubrick is probably the definitive example of that. When you talk about 2001: A Space Odyssey, you hear one of two things. It's one of the greatest movies of all time, or it's one of the worst movies of all time. The answer is you may simply not like these directors. You don't *have* to like certain directors. Personally, I try not to have a director bias going into the film although I am sure this bias is still there to some extent. These directors are ones I tend to like, but not always. Scorsese's Kundun is an example of one of the more disappointing movies I've seen.

In later posts on Random Movie Thoughts, I will explain my likes for these and other directors and the reasons behind them.--



The following reviews are by my friend and fellow movie buff Daniel J. Linehan. Very well written entries. Keep them coming. And if any others would like to send reviews to the site, I'd be happy to post them.

Adaptation
6.25/10.0

There are movies-fine movies in fact-made about people with massive insecurities; Annie Hall comes immediately to mind, and there are others as well. However, Adaptation is not quite that sort of movie; it is instead a massively insecure movie, which is a different creature altogether. Despite the many funny moments and the obvious talent, Kaufman can’t help but drive his movie into a ditch. Unwilling to appear arty or conventional, he attempts for something of both (or neither), and the contradiction between the two is ultimately unsatisfying.

Characters like Donald Kaufman lurch from object of ridicule to font of wisdom; the climax either represents the triumph of cheap commercialism or the value of compromise and adaptation. What is apparently a tremendous meta-commentary also seems achingly sincere, resulting in an intermittently brilliant mess of a film that tries to achieve everything and falls considerably short. Kaufman and Jonze are so much more talented than the people behind Pumpkin; why then did they make the same mistakes?

Far From Heaven
8.25/10.0

Far from Heaven is another ironic meta-commentary, but the crucial difference is that unlike Kaufman, director Todd Haynes is willing to commit his soul to it, while attempting something considerably riskier: telling a ‘50s melodrama, using largely the politics of the ‘50s (For example, Raymond Deagon (Dennis Haysbert) continues to call Cathy Whitaker (Julianne Moore) “Mrs. Whitaker” well into their relationship, while she calls him Raymond from the beginning without a second thought). However, by investing the movie with considerable emotional power and refusing to make an ironic movie cold and distant, it becomes much more compelling than it might have been. The tension between the roles imposed by society, whether it’s a black servant (Deagon) or “Mr. Magnatech” himself (Dennis Quaid), and the often messy and complicated emotions that lie underneath, drives the movie forward, and the three lead actors are excellent at portraying the pressures that result.

Meanwhile, Haynes is appropriately demure, denying any explicit sex or violence and restricting the characters mostly to stereotypical ‘50s-movie dialogue; one of the best parts of the movie is how the characters simply don’t have the language to express themselves. Dennis Quaid uses the word “fucking” to his wife and it’s charged in a way that swear words normally aren’t; differences of race are similarly provocative. (Julianne Moore’s character is haunted by a comment in a magazine article that she is “friendly to Negroes.”) Haynes has managed to do something near impossible: an ironic film where the irony enhances rather than undermines the emotional impact. He is able to criticize the sensibilities of the era while empathizing with the people confined by them, and that makes this one of the best movies of 2002.

Clockwork Orange
6.25/10.0

Like most Stanley Kubrick movies, Clockwork Orange is a sadistic cartoon devoid of anything resembling actual human existence. This movie takes place inside the smug moralizing mind of its director; I counted not a single character that was not loathsome in some way, not a single line of dialogue that sounded like an actual person would have said it, and not a single directorial or authorial choice that would have threatened Kubrick’s (or his audience’s) sense of superiority to the barbaric animals that inhabit his film. Naturally I had trouble getting into the film.

The saving grace is this; Kubrick is enough of a director to make it work, sort of. The absurd “sub-Chad” music and farcical sense of interior design help, and he is working with a compelling issue even if he’s too busy condemning everybody to really consider it. The scenes, taken by themselves and not as part of the whole, work; Malcolm McDowell is effective as the most complex character in the movie (which is not saying all that much). It is not what I would consider a good movie; such a thing would have to be way less self-congratulatory, and provoke the audience rather than allowing them easy caricatures to feel superior to. However, it works on a rather shallower level than the director probably intended.

What Time Is It There?
7.25/10.0

Slow. Slooow. Slooooooooow. I have never before seen a movie this slow. I’ve seen Tokyo Story, which is two and a half hours of an elderly Japanese couple vacationing with their relatives. I’ve seen The Straight Story, which is made up primarily of shots of Richard Farnsworth on a tractor. But nothing prepared me for the opening shot of the father, smoking a cigarette, calling for his son, and sitting down; that shot took five minutes. Then five more minutes of his son, riding in a car with his ashes, occasionally speaking to them. I swear to God, I’m not exaggerating; most of the time, the characters stare impassively into space (I understand that none of the main characters are played by professional actors).

This is not to say that I found the movie boring; I was oddly not bored by a movie that got so still that it occasionally led me to believe that my DVD player had frozen. Instead, the deliberate, dead-pan, near-silent tone of the movie allowed it to be, at times, incredibly funny, and Tsai Ming-liang’s willingness to treat the bizarre, obsessive behavior of his characters without any hint of dramatization makes it more convincing. (I doubt very seriously that I would have accepted the shot of a woman masturbating with the container of her late husband’s ashes in any other form, not to mention the two urination scenes.) It is what film critics charitably call “difficult”, and I doubt that most people have the patience to watch it. For those who do, however, it is a worthwhile experience.


--I have many more questions or comments to respond to; more will be posted next week. Thanks, all!

Movie Review #9

Citizen Kane (1941)
Directed by Orson Welles
Written by Herman J. Mankiewicz and Orson Welles

Rating: 7.75/10.00 or *** 1/2 (out of 4)

I first watched this film in my living room in 1999, and I was very disappointed with what seemingly every movie critic considered a masterpiece. I thought the movie was overrated due to its overly simple plot, at times melodramatic and at other times stoic acting, and at its somewhat slow and almost tiresome pace (occasionally). I gave it a poor review (to myself) as a result, and I openly admitted my distaste for the film to the shock of several people.

I finally garnered enough courage to rent the movie again last week, and I am certainly glad I did. I appreciated the film a lot more the second time around. The acting seemed more appropriate, the pace seemed smoother and more involving than I remembered, and most importantly, the plot seemed much more interesting and innovative to me.

What I had forgotten was that this film was made in the early 1940s, not the late 1990s. I do this with a lot of the older films I see (which may be why I have/had a similar distaste for The Wizard of Oz et al.); I really don't know why. One thing, though, that has certainly changed is that I have a much greater respect for these films. Citizen Kane is certainly among them.

I recently talked with several movie fanatics about old American classics including Citizen Kane, and there was a glaring theme I heard throughout each discussion I had regarding this film. More talk was of the back story to the movie rather than about the movie itself. Admittedly, the film is better and has a stronger punch due to the history behind the film, but does this make a movie masterpiece material?

Some critics certainly think so. I read over 20 reviews of this movie over the past week by *professional* movie critics, and every single review I read had a significant portion of the review dedicated to the story behind the film rather than about the film itself. Some critics even somewhat insinuated (at least in my opinion) that the film is a masterpiece in part due to the back story. Sorry, but I vehemently disagree with this. A movie is made by what it contains and what it displays, not by what happens behind the scenes.

And then I ask the question: What is more interesting? Is it the movie or the story behind the movie?

This digression aside, Citizen Kane is a wonderful movie, but it has flaws. I will relay some of these near the end of the review, but I must say right away that there are far more good qualities in this film than there are bad.

It also must be stated how amazing the motion picture's roots really are. Welles was 25 when he co-wrote, directed, and starred in this film. Not bad for a relative newcomer. All of the actors come from the New York stage or were even radio actors. What resulted in this amateur work was one of the most important and most critically acclaimed films of all time.

With that, I "begin" by saying Orson Welles was tremendous as the New York Inquirer's head honcho Charles Foster Kane, the temporary gubernatorial candidate, and the self-absorbed, love desiring individual this movie focuses on. There is no doubt that the movie was biographical (to William Randolph Hearst) and autobiographical. Perhaps that's why Welles was so convincing in several scenes through the film. He certainly has ambition, and this can be seen readily in the famous political rally scene (for example).

The movie begins by several scans at Xanadu. (I won't go into the back story in this review. If you want to read about such details, including what Xanadu is and what it is somewhat imitating, I suggest reading Roger Ebert's review of the film. His website is www.suntimes.com/ebert. Click on "Great Movies.") After this sequence of mood-setting and effective imagery, we see Kane's death. He utters "rosebud" before collapsing. The New York Inquirer, formerly owned by Kane, seeks the meaning behind the term "rosebud." Thus, we have the basis for this film.

So a reporter (played by William Alland) finds former acquaintances of Kane, including his best friend Jed Leland (Joseph Cotten) and second ex-wife Susan Alexander (Dorothy Comingore). Cotten and Comingore are excellent in this film and deserve more commendation than they have been given. They are interviewed by the reporter, and we are shown long flashbacks showing us the life of Charles Foster Kane. He starts out big in his youth as his ownership of the New York Inquirer becomes more rewarding with time. Eventually, he has enough power to run for governor. Many expect Kane to become President before long. However, Kane begins his downfall by his opponent's discovery and public announcement of Kane’s extramarital affair (with Susan). His political life is over, and his life in general begins a large decline after this.

He eventually loses his friendship to Leland (in powerful flashbacks presented during Leland's interview). During the interview with Susan, we witness Kane's growing obsession with having his wife succeed in opera. Her skills at singing (and opera) are about nil, and the public knows it. We are then presented with a wonderful scene at an opera, where during and after Susan's singing, we note the audience's disapproval (cringes and pluggings of the nose) while Kane is shown with his solitary approval. The scene is amazingly powerful due to its lighting. The audience is shown in light; Kane is shown in the dark.

Before long, Kane's second marriage breaks apart. The powerful climax occurs when Susan leaves Kane. Kane then trashes Susan's room, presenting us with his total self-destruction. The camera angle here is fantastic. We are shown low shots of the scene, always looking up at Kane while he destroys the room. We see Kane for what he really is: much smaller than he may at first seem.

The brilliance of Citizen Kane is in its visual display. Cinematography is almost unmatched. There's the early scene where we see Kane's parents determining his future while youngster Kane is playing outside in the snow. That we can see both the parents and the child so sharply at the same time is an impressive feat (an observation made in almost every single review of this movie). Camera angles are riveting, especially with the scene involving Kane's destruction of Susan's room. The use of lighting is effective, especially with scenes involving Leland or Susan. Kane is often shown in shadows or in the dark, quite obviously because he does not acknowledge what causes his downfall.

The final scene of the film tells us what "rosebud" is. The question has always been what "rosebud" means. It could mean anything from childhood innocence to simplicity to simply a chance to do things all over again. Whatever the case, the ending's power is in its question. The movie causes the viewer to think and to mourn. Quite clearly a very appropriate and effective ending to the film.

The movie has weaknesses. Though there are few, they are still prevalent enough to mention. I am not the biggest fan of melodrama, and this movie has plenty of it. Welles sometimes overexaggerates his scenes, especially late in the film. I think a more powerful performance would have been a slightly more subtle one. The plot, even though it is interesting and somewhat innovative, is quite simplistic and sometimes tiresome. This makes the movie somewhat dragged to me, and there were times when I thought the movie was too long. Finally, some of the acting was stale. I thought Kane's opponent in the governor's race (Ray Collins) could have been played with more feeling. Also, several of the actors who played employees at the New York Inquirer were stiff and displayed little effort in their performances.

These weaknesses are enough for me to say that I do not consider this film a masterpiece. The film showed great innovation in visual display, but it also showed some weakness in acting performance and plot presentation. However, even though I believe the film has some flaws, I also recognize its incredible popularity and critical acclaim. It is widely considered an American classic, and many consider it the best motion picture to have hit theaters. After viewing Citizen Kane a second time, I disagree that it is the best movie ever made, but I most certainly believe movie fanatics everywhere would be deprived without seeing this fine motion picture.

Movie Review #8

Apocalypse Now (1979)
Directed by Francis Ford Coppola
Written by John Milius and Francis Ford Coppola

Rating: 8.50/10.00 or *** 1/2 (out of 4)

The horror.

That is the result of the journey this movie takes us on, one of the greatest of all war movies and an astounding feat by Coppola, obviously on top of his game at this time. Apocalypse Now is a triumph in many ways. It features tremendous acting, it displays without hesitation one of the most difficult times in our history, and it relates the most horrid of life's offerings. Yes, the horror, that described by Col. Kurtz as, "...men who are moral and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling, without passion, without judgment."

Apocalypse Now, set in late 1960s Vietnam and Cambodia, is a war movie and so much more. It's also a character study, a human study, an emotional study. It has much to say and powerful ways of saying it. Apocalypse Now is one of the greatest motion pictures of our time.

The movie features Martin Sheen as Capt. Benjamin Willard, a man who is close to finding the horror that he would later discover Col. Walter Kurtz (Marlon Brando) has already found. Kurtz has descended the path of insanity due to his discovery. The U.S. military knows this and wants him dead because of it. Actually, the military's order is to "terminate with extreme prejudice." Willard, a true military man, accepts the mission. His journey to reach Kurtz, as well as his confrontation with Kurtz, is the bulk of the movie.

The movie is full of tremendous scenes. Take, for example, the invasion of a Vietnamese village by helicopters. The attack, led by Lt. Col. William Kilgore (Robert Duvall), is shown with Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" playing in the background. With the piece playing to soaring heights, we see attacks on children, suicide attempts by the villagers (Kilgore calls them "savages."), numerous explosions everywhere killing Vietnamese after Vietnamese. The music in the background makes the scene operatic, effective, eerily distant, disturbingly powerful. But perhaps even more powerful is Col. Kilgore's words after he steps foot on the village: "I love the smell of napalm in the morning." Kilgore's quiet and somewhat aloof line is uttered with such subtle power; it's in Duvall's performance that we learn quickly that the horror Willard is about to discover can be found in anyone. The helicopter sequence serves multiple purposes: It brings the reality of war right to the hearts of the viewers, it shows the human effects of such conflict, and it serves as a foreshadow to future events in the movie. Amazing scene. Duvall's performance as Kilgore is one of the best supporting performances I have witnessed on film. For the small amount of time he has in this film, he uses every second with such power and awe. His performance is unforgettable.

Or take the sequence involving the Vietnamese fishing boat that is stopped by the patrol boat taking Willard to his final destination (Willard is not happy about the stop, saying that his mission takes precedence on this routine procedure.). At gunpoint, the fishing boat's occupants, that of a Vietnamese family, and the boat itself are searched. In a quick movement, a little girl in the family dashes toward one end of the boat. "Mr. Clean," one of the gunners in the patrol boat (played by Laurence Fishburne), instinctively opens fire and kills the family. We learn after the shooting that the girl was headed for her puppy. Insanity. Incidents like this and their toll on these men are strewn throughout the film. These scenes, shown with such intensity, are among the most effective ever shown on film.

Shortly after we learn the little girl was headed toward her puppy, the gunners note that one of the victims is still alive. The chief of the patrol boat (Albert Hall) wants to take her to medical facilities to treat her. Willard would have none of it, however. He shoots the woman, saying: "I told you not to stop." Willard is trying to be true to his mission and to his military. At the same time we see Willard teetering on the edge of the horror we are later about to discover.

Or take the sequence involving warfare occurring on a bridge, in which the men there have no CO. When you watch this sequence, look at the faces. Such empty looks, such horrified eyes. The power of this sequence isn't of the violence or of the dialogue...it's of the silence in between.

The final half hour of the movie, by far the most disturbing and the most powerful, is the confrontation between Willard and Col. Kurtz. Marlon Brando plays Kurtz with a distant, slightly crazy, and immensely empty feeling. Brando's performance, although far from perfect, is good enough to portray the horror that Kurtz has found. Furthermore, a supporting performance by Dennis Hopper adds much to the ending of the movie. Hopper plays a photojournalist who has witnessed Kurtz's descent toward insanity, and the effects on the people he controls (Kurtz has set up a kingdom, of sorts.). The photojournalist is mesmerized and completely frightened by Kurtz. So was I, due in part to Hopper's superb performance.

The ending has many qualities. It feels operatic, poetic, almost surreal. More importantly, it is eerily silent, adding the final punch necessary to affect the viewer to the greatest degree.

It's important to note that none of these scenes would be as powerful as they were without Sheen's extraordinary acting performance. Sheen does not portray Willard, does not act as Willard. Sheen is Willard.

I disagree with several critics that Apocalypse Now is the best Vietnam War movie. The Deer Hunter, made at around the same time, hits home in a much more painful way. The Deer Hunter does more than just discover the human qualities we fear most. It shows these qualities in disturbing fashion, and it shows us the aftereffects of them. My major complaint with Apocalypse Now, then, is that its ending is too short. Kurtz does not have enough airtime, I believe, in this film. I think an even darker, more disturbing, and longer look into Kurtz and his discovery would have made this film even better. The ending is good now, but it could have been better.

However, this complaint aside, Apocalypse Now is a great movie. It is a movie that should be seen by everyone, for it presents one of the most harrowing dangers of humanity. Kurtz's horror is our nightmare. Living each day without the horror is our dream. Apocalypse Now gives us a reason, or several reasons, why we should hold on to this dream.