As a kid I saw the 35 mm version. I actually prefer it. I always thought that by Willard calling in the airstrike he was following Kurtz's final written request to end his cult of madness. Perhaps Kurtz knew that they could not survive in the modern world without magic and mystery.. The Apocalypse was the End of Kurtz and his followers along with Willard's loss of purpose.
I never assumed Willard ordered the strike, but that command did it anyway. I liked this ending better -- it was on the 35mm print I showed as a projectionist in a cinema. People in the theater were mesmerized.
oldjack1754 I always thought Chef called it in just before Kurtz killed him because you see him calling “Almighty”. Maybe they somehow got a fix on his location and went ahead with the airstrike. Chef might’ve planned to take off on his own, leaving Lance there figuring he’d joined Kurtz’s army.
Man...tough call. The airstrike, with the implied killing of everyone in the compound (save Willard and Lance) sums up the anti-war theme of the movie very effectively.
I studied Joseph Conrad's novella - Heart of Darkness - and Apocalypse Now as part of my film and literature course at university in the late Eighties. A guy in my class saw the original 35mm that included the bombing of the Kurtz compound in 1979. He told me that people were about to leave the cinema when the sequence started. I was told that like Star Wars two years prior, there was nothing like Apocalypse Now on the big screen in the Seventies. The opening scene that melts into the spinning fan and then Willards hotel room blew people away. The attack on the VC village was amazing and once again no movie, including Star Wars had such a scinillating scene. ! He told me that he knew people that had seen Apocalypse Now four times, and two out of the four timez they left after the Kilgore scenes as the movie was too long. Apparently very few people saw the 35mm version that included the destruction of the Kurtz compound. The 70mm version had the black screen with the credits. I hear there are some very old 35mm VHS copies of Apocalypse Now were the scene exists.
I have a VHS copy with this ending, which is one of the most haunting pieces of cinematography I've seen in my life. When I later watched the Redux version I couldn't understand why this ending had been left out, until I listened to Coppola's explanation. As much as it saddens me to see these minutes removed from the movie, the current ending seems more coherent with both the novel and the director's intention.
This is the ending I saw when I was a kid (watching the movie on a local TV station in Hawaii) that showed the airstrike on Kurtz's compound. My VHS, DVD videos of AN and the Redux version all fade to black. Interesting.
Same here my first viewing showed the Kurtz camp destruction I just purchased a used dvd and finished watching it for the second time ever and was scratching my head what happened this fade to black wasn't what I remembered. Yeah kind of weird and now here I am looking up for answers why.
@@willf5768 Wikipedia says: "There have been, to date, many variations of the end credit sequence, beginning with the 35 mm general release version, where Coppola elected to show the credits superimposed over shots of the jungle exploding into flames.[4][43] The explosions were from the detonation of the sets.[43] Rental prints circulated with this ending, and can be found in the hands of a few collectors. Some versions of this had the subtitle "A United Artists release", while others had "An Omni Zoetrope release". The network television version of the credits ended with "... from MGM/UA Entertainment Company" (the film made its network debut shortly after the merger of MGM and UA). One variation of the end credits can be seen on both CZcams and as a supplement on the current Lionsgate Blu-ray. Later when Coppola heard that audiences interpreted this as an air strike called by Willard, Coppola pulled the film from its 35 mm run and put credits on a black screen.[43] The "air strike" footage continued to circulate in repertory theaters well into the 1980s, and it was included in the 1980s LaserDisc release. In the DVD commentary, Coppola explains that the images of explosions had not been intended to be part of the story; they were intended to be seen as completely separate from the film. He had added the explosions to the credits as a graphic background to the credits.[85] Coppola explained he had shot the footage during demolition of the sets (set destruction and removal was required by the Philippine government). Coppola filmed the demolition with cameras fitted with different film stocks and lenses to capture the explosions at different speeds. He wanted to do something with the dramatic footage and decided to add them to the credits." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_Now#Alternative_and_varied_endings
I always imagined Willard called in the strike. The problem was it didn't fit the anti-war narrative to blow up an island with hundreds of innocent people on screen. Even though Willard is constantly questioning his sanity, you never actually saw him stray from orders or go insane. He was more suffering from the fear of not knowing if he was going to. The moment he throws his weapon down after killing Kurtz and avoiding the tribes people it looked like he'd made up his mind.
The director is assuming US Command wouldn't blow up the camp of their own will, just to cover up the evidence. It wouldn't necessarily need to be called in by Willard.
M Mckissack . . . watch the film carefully. Willard gives Chef the co-ordinates prior to going to see Kurtz. Chef does a radio check advising "Almighty" that PBR Streetgang is at the Kurtz compound. Almighty blows the compound up an indeterminate time after Willard silences the radio.
While it would make it a rather short and disappointing film to just bomb the compound from the get go, and this is obviously the primary reason for why Willard was sent by way of patrol boat, it's also not unrealistic. In virtually every case, calling in an airstrike requires a forward observer, recon element, or the like, especially in a place like Vietnam, where the US was dropping and ungodly amount of chemicals to rid the place of vegetation, which the communists were using as cover. We dropped more bombs on Vietnam than in the entire Pacific Campaign, and with probably half the effects. Also in this case, and contrary to the extremist view that the US just indiscriminately bombs shit it doesn't like, it would be counter intuitive and inconclusive to use a bomb on a soldier under investigation. For one, and without droning on about proper weapon deployment, in a nutshell--that's not how you use a bomb. Secondly, they had little to no idea where the target was, and even if you could pinpoint a square kilometer in that bush, doing a battle damage assessment would be impossible. Thirdly, this is supposedly deep in Cambodia, and "terminating" his command is supposedly a black operation, and thousands of people have to know about it in order for a bomb to drop. Fourthly, while this is sort of irrelevant all things considered, he's not proven guilty, and a bomb is kind of overkill. Lastly, it's explained, though rather vaguely, that Willard is to "pick up his trail at (insert village name) and "study, learn what you can from it, then terminate...". With that, we sort of know they either don't know his location or tactics, and need someone to collect his intelligence. This, I thought, was sort of the dark secret / common ground between Kurtz and the General. Although they wanted him dead, namely on principle, they still admired his work and wanted to learn from it. Also, in regards to the coordinates, that's an easy one. He wrote it after the fact. All soldiers, especially SF officers, are trained to properly navigate. Finding yourself on a river on a map is very easy. He pinpointed the location and registered the target. That should have been explained, maybe with just a quick scene of him drawing the target. The one little hole I did find odd was that the messenger was sent to Do Lung bridge to meet Willard 3 days prior, just to drop off some mail. How did he get there? By chopper I assume. Why did he get inserted so early and so far when Willard had to take a boat through hell with some Navy guys? My only thought is that he needed to boat to get up river into Cambodia, where a chopper won't go. Idk. Cheers.
What I got out of watching the film during the first 2/3 of it is what Kurtz was frustrated with in modern warfare. A lie set up to justify a presence of the horrors of war without purpose, without commitment or desire to end. "Win" or "lose" - the war would be at an end. I always got a kick out of Kilgore and his men surfing which showed just how ridiculous our attitude was towards winning (or ending) the war. In Orwell's 1984 this was put into words in Goldstein's book "The purpose of modern warfare is to keep the structure of society intact. It is not meant to be won, but to be continuous". Kurtz showing his frustration with this fact into madness and desire to end himself. In addition, Willard's madness after killing Kurtz as the moment to be "a god", and then coming back to reality. This stuck in Willard's mind on the way back in the boat (as I could see in his eyes), that in fact none of us are "cut out" to have that kind of power. As a sort of intro "Transmission received '68 Oct 11, 0430 hours, sector PVK" "In the dark night of the soul, it is always 4am" - certainly I can relate when I can't sleep
I remember seeing this ending in the theaters in 1979 with the credits over it. Then seeing the redux, which has no credits whatsoever, it was like the movie was an unsigned missive against the world.
J'ai travaillé cette ouverture avec je ne sais quels élèves mais c'est resté comme un super souvenir, très riche, très vivant. Avec juste la vieille méthode que j'avais rapportée du collège. 3 colonnes: ce que je vois, ce que j'entends, comment j'interprète (ce que je comprends). Encore une fois, Baloo avait raison / "Il en faut peu pour être heureux", même pédagogiquement. Bise.
I find it kind of cool they got to actually blow up something, instead of faking so people don't die like usually happens. . It's a shame they didn't get to use it for the movie.
The airstrike ending is a cop-out--it smacks of "good guys win, bad guys get blown up and all is well." Coppola's originals ending rocks: Willard throws down his weapon, then he and Lance just slip quietly away into the darkness.Whatever the natives do from then on is up to them.
The famous question of how the film ends, this unintended ambiguity, regardless of the director's intentions, does by divine providence speak poignantly to our time, as to the end of all war and history, which sort of ending will we choose?
Perhaps leaving it open to the viewers to ponder on more than one ending (for Kurtz) might have been a good thing to try. Willard simply facilitated others to destroy that village by his call. Later, as a pacifist or not, promotion to a higher military rank not, Willard would still have remained an asset to whichever party had the greatest hold over him at any one point in his future. To think that the world can live in peace is a fantasy pursuit in its own right, surely. Conditional global or regional harmony helped by spasmodic examples of the brutality of war in metered doses as real time episodes is likely the best that the world can expect in the meantime.
I saw 5his ending as a kid and it should always be the ending credit.. I'm not a woke hippie dippy like a lot of you fools. Keep it traditional. Keep it true.
A bad decision, Francis. This ending, of the 35mm version was superior, and left no one guessing about how to eradicate Kurtz from his jungle abode; there was nothing left to do but to BLOW IT UP!!! You should have kept this footage for the 75mm version and any and all versions that you approved for television viewing. This ending, at least let us all breathe a sigh of relief and let go of the energy that we had held within while watching the film! This beautifully shot destruction let all of us feel like justice had finally been served! You have to think about how this film is viewed today!
@@younusbendame742 it wouldn't be a good guy ending, Willard would have blown up women and children if he called in the air strike. He's more of a good guy not going through with Kurtz plans to "Exterminat them all"
Frankly this strikes me as utter revisionist bullshit. PC excusifying. The place needed to be bombed. All those people were corrupted evil. Anyway, I just saw this on TV, and there were multiple editing decisions changed from the last time I saw it. No surfboard.No getting chased for the surf board. No sex with the bunnies. And probably a few others I didn't notice. It needs the cleansing fire ending, and someone should excersize some authority over the TV people. It was a premium movie channel that shouldn't be serving oddly edited features.
I was always confused with this, I saw this ending first, then, years later, the one with these scenes pulled, I thought I´d been hallucinating or something....
I don't understand why this end was removed, because it makes sense, Willard kills Kurtz, the people in the camp were free from that "cult", they would abandon the place and than everything was erased to the ground ... THE PERFECT ENDING !!!!!!
I’ve seen this film in this format and ending 10 times at least , talking about Mandela effect , Holly shit, he is saying there was no ending like this? What?
so many people here dont get apocalypse now at all, Coppola wanted the movie to have end on a happy note, showing the end of war and the beginning of peace !
The narrator I feel does not truly read or understand "true history" , and that is a common aspect of professional creatives! Although following next is complex, it is at least only the substance of its description as is the film's storys' depiction. If Apocalypse Now had any "meaning" (aka) it is a simple view of the bent bizarre internal workings of "management of military objectives and the implementations of controlling these objectives course" by the "bizarre secret or non public mechanisms available"! In terms of the origin base story name the film was made from, its title says that, "Heart of Darkness".
Another film maker inserting their ridiculous politics by changing their own work for self righteous reasons only serves to spoil their original vision as they capitulate to the whims of society and their absurd notions.
plsDon't at me Yup. That's what the photojournalist played by Dennis Hopper quotes which is the intended ending all along so the filmmaker didn't "insert their ridiculous politics by changing their own work for self righteous reasons" because he always intended for the ending to be what it was. He did not change it. The ridiculous politics are those exhibited by the hypocritical, immoral and self righteous nature of the American war machine.
As a kid I saw the 35 mm version. I actually prefer it. I always thought that by Willard calling in the airstrike he was following Kurtz's final written request to end his cult of madness. Perhaps Kurtz knew that they could not survive in the modern world without magic and mystery.. The Apocalypse was the End of Kurtz and his followers along with Willard's loss of purpose.
It's like a combination of Dante's Inferno, Full Metal Jacket, and The Shining. When I first saw it, I really didn't know what to make of it.
smh imagine referencing dante's inferno but not having read it
Daniel Sprach he's probably referring to the video game adaptation back from 2010
I never assumed Willard ordered the strike, but that command did it anyway. I liked this ending better -- it was on the 35mm print I showed as a projectionist in a cinema. People in the theater were mesmerized.
oldjack1754 I always thought Chef called it in just before Kurtz killed him because you see him calling “Almighty”. Maybe they somehow got a fix on his location and went ahead with the airstrike. Chef might’ve planned to take off on his own, leaving Lance there figuring he’d joined Kurtz’s army.
@@jennifersman7990 that's what I thought. He was calling them anyways.
Man...tough call.
The airstrike, with the implied killing of everyone in the compound (save Willard and Lance) sums up the anti-war theme of the movie very effectively.
I studied Joseph Conrad's novella - Heart of Darkness - and Apocalypse Now as part of my film and literature course at university in the late Eighties. A guy in my class saw the original 35mm that included the bombing of the Kurtz compound in 1979. He told me that people were about to leave the cinema when the sequence started.
I was told that like Star Wars two years prior, there was nothing like Apocalypse Now on the big screen in the Seventies. The opening scene that melts into the spinning fan and then Willards hotel room blew people away. The attack on the VC village was amazing and once again no movie, including Star Wars had such a scinillating scene. ! He told me that he knew people that had seen Apocalypse Now four times, and two out of the four timez they left after the Kilgore scenes as the movie was too long.
Apparently very few people saw the 35mm version that included the destruction of the Kurtz compound. The 70mm version had the black screen with the credits. I hear there are some very old 35mm VHS copies of Apocalypse Now were the scene exists.
I have a VHS copy with this ending, which is one of the most haunting pieces of cinematography I've seen in my life. When I later watched the Redux version I couldn't understand why this ending had been left out, until I listened to Coppola's explanation. As much as it saddens me to see these minutes removed from the movie, the current ending seems more coherent with both the novel and the director's intention.
darkanguiel ...in order to re- market probably😏
This is the ending I saw when I was a kid (watching the movie on a local TV station in Hawaii) that showed the airstrike on Kurtz's compound. My VHS, DVD videos of AN and the Redux version all fade to black. Interesting.
Same here my first viewing showed the Kurtz camp destruction I just purchased a used dvd and finished watching it for the second time ever and was scratching my head what happened this fade to black wasn't what I remembered. Yeah kind of weird and now here I am looking up for answers why.
@@willf5768 Wikipedia says:
"There have been, to date, many variations of the end credit sequence, beginning with the 35 mm general release version, where Coppola elected to show the credits superimposed over shots of the jungle exploding into flames.[4][43] The explosions were from the detonation of the sets.[43] Rental prints circulated with this ending, and can be found in the hands of a few collectors. Some versions of this had the subtitle "A United Artists release", while others had "An Omni Zoetrope release". The network television version of the credits ended with "... from MGM/UA Entertainment Company" (the film made its network debut shortly after the merger of MGM and UA). One variation of the end credits can be seen on both CZcams and as a supplement on the current Lionsgate Blu-ray.
Later when Coppola heard that audiences interpreted this as an air strike called by Willard, Coppola pulled the film from its 35 mm run and put credits on a black screen.[43] The "air strike" footage continued to circulate in repertory theaters well into the 1980s, and it was included in the 1980s LaserDisc release. In the DVD commentary, Coppola explains that the images of explosions had not been intended to be part of the story; they were intended to be seen as completely separate from the film. He had added the explosions to the credits as a graphic background to the credits.[85]
Coppola explained he had shot the footage during demolition of the sets (set destruction and removal was required by the Philippine government). Coppola filmed the demolition with cameras fitted with different film stocks and lenses to capture the explosions at different speeds. He wanted to do something with the dramatic footage and decided to add them to the credits."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_Now#Alternative_and_varied_endings
I always imagined Willard called in the strike. The problem was it didn't fit the anti-war narrative to blow up an island with hundreds of innocent people on screen. Even though Willard is constantly questioning his sanity, you never actually saw him stray from orders or go insane. He was more suffering from the fear of not knowing if he was going to. The moment he throws his weapon down after killing Kurtz and avoiding the tribes people it looked like he'd made up his mind.
This really is the perfect ending inspite of what FFC says.
the best ending for me... pictures of total chaos, because it's apocalypse now !
True destruction.
Interesting piece of info I didn’t know. Apocalypse Now is probably my all time favorite film.
I remember seeing a similar version of this on HBO years ago, mostly blacked out with some explosions with the credits, it was fantastic!
When I saw it on tv in the early 80’s the end credits was a combination of this with credits superimposed on it, still effective IMO
This always symbolized to me......how we want to alway erase .....our own demons
The director is assuming US Command wouldn't blow up the camp of their own will, just to cover up the evidence. It wouldn't necessarily need to be called in by Willard.
my first thought, exactly...
M Mckissack . . . watch the film carefully. Willard gives Chef the co-ordinates prior to going to see Kurtz. Chef does a radio check advising "Almighty" that PBR Streetgang is at the Kurtz compound.
Almighty blows the compound up an indeterminate time after Willard silences the radio.
While it would make it a rather short and disappointing film to just bomb the compound from the get go, and this is obviously the primary reason for why Willard was sent by way of patrol boat, it's also not unrealistic. In virtually every case, calling in an airstrike requires a forward observer, recon element, or the like, especially in a place like Vietnam, where the US was dropping and ungodly amount of chemicals to rid the place of vegetation, which the communists were using as cover. We dropped more bombs on Vietnam than in the entire Pacific Campaign, and with probably half the effects. Also in this case, and contrary to the extremist view that the US just indiscriminately bombs shit it doesn't like, it would be counter intuitive and inconclusive to use a bomb on a soldier under investigation. For one, and without droning on about proper weapon deployment, in a nutshell--that's not how you use a bomb. Secondly, they had little to no idea where the target was, and even if you could pinpoint a square kilometer in that bush, doing a battle damage assessment would be impossible. Thirdly, this is supposedly deep in Cambodia, and "terminating" his command is supposedly a black operation, and thousands of people have to know about it in order for a bomb to drop. Fourthly, while this is sort of irrelevant all things considered, he's not proven guilty, and a bomb is kind of overkill. Lastly, it's explained, though rather vaguely, that Willard is to "pick up his trail at (insert village name) and "study, learn what you can from it, then terminate...". With that, we sort of know they either don't know his location or tactics, and need someone to collect his intelligence. This, I thought, was sort of the dark secret / common ground between Kurtz and the General. Although they wanted him dead, namely on principle, they still admired his work and wanted to learn from it. Also, in regards to the coordinates, that's an easy one. He wrote it after the fact. All soldiers, especially SF officers, are trained to properly navigate. Finding yourself on a river on a map is very easy. He pinpointed the location and registered the target. That should have been explained, maybe with just a quick scene of him drawing the target.
The one little hole I did find odd was that the messenger was sent to Do Lung bridge to meet Willard 3 days prior, just to drop off some mail. How did he get there? By chopper I assume. Why did he get inserted so early and so far when Willard had to take a boat through hell with some Navy guys? My only thought is that he needed to boat to get up river into Cambodia, where a chopper won't go. Idk.
Cheers.
What I got out of watching the film during the first 2/3 of it is what Kurtz was frustrated with in modern warfare. A lie set up to justify a presence of the horrors of war without purpose, without commitment or desire to end. "Win" or "lose" - the war would be at an end. I always got a kick out of Kilgore and his men surfing which showed just how ridiculous our attitude was towards winning (or ending) the war. In Orwell's 1984 this was put into words in Goldstein's book "The purpose of modern warfare is to keep the structure of society intact. It is not meant to be won, but to be continuous". Kurtz showing his frustration with this fact into madness and desire to end himself. In addition, Willard's madness after killing Kurtz as the moment to be "a god", and then coming back to reality. This stuck in Willard's mind on the way back in the boat (as I could see in his eyes), that in fact none of us are "cut out" to have that kind of power. As a sort of intro "Transmission received '68 Oct 11, 0430 hours, sector PVK" "In the dark night of the soul, it is always 4am" - certainly I can relate when I can't sleep
I remember seeing this ending in the theaters in 1979 with the credits over it.
Then seeing the redux, which has no credits whatsoever, it was like the movie was an unsigned missive against the world.
Visionary and haunting.
J'ai travaillé cette ouverture avec je ne sais quels élèves mais c'est resté comme un super souvenir, très riche, très vivant. Avec juste la vieille méthode que j'avais rapportée du collège. 3 colonnes: ce que je vois, ce que j'entends, comment j'interprète (ce que je comprends). Encore une fois, Baloo avait raison / "Il en faut peu pour être heureux", même pédagogiquement. Bise.
I respect that man, a lot...
I find it kind of cool they got to actually blow up something, instead of faking so people don't die like usually happens. . It's a shame they didn't get to use it for the movie.
The airstrike ending is a cop-out--it smacks of "good guys win, bad guys get blown up and all is well." Coppola's originals ending rocks: Willard throws down his weapon, then he and Lance just slip quietly away into the darkness.Whatever the natives do from then on is up to them.
How is it a good guy ending if Willard would have been killing Women and children. He was more of a good guy just leaving them be in the end.
I wished this ending was used in the Director’s cut
The famous question of how the film ends, this unintended ambiguity, regardless of the director's intentions, does by divine providence speak poignantly to our time, as to the end of all war and history, which sort of ending will we choose?
Calling PBR Street Gang. PBR Street Gang, this is Almighty. Do you read me? Over.
Perhaps leaving it open to the viewers to ponder on more than one ending (for Kurtz) might have been a good thing to try. Willard simply facilitated others to destroy that village by his call. Later, as a pacifist or not, promotion to a higher military rank not, Willard would still have remained an asset to whichever party had the greatest hold over him at any one point in his future. To think that the world can live in peace is a fantasy pursuit in its own right, surely. Conditional global or regional harmony helped by spasmodic examples of the brutality of war in metered doses as real time episodes is likely the best that the world can expect in the meantime.
I saw 5his ending as a kid and it should always be the ending credit.. I'm not a woke hippie dippy like a lot of you fools. Keep it traditional. Keep it true.
Is there a higher quality version anywhere? I'd love to see the full clean sequence in 1080p or even 4k if possible.
A bad decision, Francis. This ending, of the 35mm version was superior, and left no one guessing about how to eradicate Kurtz from his jungle abode; there was nothing left to do but to BLOW IT UP!!! You should have kept this footage for the 75mm version and any and all versions that you approved for television viewing. This ending, at least let us all breathe a sigh of relief and let go of the energy that we had held within while watching the film! This beautifully shot destruction let all of us feel like justice had finally been served! You have to think about how this film is viewed today!
yeah but the cliche of "good guys win" would've been redundant for the theme of the movie
@@younusbendame742 it wouldn't be a good guy ending, Willard would have blown up women and children if he called in the air strike. He's more of a good guy not going through with Kurtz plans to "Exterminat them all"
Frankly this strikes me as utter revisionist bullshit. PC excusifying. The place needed to be bombed. All those people were corrupted evil.
Anyway, I just saw this on TV, and there were multiple editing decisions changed from the last time I saw it.
No surfboard.No getting chased for the surf board. No sex with the bunnies. And probably a few others I didn't notice.
It needs the cleansing fire ending, and someone should excersize some authority over the TV people. It was a premium movie channel that shouldn't be serving oddly edited features.
@@jimashtube it might have been the theatrical cut you watched.
Justice? Lol. Justice for what?
Saw this end in the theater in Brighton England
There was a part in the movie where Kurtz says exterminate them all while he was dying
I was always confused with this, I saw this ending first, then, years later, the one with these scenes pulled, I thought I´d been hallucinating or something....
Exakly ! Enshtein War and Love
I don't understand why this end was removed, because it makes sense, Willard kills Kurtz, the people in the camp were free from that "cult", they would abandon the place and than everything was erased to the ground ...
THE PERFECT ENDING !!!!!!
I’ve seen this film in this format and ending 10 times at least , talking about Mandela effect , Holly shit, he is saying there was no ending like this? What?
The Montagnards could have burnt the whole camp.
obligated to remove the building...I doubt it... he just needed film....
he filmed 200 h of footage on apocalypse now and the first cut of the movie is 6h long, i have that version but the quality is realy bad tbh
so many people here dont get apocalypse now at all, Coppola wanted the movie to have end on a happy note, showing the end of war and the beginning of peace !
The narrator I feel does not truly read or understand "true history" , and that is a common aspect of professional creatives!
Although following next is complex, it is at least only the substance of its description as is the film's storys' depiction.
If Apocalypse Now had any "meaning" (aka) it is a simple view of the bent bizarre internal workings of "management of military objectives and the implementations of controlling these objectives course" by the "bizarre secret or non public mechanisms available"!
In terms of the origin base story name the film was made from, its title says that, "Heart of Darkness".
what was the code name for the bomber?
"Almighty, Almighty"
PBR Streetgang, I’m not a Navy man but I’m guessing PBR stood for Patrol Boat Recon?
@@jennifersman7990 dang. I thought it stood for peanut butter recon.
Another film maker inserting their ridiculous politics by changing their own work for self righteous reasons only serves to spoil their original vision as they capitulate to the whims of society and their absurd notions.
Agree. The original was Haunting and timeless. The fade out feels like something is missing and lacking.
@@scottfree2248 “This is the way the world ends, not with a bang, but a whisper” -The Hollow Men, T.S Eliot
plsDon't at me Yup. That's what the photojournalist played by Dennis Hopper quotes which is the intended ending all along so the filmmaker didn't "insert their ridiculous politics by changing their own work for self righteous reasons" because he always intended for the ending to be what it was. He did not change it. The ridiculous politics are those exhibited by the hypocritical, immoral and self righteous nature of the American war machine.
One of the most overrated movies! Watched it when it first came out, rewatched it in my 60s and still didn’t like it. Boring like hell!