Why is this so highly rated?

So I just saw this and I would like some views on it because I did not enjoy it very much and found it clichè-laden and poorly acted.

Martin Sheen does not act at all in this movie; in fact, instead of creating scenes that force him to show his emotion, Coppola instead uses the laziest of all narrative techniques, having the main character narrate to the audience his own feelings as he goes along. An example of this is when we hear Sheen narrating that he is "afraid but more than that excited" about finally meeting Kurz, while they show the nth shot of his expressionless face staring at the riverbank.

The movie has plenty of war cliches, like the completely inept enemies who cant hit more than a single man (the token black guy lel) even when lying in ambush with what seems like tens of machine guns and aiming for a lone boat on the river.

The movie failed at making me care about the characters, yet still made big deals out of anything that happened to them. There were two drawn out death/burial scenes about characters I did not care about at all. Also, the scene where Kurz is finally revealed, its clear that the director believes the audience is on the edge of their seats, waiting for the longest time before showing his face. Same with Kurz death scene, its so full of itself for such a straightforward and obvious event I had to roll my eyes.

Plenty of poorly fleshed out stereotype characters. The "dude acid lmao" surfer, young extrovert but jittery black guy, horribly acted journalist hippie.

The cliche "cool emotionless guy meets woman whos lost her husband" scene.

Theres just so much wrong with this movie I cant understand why its rated so highly. Is it really just because its a movie that makes a big point out of war being horrible instead of glorifying it?? Thats it?

For what its worth I really liked it up until they left the camp with crazy colonel, but from there its just a long line of cliche scenes and poor acting up until we meet Kurz.

You watched Redux, which is a terrible movie
Best to stay as far away from Redux as possible

Ok, I guess the shorter version could fix the pacing a bit, it felt slow, but I dont mind slow movies. I did watch redux because I couldnt find anyone saying it was a poor version, and normally longer directors cuts are better movies for someone who doesnt mind long movies.

Does a shorter version adress the other points though?

This is how I felt about it. The whole thing was just bland and cliche even for the time period.

bump because this is constantly mentioned in people's top 10 lists

Because it is Coppola's best work next to G2.

the french scene was unnecessary

Both of those are worse than Godfather.

Memes

>Godfather 2
>worse than Godfather 1
I wonder what it is like to be this fucking retarded.

>le redux is bad meme

it's not bad, it just doesn't make the older movie any better

A bait that actually had some effort put into it, well if I'll be damned.

It is okay to be wrong. This is part of growing up. Enjoy the (you)s and reflect.

Well, I liked the movie myself, maybe because I somehow relate to the slow descent to madness and the absurdity of war. It goes nowhere, and that's the point. It's slow and hypnotic, and takes me somewhere else.

Also Harrison Ford stars in it.

But desu, it's not nearly as overrated as Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. That is pure cold distilled overratedness in book format

Its alot of things. The movie being made at all is cause for celebration considering how it was made, how long it took, etc. The film itself is very well shot with good pacing and great special effects. Its based off of a book that most people like or atleast consider good. And the director made the fucking godfather movies.

But pleb excuses aside i think its the realism that i personally find so engaging. Im fine with our lead being expressionless because to me it makes sense. the start of the film shows us he is human and is torn up about everything hes done, but when hes on the river he cant be like that, he turns into a soilder. So narration makes sense.

And i dont find the stereotypes all that distracting, they seem realistic if anything. The surfer bro helps show just how detatched we are from the war, the young black kid as well, these youths help show what most grunts at that time where probably like, just dumb kids.

Hippie camera guy was shit though.

I watched the Redux too, I must say the film has some aesthetic merit, especially the second half and the meeting with Kurtz.

I understand where you are coming from, I personally despise narration in movies and I agree with you there. Martin Sheen clearly had the ability to emote, given the intro scene, so I would have appreciated more than that. The movie only superficially criticizes the war, namely via the surfing Colonel character, and with Kurtz's character.

It is true that the scenes you pointed out are completely useless. The french one was decent, given the table conversation, but it was out of place. The characters are somewhat basic, that is also true.

I think it is praised due to its "cult" status. Anyway, I understand why the Redux version is cancer. The playmate scene was completely and utterly retarded, and sincerely disrupted my suspension of disbelief.

Before reading Heart of Darkness I loved it, now I think I'd prefer a movie about going up the Congo river like in the book. Still a good film though.

>clichè
>cliches
>cliche
>cliche

Op I bet my dick is at least 2-4 inches bigger than yours, I'm unironic desu

you are a faggot but you are correct about Martin Sheen

he is a horrible actor

Its literally the best piece of cinema Ive ever seen. Theres absolutely nothing cliche about it

He was good in this one.

>The West Wing
>horrible actor

Do you expect this board to have any concrete understanding about film? Faggots on here unironically hate Citizen Kane just because it is a meme to do so.

>cliche
Its probably the least cliche war movie ever made

>I think I'd prefer a movie about going up the Congo river like in the book
Did you know that there are people who believe Heart of Darkness is racist?

>liking the mediocre Vito backstory

Michael story is fucking A++++ but the Vito backstory drags it down. Godfather is perfect.

My high school English class read it and the whole idea was to decide whether it was racist or not. Big essay at the end about what we thought.

>backstory
The first two parts are literally built as complimentary character studies of a father and son. That is their thematixlc purpose. You fucking tard. 2 works with 1, 1 is better because of 2.

*thematic

Genuine question; what did you enjoy about the movie if you hated Martin Sheen?

Yes, I've read about it. Honestly I just don't see it. Does it make me a racist? I couldn't care less.

What exactly about Vito youth story makes Godfather 1 better? They dont show ANY character development, he just suddenly becomes s big deal after killing the cartoony villain don out of nowhere.

Truly the mark of a pleb when they think MUH PLOT AND MUH CHARACTERS are the most important aspect of a film.

Its shit, watch Das Boot if you want a film that shows the horrors of war with characters that seem like real people instead of charicatures.

>They dont show ANY character development
I am literally refusing to have a conversation with you about such a retarded point. Take that as a win if you'd like but that is such a waste of a conversation. Enjoy this (you) if it was bait.

Probably the dumbest fucking "criticism" I have ever read about Godfather 2.

it's literally the other way around

If it is a character study, in a lot of ways, yes.

I saw this a long time ago and remember thinking it was very slow and boring. Would like to give it another shot, but in hurry to do so.

Watch "Come and See" too. The movie itself is total garbage though.

Yea great retort dude, give me some good examples about character development in the Vito youth story in G2 or gtfo.

I bet you liked the fan service "Ill give him an offer he cant refuse" in G2 too

I mean it may be colored with some colonial era themes and ideas (not much IMO if that's the case), but it's otherwise basically about how colonialism was really terrible.

Op confirmed for a babydicked whiteboi, nothing to see here thread over.

I disagree with most of this but I will say Marlon Brando's reveal at the end was just so anti-climactic and disappointing. I guess that was kind of the point like he was just a tired and insane person waiting to die but nothing about him made me believe he could have ever commanded fear and respect

because you wanted to see a monster and saw a human being instead

>reddit spacing

>hippie camera guy was shit

Not sure if being baited. I probably am

This

I wanted to see a reasonable human who could explain his choices, instead I got a monster who had skulls, severed heads and corpses hanging around his villainous lair. They even included "le madman writing" in his notes to make it as non-ambiguous as possible that killing him was the right choice.

Why was he hyped up so much as a crazy madman when nothing he did besides like cutting someone's head off once was really that disturbing? Like I don't know I feel like I get the concept of what he was but it just didn't really work for me. I know that's a stupid criticism but I can't figure out what exactly it is that just didn't click

The US was fighting (and losing) a guerrilla war against a bunch of fanatical peasants. The Viet Minh were lead by a charismatic, revered leader, and Kurtz, a former US officer, built his own private army based on a similar cult of personality. He represented a dangerous element, not just for the enemy to rally around, but one that could potentially encourage more Americans to defect (like the photo guy). It wasn't him so much as what he symbolized, and the fact that he was not some kind of red eyed monster, just a balding, mid-life crisis former soldier was irrelevant to the mission.

Oh, and they had to portray him as some kind of boogie man so that Willard would agree to take the job. But during the course of the movie he comes to respect and almost admire him. Surely that was obvious?

It is a really good movie, most definitely in my top 10. I agree with the Kurz reveal being a bit disappointing though.

Did you the entire point of the movie go entirely over your heads? Any man can become a monster, he just has to be pushed far enough. We like to think of monsters as exceptional people who are just born like that, and we think we will recgonize monsters when we see them, but the fact is theyre just your regular everyday people, and it could potentially happen to anyone. Kurtz like the opposite of the Joker (who is visibly insane and is presumed to simple be insane because "hes just like that"). Whether or not Sheens character had become a monster or slayed his inner monster through killing Kurtz is intentionally left ambiguous.

Are you all underage or did you just not pay attention to the movie?

Sorry about all the typos, Im phone posting

Obligatory

>Also Harrison Ford stars in it.

Man I love him but it's a fucking cameo, one where he sticks out like a sore thumb.

OP here.

I think Willard would kill Kurz regardless of what kind of man Kurz was. Because in the end, Willard has become exactly the kind of soldier Kurz is talking about. A soldier who doesnt pass judgment but kills with "extreme prejudice" as that one guy put it in the beginning. This point is further proven by the scene where Willard shoots the vietnamese woman on the boat so getting her help wont interfere with the mission.

The duality between good and bad in soldiers is a central theme of the film, its quite obvious from the scene with the french woman.

Its seen in Kurz who was a good family man and respected leader and became villainous, his dark side taking over until he was cold enough to display severed heads and hanging bodies to instill the fear needed to reach his goals. Its shown in the story Kurz tells about his revelation with the Viet cutting off children arms. Its shown in Willard, who is not that far down the road to darkness, but showing signs of being turned by the horrors of war. He too had a wife back home. All these men are losing touch with "the man who loves" inside them and instead becoming more and more "the man who kills".

I think these themes are pretty clear and I appreciate them, but I still think there are glaring flaws with many of the side characters, Sheen's acting and the build up to scenes that are clearly meant to be emotional but fail in one way or another.

What is this autistic bullshit?

Yeah I guess I see that. I know that he did come to admire him in some ways, but you can have some admiration for your enemies and still consider them your enemy. Even though I think Willard killed him sort of just to put him out of his misery, he never really seemed to waver from his intention to carry out the mission

You should've watched the workprint.
Now thats real kinö

Its literally the best movie ever made.

I recommend sticking with comic book movies, that would be more on your level.

The best transition from order to chaos ever captured.

Also fuck the redux haters, yes the french scene was way stretched and unnecessary but it fleshes out the boat crew and has more Kurtz letters which gives him more depth

You should never, ever watch any director's cuts before theatrical version. Most of them are just "dude shove as many deleted scenes as you can LMAO".

Theatrical version of Apocalypse Now is still a 7/10 movie at best, but it's miles ahead of redux.

redux is great, kys

autistic bullshit

Has anyone ever watched that like 5 hour workprint? Apparently most of the length comes from multiple takes of the same scene but there must be some unique footage in there too

What he said
Also Godfather 1 is superior

The quality is akin to someone using a 2005 phone camera to film a damaged VHS. At least that google drive link that's floating around

lol is this a joke?

You're just desensitized by all the war-propaganda-movies you've seen before this.