🎦 Apocalypse Now full movie HD download (Francis Ford Coppola) - Drama, Action, History, War. 🎬
Apocalypse Now
Year:
1979
Country:
USA
Genre:
Drama, Action, History, War
IMDB rating:
8.5
Director:
Francis Ford Coppola
Marlon Brando as Kurtz
Martin Sheen as Marlow
Robert Duvall as Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore
Frederic Forrest as Jay 'Chef' Hicks
Sam Bottoms as Lance B. Johnson
Laurence Fishburne as Tyrone 'Clean' Miller
Albert Hall as Chief Phillips
Harrison Ford as Colonel Lucas
Dennis Hopper as Photojournalist
G.D. Spradlin as General Corman
Jerry Ziesmer as Jerry, Civilian
Scott Glenn as Lieutenant Richard M. Colby
Bo Byers as MP Sergeant #1
James Keane as Kilgore's Gunner
Storyline: It is the height of the war in Vietnam, and U.S. Army Captain Willard is sent by Colonel Lucas and a General to carry out a mission that, officially, 'does not exist - nor will it ever exist'. The mission: To seek out a mysterious Green Beret Colonel, Walter Kurtz, whose army has crossed the border into Cambodia and is conducting hit-and-run missions against the Viet Cong and NVA. The army believes Kurtz has gone completely insane and Willard's job is to eliminate him! Willard, sent up the Nung River on a U.S. Navy patrol boat, discovers that his target is one of the most decorated officers in the U.S. Army. His crew meets up with surfer-type Lt-Colonel Kilgore, head of a U.S Army helicopter cavalry group which eliminates a Viet Cong outpost to provide an entry point into the Nung River. After some hair-raising encounters, in which some of his crew are killed, Willard, Lance and Chef reach Colonel Kurtz's outpost, beyond the Do Lung Bridge. Now, after becoming prisoners of Kurtz, will...
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
1080p 1920x816 px 9051 Mb h264 6453 Kbps mkv Download
HQ DVD-rip 720x352 px 1142 Mb mpeg4 710 Kbps avi Download
iPhone 320x156 px 397 Mb h264 286 Kbps mp4 Download
Reviews
The horror has come true and yet we allow it to pass by us
Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now is a pure example of method filmmaking. It is the true craftmanship of an essential filmmaker. The art direction, editing and sound effects are partially a small fragment which makes this film classical and memorable. What drives the integrity and semblance of the film is the storyline, acting and inner message. The inner message evidently enough is that war is hell, or in other words, hell is war. Not many directors have the ambition or the true courage to establish such a well-defined piece of art. European filmmakers wouldn't have the slightest problem of directing the film or throw in their personal feelings about the war. What is most interesting is that an American filmmaker spoke his style and the style of the film's collaborators through the continuance of the film.

The plot is fairly simple and brief, adapted by Joseph Conrad's Heart Of Darkness. Martin Sheen plays the role of Captain Willard, a war-torn character who does not see any hope in life or humanity anymore. He has a mission and it is to capture a presumed Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando) who has fabricated an army of existensial soldiers on the outskirts of the Cambodian jungle. Throughout the film we encounter astonishing sequences. The most unforgettable is the dawn helicopter attacks. Robert Duvall's character Colonel Kilgore is a steady and firm example of the basic American army brain: to search and destroy and then destroy some more if it includes yourself. The children walk about the playground, oblivious to any danger. The helicopters come into view from the dawning sea; millions of sprinkle reflect from the water, we hear the helicopter's engines roar from the horizon and soon enough we are stuck in a messy attack. Throughout the sequence we hear Wagner's 'Ride Of The Valkyries'. It is method filmmaking. The starting sequence is as fascinating as the rest of the movie; a beautiful scene of palm trees blowing in the ragged wind and seconds away from being inflamed with a carpet bombing. Let's not forget the scene where the soldiers of the boat in which Sheen travels in, stop an innocent upcoming boat, suspecting them to be VietCongs and carrying artilleries. Then they spark off a heavy scene of shooting in which all of the passengers of the boat are pulverised to pieces with their crops and food savaged in the atrocity.

This film has its famous moment, some better to be kept quiet about until they come through the screen. It doesn't require any intellectual understanding, although the film is intellectually remarkable. The American soldiers in the Vietnam War jumped into the land of a fresh governmental country, aiming to protect themselves and in the end only received death and chaos for their troops and for the majority of the country they were fighting against. It was a war gone mad, like all other wars, without purpose or dignity. It was a pure act of humanity: to destroy and restore their own greedy needs. This is a film in which there is no saviour, where it is hardly possible to find hope in the gloomiest corners and where all surroundings are plagued with the infatuations of greed, anger, foolishness and egoism. As Coppola once said about the film: 'This film isn't about Vietnam. This film IS Vietnam'. He was right to the date. During the current situations of the world, where they are trying to protect their own skin, the world should try to analyse this film as much as possible and wonder about what it is trying to represent. It is a film which does not ask for applause or damnation. It asks for realism.

Enjoy.

2001-10-24
Redux version is HORRIBLE. stick with the original
''Apocalypse now'' has two versions. The original, which was out in 1979 and the Redux version from 2001, which extends the whole picture by approximately 49 minutes of cut out footage. So let it make it perfectly clear. I am reviewing the REDUX version and NOT the original, which, in my opinion, is outstanding and MUCH better than this pointless waste of effort. Now. Every technical element from the picture such as sound effects, original soundtracks, camera quality IS actually as decent as from the original, perhaps even better. But this is not actually important, is it now. I mean, you most certainly do not want to watch an extended version of ''Apocalypse Now'' just for a 'smoother' result, now do you. The main point of this new version was to get to see the movie completely uncut, to view the original with all it's cut out footage. And that, dear friends, is an absolute let down. The majority of the new footage is mostly simply pointless and boring to watch. In fact these missing scenes are SO dull, that they actually cast a sort of a shadow on the original movie in this version, thus making the whole 3 hours and 16 minutes of this film look weak and frustrating to sit through. Never have I been so disappointed in an extended version of a great film.

NOT Recommended. It's pointless, TOO LONG, and boring. And if you already saw the original, you can just see it once more. It is definitely better than watching this extended version, which, in conclusion, is A WASTE OF OVER 3 HOURS.
2011-07-18
Apocalypse—nothing happens—Now.
* Just to get it out of the way: I viewed the Redux version of this film, and that MAY be the cause of some of my negative statements. I cannot say for certain either way.

If you've ever been a member of a message board and you've read the thread about the last movie you watched, you'll know that 99% of the replies have one word or less beside the official score. For a long time, I wondered how that could be. I used to think, "Don't these people have any more of an opinion other than 'good' or 'bad' or 'average'? They just wasted their lives watching a movie; couldn't they say more than just a score?" It took me a few months to figure the entire situation out, but when I did, it made perfect sense. Most movies—even good movies—are so predictable and unoriginal—even if they're enjoyable—people still lack any real, definitive feelings about them. They see a movie on a Friday night and by Saturday night they forgot they even watched it. As a writer myself, I know first-hand there is nothing worse than an indifferent audience, but it seems that sums up most of the American population. Why? Because of films like Apocalypse Now.

Apocalypse Now opens up with a semi-interesting beginning. It misleads the viewer into thinking that it actually has some physiological depth, then completely drops all depth into the gutter by the 10-minute mark and never picks it up again. Despite what you were lead to believe, there is no plot here. Or let me rephrase that: there is a plot, but it drops it after the 20-minute mark and never picks it up again until the final 30 minutes. Everything between those two points is exactly what you expect for a clichéd war drama . . .

Talking. It almost amuses me that an "epic" movie can have the flattest characters in cinema history, but the screenwriters always have them talk and talk as if they're actually interesting to listen to. In Apocalypse Now's case, the characters are ALL walking stereotypical war clichés with legs and—unfortunately— tongues. They're all simply nothing but dumb animals created to carry the pointless dialogue out. They talk so much it's downright nauseating. What are they talking about? I forgot, and I just finished the film 10 minutes ago. Their dialogue is all predictable copy/paste war dialogue; I do remember that much. Naked girls, guns, cliché monologues about life/death—all the stuff you've heard thousands of times. I was never a soldier in the Vietnam War, but I can pretty much assure you the real soldiers talked about more than these unimaginative movies give them credit for.

Besides talking, what do you get in Apocalypse Now? Well, there are only two main action scenes in the entire movie, so you can cross balls-to-the-wall war action off your list of expectations. No, this nearly 4-hour long film focuses on shots of boats going down the river with soldiers talking, and not much else. There is no emotional experience here. There is no "horror", as the tagline proclaims. The most "horror" you get is a bunch of PG-rated war scenes and some eerie music as the soldiers move through fog. If the director had focused on the true horror of realistic war, I wouldn't have to be sarcastic when I say: How terrifying! Instead, however, the director focuses things we've seen before. Hundreds of times. He focuses on the copy/paste Hollywood-style war, not the truly gritty, dirty war. He doesn't rub your nose in the true horror of war; he pats you on the back and gives you generic conversation scenes.

My point here: Apocalypse Now is one of the most boring movies even filmed. It's also safe and predictable, adding nothing whatsoever to the overdone war genre. It doesn't leave you thinking, "My God, this is terrible!" It leaves you thinking, "My God, I could have done the laundry with that wasted time . . ."

And that's all. That's all there is to say about this nearly 4-hour long movie. The entire synopsis of every major event from open to close could literally be told in two sentences of text. Sometimes you have to sit back and realize that most award-winning, critically acclaimed, "classic" films are nothing but hollow shells. They boast great acting and cinematography, but they have no story. No soul. No moral. No thrill. No point . . .

This is why I blame films like Apocalypse Now for the indifference people have toward movies. These films are supposedly the best of the best, but at the same time they're completely forgettable to anyone who doesn't try their hardest to find pleasure in boredom in hopes of becoming an all-powerful FILM BUFF on some cheesy website. There is nothing wrong with being intellectual. There is something wrong with being pretentious and internally forcing yourself to love a film just because the critics do. And those are the only people who could give Apocalypse Now a perfect score. Or even a mildly positive score.

0/10
2009-01-26
Baring of the human soul
What can I say about this film is that it's simply one of the best ever. Francis Ford Coppola shows us the deepest emptiness of the human soul that the ruins of war mean. If you have read Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness", the book in which the movie's concept is based, you will understand the parallelism between the original and the Marlon Brando's Kurtz, the character who symbolizes the greatest and the lowest of the human being.

I want to write a meaningful comment, that's because I'm going to talk about the metaphysical part of this movie. There is a lot of comments talking about the movie itself, so read them if you are looking for that.

Apocalypse Now is a war movie that encloses a deeper story; the journey of a man who is caught between war and peace, death and life, and doesn't find any meaning for both of them. When his superiors task him an extra-official mission, he is involved in the chase of a ghost, a man who is apparently mad but whose actions in the current war seem to be brilliant. Captain Benjamin L. Willard finds himself chasing a man who admires in order to kill him, although he doesn't know what he will do when he faces Kurtz. In his path Willard have to confront the horrors of war, which degenerate forth to complete madness, nonsense and death like the most terrible nightmare.

The rest is history. I think that the Redux version adds darkness and daze to the original Apocalypse Now, deepening more in its real meaning; not only an anti-war movie but the baring of the human soul.
2005-08-11
Why I rated it a 1/10
I would have given this a 9/10 as it is a superb movie.

But showing heartless animal snuff to visualize heartless human war is sarcasm at best. It would totally be fitting and OK if it were special FX, but it weren't. Mr. Coppola even "went overboard" with "a truckload of animals to slaughter". No sir. That's not OK.

Special-FX would have been believable enough to "shock" and to show the similarity between the sacrifice of the buffalo and of Kurtz. The film would have not suffered an inch of credibility, nor a tiny fragment of it's impact. The contrary would have been more likely.

And no, I'm no fighter for animal rights and omnivore myself, but this is USELESS. A heartless Mr. Coppola trying to convince me, the viewer, that war is senseless and what not. He didn't even understand his own vision himself as it seems by such a behavior.

I'm stopping here, because no one is ever reading this. But if, here is the reason why I down voted this. And usually I won't do that just to express my opinion or hate of a genre or whatever.
2014-01-12
War is madness!
I don´t know which version of the film I´ve seen, I have a VHS version that has the playmates scene, and does not has B52s bombing Kurtz´headquarters...anyway, all what this movie is about is that war is total madness. A crazy colonel that attacks a Vietcong town only to go surfing? I can buy that, and the playmates also! This film has its surreal moments, but it is just a way of showing how unreal reality (and war) can be. War can twist off anyone´s mind. A total masterpiece.

2002-01-12
quite possibly the best and most important film in history
Even with all the cinema dealing with the trauma of the Vietnam War (Jacob's Ladder, The Deer Hunter, Apocalypse Now, and Taxi Driver to an extent) one feels that we don't even know the half of what happened. Even contemplating the horror feels inhuman. And a progression - or retreat? - to the inhumanity that it necessitates is a key part of Apocalypse Now, Coppola's greatest and one of the most important films ever made. Loosely based on Joseph Conrad's 1902 classic, "Heart of Darkness" which chronicles the loss of sanity and corruption of morality that comes with distance from civilization - a surfacing of a bestial nature, as it were, a la Lord of the Flies - it brings the story of a physical and psychological journey to Vietnam. The story is of Willard, a general commissioned on a special mission to Cambodia after his first tour of duty in Vietnam is served. Willard at the beginning of the film is stuck in Saigon, psychologically unable to go back home - eerily echoing Nicky in The Deer Hunter. So he is contacted: his mission is to assassinate a renegade Green Beret who has isolated himself in a remote outpost on the Nung River, and who has purportedly gone completely insane - worshiped like a god by the natives, and killing indiscriminately. This man's name is Colonel Kurtz, played by Marlon Brando in the second best role of his career (the best being Stanley Kowalski in A Streetcar Named Desire). As Willard journeys upriver in an army boat with some soldiers accompanying, his witnessing the horrors and the insanity - and the overwhelming pointlessness of it all - leads to an eerie sympathy and identification with Kurtz before they even meet. By the time they do, Kurtz's methods don't really seem as wrong or as they should, and they certainly don't seem too unusual or out-of-place. Apocalypse - a place beyond morality, the outpost on the end of the world. The loss of civilization, the loss of judgement, of self. Kurtz's monologue about an atrocity he witnessed as a Green Beret, and his later revelation, is one of the most chilling and well-delivered speeches in cinema history. The film is about trauma, about the human spirit and its breaking point - here, it's a lot like The Deer Hunter, and just as good. Apocalypse, however, takes the boundaries of what we can endure to a global level - Coppola's sweeping footage of the humid, murky jungles of Cambodia and an opening sequence of helicopters amid exploding forests and an orange sky - set to an oddly fitting Doors soundtrack - as well as chilling scenes on the river and of an air raid on a village with Wagner blasting from speakers (a scene which has gone down as one of the most chilling, darkly humorous, and strikingly pointless war scenes ever) - this all contributes to the sense of Apocalypse - the end of the world - and not at some distant point in the future, but Apocalypse Now and forever. The Deer Hunter is much more up close and personal, you can even tell by the title, and shows the totalling effect trauma has on the individual psyche, the breaking down of the human soul, and its ability to either surrender completely to forces of darkness, or to limp on. This is why both films are equal - they are two parts of the same thing. In "Heart of Darkness", Kurtz is shown as conflicted between morality (civilization) and his inner savage. In Apocalypse Now, Kurtz has left all conflict behind. He is beyond good and evil. He has let go of morality like a drowning man lets go of a saving hand in the moments before his death. Kurtz indeed is only waiting for death, quoting T. S. Eliot in his temple to himself, lost in the jungle. His last words, and the words echoed at the end of the movie, are, "The horror...the horror." He is referring to the infinite void of existence, of the human psyche, and to the pitch black emptiness within his own mind, where atrocities are born again. It is impossible to express in words the experience one goes through watching this film - the experience, in short, that Willard experiences on his journey. The end part, at the outpost, almost in fact comparable to its brother scene in The Deer Hunter, is one of the most deeply, calmly, and seductively disturbing things I've ever seen.
2006-05-09
Yes, it's the best movie ever.
AN is the best movie ever shot. All the cinematographic language is used to a point never met before or afterward. The story is thrilling, and goes up and up to the climatic end. Everything that happens in it has a sense and the levels of reading are infinite. Every viewer will have his own interpretation about the meaning of the movie. It's a matter of feeling the meaning of the events: all of them put together conform a huge, psychological fresco of war. Every war, not only Vietnam. By the way, the Redux version is OK, but not truly necessary, except for the French colonists' scene. It's the only one I really think that should have been in the original version. It's really revealing of the position of France in Indochina. It should be shown in schools to teach the meaning of colonialism.
2007-03-28
"The horror...the horror" is the reality of war and its effects...
Spoilers. This review has been edited due to word limit.

`The horror. The horror.' Marlon Brando, Apocalypse Now (1979) and Apocalypse Now Redux (2001)

The sentence which is as famous as `Here's looking at you, kid,' or `Are you talkin' to me?' or `May the Force be with you,' or `I'll be back,' means a little more than some one-liners. When it is spoken it lingers in the air with an importance and meaning that does not go unnoticed. What might drive some viewers nuts is that they may never find an answer to the horror unless they re-watch the film and try to pay close observation to every single frame.

What, exactly, does this line of dialogue mean? The horror spoken of is the reality of war. The reality of moral men being so easily corrupted that they turn on their inborn instincts and kill fellow beings without any sign of guilt. When Capt. Willard (Martin Sheen) stands before the dying Col. Kurtz (Marlon Brando) at the end of the film, `The horror.the horror.' is the realization of Willard's corruptness. He has mercilessly killed a man in cold blood as part of his assignment. This isn't a typical Hollywood ending. In most cases a character gains something, whether it be emotionally, physically, mentally or all three. But Willard both gains and loses. He gains the knowledge that he has lost his morals. And that is a shocking ending.

`Apocalypse Now' is Francis Ford Coppola's tribute to the artistic side of filmmaking. This film is wholly different from `The Godfather.' It is hallucinogenic, visually dazzling, and an ode to the guilty side of human nature. At first it seems realistic, and then it becomes strange, and then symbolic, and, by the end, original in its own unique perspective of the spiritual side of warfare. This is not as much a film about the Vietnam War as it is a film about the war within us.

At first it does appear to be another war film. Captain Willard (Sheen) is assigned by an Army Lieutenant (a young Harrison Ford) to assassinate a renegade American Colonel named Kurtz (Brando), who is hiding out somewhere in Vietnam with a hoard of troops who more or less act as his slaves.

Willard carries out his mission `with extreme prejudice,' heading out on a boat along with four soldiers, including the boat captain, Chief (Albert Hall), Chef (Frederic Forest), and a very young `Larry' Fishburne (who later went on to appear as Morpheus in `The Matrix').

"Apocalypse Now" is in a many ways a modern update of Homer's Odyssey. As our main character, Willard, carries on his journey, he meets an array of original and strange characters, including Lt. Col. Kilgore (Robert Duvall), who has a strange fetish for surfing, and a stoned photographer (Dennis Hopper), whose lively gestures and mannerisms can be compared to those of the very much lesser Jeremy Davies in "The Million Dollar Hotel," one of the worst films I have ever seen. Davies failed to make any connection with an audience; Hopper does. He is like the poetic vibe between Willard and Kurtz; he is like an interpreter going back and forth and speaking in foreign languages. In this case, he is translating Kurtz to Willard, although I'm not so sure Kurtz needs a translation of Willard.

Many films are lucky enough to have one or two memorable scenes or lines. "Apocalypse Now" has many. Kilgore descending upon a Vietnam village playing Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" remains one of the most remembered scenes in all of film history. There is sharpness to it, a brutality to it, an ironic tone to it, and also a sense of playfulness. When Kilgore kneels down on that beach and says, `I love the smell of napalm in the morning.it smells like victory,' we all crack a smile.

I won't lie to you: `Apocalypse Now' is a strange film. It isn't exactly the easiest thing to analyze. The end may frustrate some viewers if they don't understand Marlon Brando's significant speeches. But what it all comes down to, what really matters, is that this film is about the dark nature of the human psyche. The horror is the realization of war and its effects, not the war itself. Kurtz says, `You have a right to kill me. But you have no right to judge me.' Brando's character, Kurtz, is left to the audience to judge. To many naïve viewers he may appear as a crazy loon whose power got to his head. But that isn't what Francis Ford Coppola is trying to get across. By fighting in Vietnam, Kurtz has realized just how great he had it, and how bad some others had it. By walking through devastated villages he eventually comes to realize that we are the naïve ones, living our lives in a fool's paradise. We are totally naïve to our surroundings and possible misfortunes until they hit. By seeing how unlucky some Vietnamese are, Kurtz realizes just how easily he could be struck by something. Just how easily he could end up like the people around him. And he also realizes that the people who did this are people who have abandoned their morals and left them at the door. Many people think the horror is one thing. It is two. For Kurtz, the horror is the reality of how naïve he was and the reality of the war's impact upon men. And after Willard murders Kurtz, and hears Kurtz's dying words, he realizes it too. He realizes the effects of war. To see so many soldiers with no sense of right or wrong makes him realize the horror of what war can do to a man. And what it has done to him. The horror.

5/5 stars -

2003-08-27
Truly a Masterpiece
Somewhere on IMDb there is a discussion about the greatest director of all times (Spielberg, Copolla and others are named there). The greatest argument was around Spielberg and whether he is or isn't a great director. The problem with Spielberg is that while he is a master technician, most of his films lack depth.Saving Ryan is really outstanding from a technical point of view, but its message is dull and while its very entertaining, it doesn't make you think about anything. AN is the best movie I ever saw because it combines great shooting with a deep philosophical perspective on so many things, starting from war in general, the clash of civilizations, the condition of soldier in wartimes (is a soldier a hero or an assassin? Brando says he is neither, the french lady says he is both ...) and many others. The problem with some people is that they try to argue about whether these points are true or false. But a great movie, and a great piece of art in general is supposed to spark arguments, not to solve them ... Maybe Coppola is right, or maybe he isn't, nobody holds the truth anyway. You can watch this movie for its outer beauty, amazing scenes, great acting and memorable quotes and you will be entirely satisfied. But what really make this movie a masterpiece is its inner quality. You can't help but make a comparison with the recent Fahrenheit documentary.Both Copolla and Moore tackle similar issues, but while Copolla presents matters from an outside , objective point of view, Moore takes a very partisan position that really compromises the whole point of a documentary ... It is really a shame that a film like Fahrenheit 9/11 won a prestigious award like Cannes. But anyway, if you want to start to understand a little of the Vietnam war, the Iraq war, the second World War and any war in general, you should definitely see this movie, and not the other one ...
2004-07-04
📹 Apocalypse Now full movie HD download 1979 - Marlon Brando, Martin Sheen, Robert Duvall, Frederic Forrest, Sam Bottoms, Laurence Fishburne, Albert Hall, Harrison Ford, Dennis Hopper, G.D. Spradlin, Jerry Ziesmer, Scott Glenn, Bo Byers, James Keane, Kerry Rossall - USA. 📀
×