TSHunter

I remember I saw this film when I was right about age six in elementary school. It was on an old-school film projector that were very common at the time (16mm) in public schools in Southern California (at least then if not still in use or replaced entirely by VCR/DVD). It was a screening to get the opinion of kids on what they thought of the film. Although most kids in my particular class didn't like it because in urban areas in Southern California, "country" music was probably not popular at all (and probably still is this way), I remember I liked it because of its curiosity and focus on trains and their history, even though at the time I didn't know who the narrator and occasional folk singer in the film was (Johnny Cash). Of course, since then I have become a large fan, as many people throughout time and cultures who have been exposed to the music, both young and old, people in all sorts of walks of life and locations. Interestingly enough, I was one of the few kids who said I liked the film at the time, and I know that I have been the minority opinion on lots of things before that time and also since. Anyway, I just want to say that if you like Johnny Cash, trains, or folk/roots/country music you may also like this, whether as just a curiosity, or whether as a mainstay in your personal collection. Personally I think it is a good choice but remember I may be a minority opinion. Thanks for reading. 7/10

**Possible spoilers ahead** I still think Peter Jackson shouldn't have wasted his time with this, and instead have made more Middle Earth films like The Hobbit and The Silmarillion and such. There is the good, the bad, and just the plain fake parts of this film. The best examples of two different instances of irritable fakeness in this film is when all the extras are in the stage theatre with the big, worse-than-muppet Kong and Jack Black is talking. When you look at the long shots of King Kong that get all the extras, you see this big fake monkey that doesn't move. When they try to do a little better with the close-ups, it still just looks like a bad animatronics monstrosity (in a bad way, if that wasn't clear). Also, the thing about the lead chick falling in love with a big monkey to the extreme they went was just preposterous. I mean I have known some dumb girls (and some really smart ones, usually called "women"), but I don't think *anyone* is that dumb, retarded or sick to fall in love with a huge monkey in the regard they go to. It would be sick enough to do so with a human sized one. :O Anyway, there are some interesting and well done parts of this film, but it is entirely lopsided and way, way, way too long. The biggest question still remains: why did they have to redo King Kong (again), other that to just make grips of money for those involved to line their pockets with? Enough said. 6/10

I have to admit, the first and only six times I saw the original version of this film (not "Redux"), I fell asleep during the film. I was convinced that the original film was made catastrophically unwatchable by the muddled and misguided editing. Several of my friends were angry to the respect that I could actually fall asleep to the "best film ever", in their opinion. As a result, I was relieved when I found out that there was going to be a release of a new version to theatres, a "director's cut", if you will. I purposely waited until it was released on DVD to watch it, and turned the English subtitles on, and I was glad, because I remember lots of the dialog being lost in the original mix (as I think it is also in this as well), but I feel the subtitles help you get through it. You see, I am the kind of person who likes director's cuts, uncensored versions, restored with new footage films, and even letterbox versions, basically the best way a film is intended. There are some exceptions to the rules, like when different editing processes are used, such as "Star Wars: A New Hope", which I still think was a mistake that George Lucas didn't correct some of the very noticeable errors in digital vs. analog editing and prints (i.e. he really should have either re-filmed the original Jabba-the-Hut & Han Solo conversation, instead of a digital re-creation and insertion/replacement of an analog filming of someone different {Jabba}, or just kept the scene cut indefinitely), or when studios take control of films and try to make their own edit and commercial cuts, which is almost always monstrous, just as I've heard with Terry Gilliam's "Brazil". To summarize, it is possible for someone who has issues with this original film to like the "Redux" version, if it is for the reasons as I stated, because I feel that "Apocalypse Now Redux" actually is a better film than the original "Apocalypse Now". Yes, I am bold enough to say it. I am positive that this will offend people who think the original cut is the "best film ever", and I know it is even probable they won't like -this- version, but I don't care about that, just like I didn't rate this version 5-stars, or even think of it as the "best film ever". This film clearly travels the waters between pure evil and insane genius. This is the only version worth watching. 8/10