Did Apocalypse Now warrant this much mainstream attention to the "making of" aspect of the film in its day? Did all the hyping-up of the extremely difficult nature of the behind-the-scenes drama detract from or improve upon the experience of viewing the film itself? I ask this out of genuine curiosity. I wasn't alive back then.
Those questions come to mind whenever critics of The Revenant call out the "showy" nature of the acting (OMG will Leo get an Oscar?)…
You know, this actually made sense to me. I was bracing for a fevered surrealist nightmare, but this felt much more like a coherent narrative than anything else.
I found myself eerily reminded of Bergman's Persona more than once - was that just me? Not only a sense that the two lead women might just be the same person, but a similarly energetic claustrophobia that pulsates in the silences between them. There's sexual energy, but there's also sincere compassion and…
I get it. I finally know what the hell Lars is doing.
Okay. So firstly, this so-called conclusion to the "Golden Heart Trilogy" is basically the standard by which all polarizing films should be measured. It's just that divisive. I felt my star rating dropping from five to zero and back again, more times than I could count. Of course by this point the star rating is unnecessary and silly, and it's obvious that we have a winner. Lars von…