Original Cut or Redux? I usually go for extended versions or Director's Cut, but since Coppola full senile/Lucas, I don't know. (What the fuck was Twixt, holy shit. How can one fall so low?)
>>63631317
Original
Directors cut but fast forward through the part where they go to the French house.
The original is a better movie overall, but there's enough neat scenes in the Redux to make it worth watching some other time
>>63631317
Original Cut is one of the greatest films ever made. Redux was a cashgrab made by a money-grubbing director way past his prime. The Redux scenes were all left on the cutting room floor for a reason, the Hearts of Darkness documentary even has footage of Coppola blasting the plantation footage as garbage. The pacing and characterization of the original theatrical cut is perfect, the Redux version fucks everything up and is even redundant.
It's worth watching Redux once just to see it, but I go back to the original cut everytime.
>>63631365
>It's worth watching Redux once just to see it
This. Watch both.
>>63631392
I would say watch the original version first though if you haven't already seen either version. If you don't like the original, there's no way you'll like Redux, and if you don't like Redux, you probably will be less motivated to watch the original.
>>63631336
This is always my answer.
French house almost put me to sleep
>>63631317
The original cut flows just like a dream. It's the only film better than Tarkovsky's Zerkalo at doing so desu
>>63631365
I like the plantation scene but it doesn't make much sense or fit very well with the pace and feeling of the rest of the film
On its own though I feel it stands well
>>63631411
I agree. Watch the original first, then Redux.
The documentary is also worth watching.
