"Apocalypse Now! Redux" is celebrated as one of the most powerful anti-war manifestos. One of the reasons for its long-term success is, without a doubt, its precocious post-modernism. The Air Cavalry scene, in particular, conveys a message that will become part of the post-modern intellectual credo. Most core Western cultural symbols, old and new, are intrinsically violent, "barbaric." "Apocalypse Now!" is not only a harbinger of this vision, it takes it to the extreme. In it, even the counterculture, in other contexts celebrated as a "liberating force," is intertwined with the lethal vines of death. In the new release of the movie the Playboy culture and the untrammeled eroticism of the sixties become central driving forces of the Vietnam war. In Coppola's own words "This is an L.A. war." His synopsis of the movie sums it up: "The American War 'to bring civilization to the ignorant millions' is merely the extension of mercantile colonialism[;] the horror and savagery lie not in the jungle, but in the American culture itself, with its powerless [sic] technology and pop culture."

Although not very original-the idea goes all the way back to Marx-this vision, combined with a daring cinematography and paranoid atmosphere, made the movie into a landmark cinematic event. At the time (1979) it sent shivers down, for different reasons, obviously, many liberal and conservative spines.

When I first saw "Apocalypse Now!, behind the Iron Curtain, I found it an exhilarating visual experience. It gave me a glimpse into, I thought, a new world of meanings. Particularly intriguing was the idea that one can talk about war, usually associated with the "shoot 'em up" clichés of the "Dirty Dozen"-kind, without using grandiloquent musical scores and images. War can be "modern." Soldiers can smoke weed and listen to rock-and-roll. The Rolling Stones and the Doors had to shape a war that took place in the middle of the Aquarian era. This could be accurate and honest in its intents, if not in details, I told myself until recently, since we are talking about an expressive work of art. I never gave a lot of thought to how much this really fit the ways of the American military or its war in Vietnam. Up to a point it sounded quite realistic to me that crazy American colonels could be surfing aficionados and that their use of technology would be as reckless as their military machinery would allow them. Why, I could not precisely tell, probably ignorance about the ways of American military would be the best explanation.

But, then, I had yet to hear about the Ia Drang battle. The eye openers were the movie "We were solidiers," released in March, 2002 and the book with the same title. They recount the 3-day battle of November 16-19, 1965 between units of the same 1st Air Cavalry Division that appears in Coppola's movie and the 33rd, 66th and 302nd North Vietnamese Army regiments, infiltrated in South Vietnam from Cambodia. The movie, far less esthetically ambitious than "Apocalypse Now!," is however painstakingly accurate. It helps you understand not only the Vietnam War but where Coppola's "Apocalypse Now!" fails the test of a truly great work of art.

Coppola fails to penetrate to the raw reality of the Vietnam war. This is because he utilizes and refines in his movie derivative material. His characters and icons-human, intellectual and historical-come from a large repository of artistically already transfigured-with a political-radial agenda-materials.

The movie draws on journalistic work directly influenced by the counter-culture. Some of them seem lifted directly from the famous, for its partisanship, photo-essay "Vietnam, Inc" by Philip Jones Griffith and prefaced by Noam Chomsky. The scene in which Kilgore offers water from his canteen to a Viet Cong fighter wounded in the gut, saying "Any man brave enough to fight with his guts strapped on him can drink from my canteen any day," it's obviously inspired from a similar episode depicted in Griffith's book. There, a young Vietcong, although wounded in the abdomen and keeping his intestines inside with a wash bowl, was taken prisoner only after three days of fight, winning the respect of the American soldiers, who offered him water with approximately the same words used by Kilgore.

In another scene, Kilgore is shown flicking "death cards" atop of Vietcong corpses. This is a "creative" reinterpretation of a war folklore theme. Peter Cowie, the author of the companion book launched with the new version of "Apocalypse Now!," explains that this is "a slight [sic] perversion of what occurred during the toughest phase of the war." The sic refers to the fact that in the real incident, presented in Michael Herr's "Dispatches," the Americans are the victims. "Once after an ambush that killed a lot of Americans," cites Cowie the "Dispatches" passage that inspired Coppola, "the NVA covered the field with copies of a photograph showing yet another young, dead American, and on its flipside a mimeographed message: 'Your x-ray have just come back from the lab and we think we know what your problem is.'" This is a quite surprising act of "artistic license" since Herr was directly involved in the movie.

In consequence, the themes and people presented in "Apocalypse Now!" spring not from reality but from the meta-reality of the anti-war movement. Nothing betrays more the fundamental shortcoming of "Apocalypse Now!" than Coppola's inability to put in perspective the fact that the officers who lead the American troops in Vietnam were, by and large, the same people who saved America and the world from the Nazi and Japanese totalitarianisms. They had little in common with the sixties and with the counterculture. Their personal cultural style was influenced much more by Gregory Peck, Henry Fonda and Humphrey Bogard than by Elvis or the Rolling Stones.

Everything I read in "We Were Soldiers" convinced me that, for example, Lt.-Col. William Kilgore is a very distorted representation of reality. He has very little to do with history and everything to do with the "post-colonial" caricature of the Vietnam War. The average battalion commander in the 1st Air Cavalry Division is much more like the author of "We were soldiers" himself, lieutenant general (ret.) Harold (Hal) Moore.

In 1965 a Lieutenant Colonel himself, commander of the 1st battalion, 7th Cavalry, 1 Air Cav. Division, his career and lifestyle do not betray any shadow of frivolity. Originally from Kentucky, father of 5 children in 1965, a West Point graduate, he commanded two companies in the Korean War and had spent many years abroad, in Europe and Asia, before returning to Fort Benning, in Georgia, to join the 1st Air Cav. An accomplished aviator and master parachutist he was a "straight and narrow" soldier, remembered for shaving, and demanding his troops and the occasional war correspondent attached to his unit to shave, too, every day, even when on the frontlines.

Moore's 1st Air Cav. commanding officers were made of the same stuff. Some of them were recruited from the heroes of the "greatest generation:" the battalion and company commanders of Salerno, Normandy and Bastogne. As Moore describes him in his book, the division commander of 1st Air Cav., "Major General Harry W.O. Kinnard, a native Texan [...] was West Point, class of 1939, and Airborne qualified in 1942. Kinnard was one of the shooting starts of the 101st Airborne in World War II. He was Brigadier General's Tony McAuliffe's operations officer, G-3, at the Battle of Bastogne in the Bulge, and the man who suggested that General McAuliffe specifically respond to German surrender demand with one historic word: "Nuts!"

I was disappointed to see that this book doesn't contain the original version of the Apocalypse Now script, by John Milius. It could have at least contained one of the later Milius/Coppola rewrites, such as the final revised 1975 version, which is easily found online. The simple fact is, those scripts provide a better reading experience; you're better off just watching the movie than reading this one. And, if you're a fledgling screenwriter, you're certainly not going to learn anything about the craft of scriptwriting from this book.

The reason being, as any viewer of the excellent documentary "Hearts of Darkness" knows, is that Coppola basically gave his actors free reign in expanding and ad-libbing their dialog on the set. Having read the earlier Milius/Coppola rewrites, I know that a lot of the lines in Apocalypse Now were in fact from the script. But many more of them (particularly Brando and Hopper's dialog) were in fact made up by the actors themselves. So to publish this book and say that it's a pure creation of Milius and Coppola is a bit misleading (something which Coppola himself vaguely asserts in his introduction).

A straight-up publication of an earlier version would have been preferable, if for the simple fact that it would give amazing insight into the twisted path this film took, from script to celluloid. For example, the '75 version mentioned above (the script Coppola started with on the set, but eventually rewrote day by day) not only opened with a psychedelic action scene, it also ended with one: a surreal, apocalyptic (of course) set-piece that involved untold VC, rampant destruction, and drugged-out GI's, with "Light My Fire" blaring over humongous stereos. It's interesting to imagine what the movie would've been like, had Coppola stuck with this ending, though from the beginning he claimed he had a problem with it; he found it too much like a comic book. Still, many have complained that the ending of Coppola's actual film is a bit underwhelming; there are many who would have in fact preferred the climactic sequence Milius envisioned. As for myself, I like both.

There are other interesting differences in the early Milius/Coppola drafts. For example, Willard is more of a devil-may-care super-soldier; he shares his joints with the PBR crew, and takes easily to murder: in one well-written sequence, Willard, realizing the French Plantation owners are attempting to trick him out of crucial fuel and ammo supplies, fools them by murdering some Vietnamese guards and planting their bodies in empty supply crates - crates which the French believe contain fuel and ammo. Kurtz as well is different, a blond-haired he-man who kills hundreds of VC single-handedly. Hardly the character Marlon Brando played in the film!

Actually, it's unfair of me to review these earlier incarnations of the script. The fact is, the version published here is far removed from them. But even though I'm unimpressed with this book, I still can't give it a poor review; even though it's mostly just a transcription, still, it's a transcription of my favorite movie, so that means it can't be ALL bad.

Alright Apocalypse Now (AN) fans, here it is, the complete screenplay of the recently released Apocalypse Now Redux (ANR). If you are looking for insight into this classic film, I suggest that you check out the appropriate books by Eleanor Coppola, Peter Cowie, and Karl French. If you want to enjoy this movie in a literary fashion, then look no further and pick up this book. Written by John Milius and Francis Ford Coppola, this screenplay covers everything that you saw in AN and ANR. It's a great way to enjoy your favorite bits of dialog as well as to explore the restored scenes. It's a shame that there are only 8 pages of color and b&w photos (with only one shot from ANR) though. With the release of the expanded film, I would have expected a few more extras here. Anyway, this is a must have for all AN/ANR fans. And remember, Charlie don't surf!!!

Given that the Ford Mondeo is actually a Ford Contour of the UK, there was no information about the pictures that were used. In the section were they talk about changing the radio, the picture shows the climate control dials aren't the same as the Contour's, but of the Mondeo. They should have mentioned that the picture didn't match

ITS INFORMATION TO REPAIR ALL FORD AND MYSTIQUE. NOTES PROCEDURES ETC

I actually read this book before it was submitted [having 'Mike' live with me helped], and was disappointed that he was asked to take a great deal of the meat out of the story. As the model for Sharon Rose, i wasn't thrilled to be killed off, either [he didn't warn me, either, & kept insisting in act that he'd 'save' her in the final cut].

It's the earliest cyberpunk story - written *before* there was such a term - but if he had the power, i'd suggest he re-releade it *with* the 'good stuff' added back in. I wouldn't insist that he save Sharon - this time i'm warned - but his dishonesty flaws what could've been a better book. Maybe even he realized it, because this book doesnt sing the way the unpublished MS did...

I am still amazed that noone else has ever given John Ford his due. This book is, as of now, the only title by him I have ever read. It is, however, one of the best SF books I've ever read (on a par with Dune), and certainly a far better construct of the wired far future that anything the CyberPunks were able to create. If you liked Steinbeck's "Tortilla Flat" better than Hemingway's "Snows of Kilamanjaro", you'll like "Web Of Angels" far more than "Mona Lisa Overdrive" or "Islands in the Stream". This book is what inspired Rucker, Sterling, and Gibson. And maybe Jean Michel Jarre as well

how the hell do i know if the information this book is what i want? what if this book only gives me the information i already know? meaning, it will only give half of the information, but not enough to finish the job.

This book is much better than Chilton's. Mustang II's are Mustangs too!!!

Just what the title says. I can't believe amazon allowed the first guy's review. He needs to learn how to do research or graduate from high school :)
Another great source for repair info is the yahoo! group- mustangiima. Use a search engine to find it then join up! Many knowledgeable people are on that list. Good luck with your II.

This is the first repair manual I bought to assist me in restoring my '76 Bronco. While it provides an adequate overview of the vehicles it tries to represent, it does not offer enough info to be useful to the more experienced do-it-yourselfer. Additionally, the coverage of pre-'78 trucks is insufficient for a manual that claims to be "Based on a complete teardown and rebuild". The only info that seems to stand out as being particularly useful are the chassis electrical schematics in the back. This manual is fine as a (very) basic reference to keep in the glovebox; however, if you're looking to do something more involved than doing a tuneup or brakes, look for a set of factory service manuals.

As with most Haynes or Chilton manuals this book does give some useful information, step-by-step descriptions and nice diagrams. However it's sometimes a little vauge in it's descriptions. Also, as an early Bronco owner, this book only covers 1973 and later. This leaves 7 years of earlier production not covered.

Definitely a good reference, but I would also recommend finding an original factory Ford shop manual set. (5 book set usually found at swap meets or specialty automotive literature vendors)

This manual is an absolute essential for anyone who wants to work on an early ford bronco or 70's pick-up. It covers every topic from routine maintenance to engine and body repair. The content is based on a complete tear-down and rebuild of the truck. Although it is very technical subject matter, the wording is relatively simple where possible, and diagrams and photographs are very helpful. Information such as engine specifications and wiring diagrams are provided for individual year models where applicable. It does not discuss restoration explicitely, but the information it contains is as invaluable to the restorer as it is to the amatuer mechanic. In other words, this is truly THE book every early bronco owner should have on his shelf.

The only reason I did not initially buy this book was because I lost my checkbook. This seems to be a blessing in disguise due to the reviews I have seen. Granted the book does provide interesting information and help sum information about a world that grows more complex with each book. Unfortunately I found the images to be rather disappointing. The art was ok, but I have seen and expected better from someone like Jordan. The information about the other lands looked interesting, but I found it ruined the intrigue of the series in many ways. For example, Shara was supposed to be this mystical land that no one has ever seen and is shrouded in mystery (China). Well, from what I scanned of the book, it gives a map, history, people, and government of the land. This practically spoils the entertainment and surprise when entering the land. I am not going to buy the book simply because it will make the remainder of the series more enjoyable. When Book 8 comes out, I'll reread the series to catch up.

I must say, being a fan of Robert Jordan, that the information in this book was invaluable as well as enlightening. It contained more detailed information on such things as the Age of Legends than was in the actual series, and gave background on many otherwise bleak details. However, I would not recommend buying this book for the art it contains, of which I had high expectations and was fairly disappointed in. Granted that the artists idea of such creatures as mydraal and ogier, for example, will conflict with my own ideas. I do regret to say that the actual quality of the art was lacking. It looked to have been done quite quickly and with haste. Overall, however, the book was very well done and deserves 5+ stars for its content, and 3 stars for the artwork. It is definitely something to buy if you can just get past the art.

Many choose to critisize this book saying the text is general, the typos are many, and the information is the same that you find in the series. As to the typos: it's a first edition! expect typos; that's why people buy first editions. Also, if the text got anymore specific, can you imagine how long this book would be? Some of the information is new and can't be found in the regular series, but most can. Of course! This book wasn't written to give us spoilers; it's a compilation of all the odd facts presented in the books and a useful reference. If a person buys it expecting otherwise they'll be disappointed, but for what it is, it's great! I will conceed that many of the pictures are inaccurate, but no more so than those of the book jackets, and as far as I'm concerned a few (not very many) do seem to be accurate. Overall, it is a good reference and did answer some questions I had about the series. I knew what I was buying beforehand, and it lived up to my expectations.

If you've never read a Ford bio, this is a decent introduction. But the book has three problems. It has very little interpretation and evaluation of the films. Much of the book is about Ford's flaws as a human being, especially his cruelty to the people he worked with. Film by film, he piles up examples of Ford's bad behavior without explaining what all this nastiness has to do with Ford's achievement as an artist. Finally, much of the book's material comes from interviews. In a bibliographical essay, Davis lists all this material. In the text, however, he never makes it clear where he got a particular quote. Davis did quite a few interviews for the book. Those don't need further citation. If you want to track down quotations from other interviews, however, forget it. There's no way of finding out when an interview was given or what the context for the quote is.

Although this book does a reasonable job of delivering the essential information about one of Hollywood's great directors, it spends too much effort attempting to analyze the dark side of John Ford, and too little time dealing with the art he created. The author speculates on Ford's drinking, his sexuality, and his family problems. If you want to know Ford's work, don't buy this book...buy one or two of his movies, instead....or buy Harry Carry Jr's book, or Peter Bogdanovich's book.

I recently read the John Ford biography by Ronald Davis, PhD, and found the book to be well written and very informative. After reading this book, it became quite obvious that Ford had an unhappy personal life. While Ford was in control of his professional life, his personal life was out of control. Ford was a represed man who lived a lie...

Typical format of most Haynes manuals, good illustrations and pictures. Intended for the do-it-yourself person that has average skills and some knowledge of automotive systems. I particularly like Haynes for their directions on improvising those "special tools" available only to dealers. Sometimes this type of advice is worth the cost of the manual, rather than have to buy or rent a special tool. Be aware this manual does not cover the 4WD models and driveline systems unique to them.

I found this book very basic...its allright for the average Joe...it needs better electrical diagrams

The section on front disc brake repair disassembly of the front wheel drive hubs is explained well in words and pictures. If there is anything negative it's the electrical section - it leaves you asking more questions than it answers.

This is a basic repair manual. For example, if your wanting to work on the transmission you turn to that chapter and read something like "do not attempt to repair a transmission. This is beyond the scope of the average home mechanic". Well, isn't that the reason you buy a repair manual in the first place? Your much better off to order the Ford Automotive Manual for you year of Bronco II. It is the standard by which the Ford mechanics work from. The Haynes manual is just this side of being a joke.

PS. It does have nice pictures however...

For anyone hoping to find good electrical schematics, this is not the right book. I cannot trace the horn circuit, for example. In addition, I have a failed gas gauge. There is nothing in the book that discusses how to fix this problem. As with some other books, there is a lot of info on how to completely overhaul an engine - but not enough on more minor repairs.

I also own both this and the analogous Chilton manual and I have to say that the Haynes is by far the more accessible: The drawings and photographs are clearer, the instructions are better written, and the seperation of the information regarding the different engines is better. Also, the general maintenance (oil change, lube, and tune up) information is much better.

The Chilton manual, on the other hand, has extensive tables of torque listings, includes Ford part numbers in the drawings, and has factory-style detail regarding the catalyst.

On balance, these two are complementary. Unfortunately, not even both of these in concert are exhaustive: there are simply some details that are not covered. If anyone has a better manual please let me know.

Regarding the electircal schematics comment from previous:
The total system is cut up into several sections and moving between the sections may be tricky (if not impossible), but, again, the Haynes is more clearly labeled.

Disclaimer: I have not yet used either manual for a major job.