I finally saw “Apocalypse Now Redux” on video. Was hoping to see it on the big screen, but never got around to it. The two all-new scenes — Capt. Willard’s crew’s sexual encounter with three USO-touring Playboy models and a visit to a plantation owned by French colonists — are interesting, but “Apocalypse Now” was not substantially worse for their absence.

The whole notion of a “director’s cut” is tough to grapple with. In a necessarily collaborative medium such as filmmaking, directing necessarily involves compromises. There are commercial considerations and there are compromises with actors, set designers, costumers, uncooperative locales, etc. A fantastic amount of chaos was especially present during the making of “Apocalypse Now,” as documented in “Hearts of Dearkness: A Filmmaker’s Apocalypse.”

So what do we make of things when 20 years later a director decides to reimagine the whole movie, re-editing it from scratch? Moreover, to what extent does this ownership really exist? The old movie is firmly implanted in the public’s mind. It was shown at festivals, awarded Oscars and has had a long life on home video and in film classes. To what extent is the movie really Coppola’s to tinker with? Though he would like “Redux” to be viewed as the “Apocalypse Now,” it’s not likely to happen.

That’s primarily because the two new scenes are not revelatory. The scene with the Playboy models is confused and tackles the subject of objectification of women in a rather clumsy way. After Capt. Willard trades two barrels of fuel for the women’s time, one of the models prattles on about how being a model is so difficult because no one expects her to have any independent ideas. Meanwhile, Lance paints her with war makeup and paws her relentlessly. A rather heavy-handed way to make the point, and lacking any of the frenzy and excitement of the USO show where the riled up crowd forces the Playboy models to escape via helicopter.

The French plantation scene is an interesting diversion, but instead of adding to enigmatic nature of the film detracts from it. There is a rather involved dinner-table conversation about France’s history in Vietnam as compared to America’s — how they differ, how they are similar. It’s worthwhile as a kind of educational aside, but it’s precisely because of its visceral power that “Apocalypse Now” has such an impact on viewers. The French plantation scene disrupts the overall psychedelic flow of the film which builds to a crescendo when Capt. Williard & Co. finally reach Kurtz’s compound.

The best addition is some more dialogue from Kurtz which better explains what the character is all about, why he went insane and how his insanity relates to war in general and the Vietnam War in particular. I don’t know why so many critics think Brando sleepwalks through the role. I think he’s really compelling as Kurtz, and gives him just the right air of arrogance bordering on pure evil.

Still, “Apocalypse Now Redux” is worth seeing. It will be interesting to see if the original or “Redux” is the one which lasts in cinematic history.

No, I’m not talking about the ending to this Bruce Willis–Billy Bob Thornton vehicle, I’m talking about the bandits’ moral justification for their actions.

Depositors’ money is federally insured up to $100,000, they argue. So, it’s only the government which took those hard-working folks’ money in the first place that will feel the pinch. And anyone who’s banking more than $100,000? Well, they obviously didn’t “work” for it in the first place, the bandits say. I wonder what Willis or Thornton would think if their future salaries were limited to $100,000 per film. But they’re just actors; they don’t deserve the blame — except for being in a mediocre movie.

It’s screenwriter Harley Peyton who deserves the lashing. OK, it’s true that the people who bank less than $100,000 get their money back from the federal government through the FDIC. But where does Peyton think the money to pay them back comes from — the banking fairy? Obviously, taxpayers make up the difference. And that is a net loss to society, because since money is fungible and the FDIC is just replacing the funds the bank robbers stole, the money is essentially going to the bank robbers themselves.

Sure, the costs of recouping the depositors is spread over all of society, so no one in particular feels the pinch. But it all adds up to the same amount of money in the end. It just feels a little better since it is the anonymous taxpaying public — rather than specific depositors at a particular bank — that is left holding the bag.

I’m usually not bothered by pictures which glorify criminals or take a morally neutral approach to their behavior. It allows us to see inside the criminal’s worldview — or at least the criminal’s worldview as imagined by Hollywood screenwriters — and, frankly, it’s more entertaining. But don’t take us for fools with some ridiculous nonsense about nobody really being hurt by bank robbers. Perhaps the fictional bandits in the movie believe that, but there’s no reason to let those lines in the screenplay go unchallenged and treat the audience like idiots.

I’ve heard this line repeated in several bank-robber movies now. I wonder if Hollywood screenwriters actually believe it, or know that their criminal characters are likely to rationalize their behavior that way. Talk about your moral hazards.

Penny Marshall’s film, which I saw on video last weekend, has a few funny moments to recommend it, and the performances are generally first-rate. Steve Zahn is particularly good as the no-good boyfriend/husband who just can’t help being helpless. But at least he’s pretty straightforward about it. His character is poignant because he’s aware of, but still unwilling, to correct his central flaws as a human being.

The same cannot be said of Drew Barrymore‘s turn. She is, firstly, unconvincing as the older Beverly D’Onofrio. While she becomes a mother at 15, she honestly does not look like anything more than an older sister to the 20-year-old version of her son played by Adam García. Secondly, her character is simply unlikable. She is self-involved and refuses to take responsibility for her decisions, to the point of blaming her son for her situation.

She blames her parents, her boyfriend and ultimately her son for getting in the way of her dream of being a writer. And then she finally achieves that dream by spinning gold out of the pain she created for herself and selling the movie rights. I don’t begrudge anyone a living, and perhaps her memoir has layers of depth not presented in the movie, but it’s pretty revolting.

Now, I imagine that’s why Barrymore wanted to tackle the role. Accustomed to cutesy roles in such middling films as “Never Been Kissed” (directed by Penny‘s brother, Garry) and “Home Fries,” she was probably looking for something a little meatier. And there’s no doubt that the movie encompasses some serious subjects: teenage pregnancy, drug addiction, irresponsible parenting, etc.

The major problem is that Marshall and Barrymore want to bring in the emotionally disturbing material for gravitas but don’t want to dwell on it too long before getting to the next heartwarming moment of misbegotten motherhood. While I don’t think that the humor should have been left out entirely, it would have been more effective if the overall tone of the movie had been more serious. Beverly D’Onofrio’s character is not lovable or just one more woman struggling to make it — she made serious mistakes that made her life and, more importantly, her son’s life incredibly difficult. That is tragic and it should be treated with the requisite seriousness.

That D’Onofrio and her son seemed to have made it through is more of a miracle than anything else. In the end, the repugnance of D’Onofrio’s character was not redeemed by anything else the film had to offer.

I sure wish I could have seen Saturday’s 7-6 Red Sox win over the Yankees on TV. What an amazing game. I don’t understand why Fox waits until June to start broadcasting games. ESPN doesn’t. Baseball fans want to see national games on Wednesdays. Just one more example of how irrelevant the networks are becoming.

Anyhow, for one brief day, the BoSox were in first place. Of course, they lost today.

What will happen first: a Detroit Tigers victory this season, or a Tiger Woods loss at the Masters?

A sweep of the Pirates would have been nicer, and might have come off if not for that amazing double play turned by Jack Wilson and Pokey Reese in the top of the ninth on Saturday. This stat says a lot: In their seven losses so far, the Cubs have scored only seven runs. That’s 1.85 runs per loss. By contrast, in their four wins the Cubs have scored 24 runs for a six runs per game average.

But the Cubs pulled one out today in between all the rain, and the Cubs Web site has Wood — blister and all — listed as the official starter tomorrow against the Expos. While the Expos are on the major-league baseball chopping block, they’re actually 6-6 so far this year, so they aren’t as much a pushover as you’d imagine.

Still, the Expos are one of those teams need to handle. Let’s make it two series wins in a row.

So the Celtics clinched third seed in the East last night by sweeping the season series against the Knicks. Back in the playoffs after nine years, the question now is how far they can go. Charlotte will be an easy first-round opponent, but when it gets to the later rounds, it’ll take more than Pierce and Walker to win the close games. Rodney Rogers, Kenny Anderson and Erick Strickland have to do their part to contribute and to give the Celts a more balanced scoring attack.

Saw the Celtics lose to the Bulls last Monday night, and what impressed me during the game was the Celts lackadaisical approach on defense. Here’s a team — the Bulls — that’s second to last in scoring with 88.9 points per game, and the Celtics let them score 105 points. It is true that the Bulls were on fire, shooting 55 percent from the field, but it seemed like half of those shots came without a hand in the shooter’s face. Obviously, the Celts can’t afford that kind of lapse on defense if they hope to the give the Nets a serious challenge for the conference championship.

I was going to make a snarky comment about Kerry Wood‘s blister the other day, but I decided I was already looking for the worst. But now he might missing his next start due to the blister.

The offense finally broke out, and as pathetic as it’s been, Sosa‘s doing just fine with five homers already. Hope the Cubs can take the rest of the series from the Pirates. As I’ve said before, the Pirates are one of the Central teams the Cubs need to take care of to compete for the wild card, let alone the division.

But looking at the longer-term picture, Mark Prior could be a solid starter for years to come, and perhaps a bona fide ace. Corey Patterson is delivering on his promise, and Bobby Hill will be ready to take over at second base year. As exciting as last year was and this year could be, the big deal about the Cubs is still the future, as in the No. 1 farm system according to Baseball America.

That’s a question that Rolling Stone editor Jann Wenner must be getting asked frequently nowadays. This story by the Toronto Star’s Ben Rayner is a pretty good rundown of what’s wrong with Rolling Stone today. Rayner writes:

Unsure whether it wants to be Maxim, Tiger Beat or simply a tasteful, middle-of-the-road, ageing-boomer version of the rabble-rousing Rolling Stone of hippier times, Rolling Stone now usually settles on being an utterly irrelevant combination of all three.

But then Rayner missteps. One of the magazine’s bad points? “Fawning praise of graying ’60s contemporaries like Bob Dylan …” Cut! That’s the only good thing left about this magazine. The occasional Dylan tidbit is the mag’s only selling point for me. Tsk, tsk, Brent.

Ugh. Another 10 men left on base by the Cubs today, and another one-run loss to the evil, evil Mets (two world championships, four pennants, nine human sacrifices). Once again, the youngster Cruz pitched well. The only complaint about the pitching is they have this silly notion that they can win a game while giving up runs.

Silly pitchers — wins are for Mets!

What are the words I most dread hearing in my public speaking class? “I’m going to read a poem I wrote.” Even worse than that are the following words: “This poem is called, ‘More About Me Than You Really Needed to Know.'”

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, it happened. It was at that precise moment that I took the opportunity to fake a burning desire to use the bathroom. I may have written my share of bad poetry in my time, but at least I’m courteous enough not to inflict on unsuspecting, involuntary subjects.

This woman, this woman. Do you remember the Jerri Blank character from “Strangers With Candy” on Comedy Central? That’s just about this woman’s fashion sense for you. Assigned to do a dramatic reading in class she read Poe’s “The Raven.” Could you get any more clichéd? Jeez.

Fortunately, I don’t now know more than I “really needed to know” about this her. But I did get some Skittles and a ginger ale after pretending to go to the washroom. So I guess it all worked out OK.