jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Jan 13, 2006 21:57:44 GMT
The Godfather
Director: Francis Ford Coppola
1972 USA
The leader of a crime organization hands his company off to his reluctant son, a WWII vet.The Godfather (1972) is a difficult film to review, since there is so much to talk about. Oftentimes, there are quite a few aspects that a critic can point out as flaws, but in The Godfather, they are quite difficult to find. The story is a rich one. The plot revolves around the Corleone family, which is the most powerful crime syndicate in New York. The key players in the film are Don Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) and his children Michael Corleone (Al Pacino), Santino Corleone (James Caan), Fredo Corleone (John Cazale), Connie Corleone (Talia Shire), and his stepson Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall). The movie covers this group of people throughout a mob war, which is instigated by Vito’s refusal to enter the drug racket. It also covers the families “passing of the torch”, as we see Michael turn from the war hero that would never get involved, to the ruthless man we see take over his father’s position near the movies finale. Brando won an Oscar for his excellent starring role in the film, and it is also notable that the Godfather also had three nominees for Best Supporting Actor (Pacino, Caan, and Duvall). Every character in this movie is played perfectly. Another important performance was in this film is Diane Keatons. Her character in this movie comes into the family the same way the viewer does. Much of the films beginning is dedicated to Connie’s wedding, where we see most of the central characters enjoying themselves and having a good time. It is difficult to believe that so much of this family is involved in crimes and murders, and one of the movies most enjoyable subplots is watching Keaton’s character, Kay Adams, grasp that. The backbone of this movie is the connection between the family and crime organization, and as this is connection is explained to Adams, it is explained to the viewer. The movie simply has endless replay value. The more it is seen, the better it becomes in this reviewers opinion. The first time the movie is watched, one sees an amazing narrative and is more than adequately entertained and impressed by it. Upon subsequent viewings, the depth of the characters becomes more and more clear. Characters in this movie are often playing in a deadly game of chess. There is a great scene involving Vito, Michael, Tom, two mafia captains, and Connie’s husband. A lot is said in that meeting in so little words. The viewer is not always told of the plans Michael and Vito make, or how they come to conclusions that they come to. As one becomes more and more familiar with the Corleone family, scenes like this one display the Sicilian cunning, thought, and motivation behind every little move and adjustment that Michael or Vito makes. This allows us to see his brilliance, and makes the movies concluding scenes amazingly powerful. The Godfather is a classic for the ages. It has received acclaim from nearly everywhere a movie can receive it from. On the American Film Institutes 1998 Top 100 Films list, The Godfather was placed only behind Citizen Kane and Casablanca. This is beyond doubt a movie that any person can enjoy. Seeing The Godfather is truly an offer no one should refuse. In almost every aspect, it is one of the best films ever made.  CREDITS
Director
Francis Ford Coppola
Producers
Grey Frederickson
Albert Ruddy
Screenplay
Mario Puzo
Francis Ford Coppola
Film Editing
William Reynolds
Peter Zinner
CAST
Marlon Brando
Don Vito Corleone
Al Pacino
Michael Corleone
James Caan
Sonny Corleone
Robert Duvall
Tom Hagen
John Cazale
Fredo Corleone
Talia Shire
Connie Corleone
Diane Keaton
Kay Adams
|
|
Capo
Administrator 
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jan 14, 2006 18:18:10 GMT
The Godfather
Director: Francis Ford Coppola
1972 USA
1950s New York. When a Mafia Don is badly injured in an assassination attempt, his war veteran son takes over the family business.
Coppola’s epic, a saga which is primarily interested in family values but disguised as a riveting gangster drama, still shines today as a superlative work. One of those rare occasions when the film belongs to nobody in particular, neither on the screen or off it, The Godfather is a masterpiece of Cinema as a collaboration art. That the family members here are murderers, thieves and snakes matters not: Coppola and Mario Puzo’s script draws us in and invites us to empathise with these humans. Michael (Pacino), the youngest son returning fresh from World War II, is first seen in the film at his sister’s wedding, with girlfriend Kay Adams. Explaining of how his father once bullied a music industry mogul into signing Johnny Fontane off, Michael assures her that he’s not like his family. Ironic, then, considering the circumstances, or destiny, of Michael’s character arc.
Essentially, this is a film all about power. Male domination, patriarchal values and the transition of power between one powerful leader to the emergence of an (unlikely) other. The most powerful scenes in the film deal with this: Vito’s democratic, if strict, rule over his sons, in the meeting with Solozzo; the scene in which Michael’s initiative and ability to quickly assess a situation in crisis, when he arrives at the hospital to find his father’s bodyguards have been chased off; later in the film, Carlo, the groom being married into the family at the film’s opening, beats his wife with a whip; and the scene in which Michael, now head of the family, tells his caporegimes and consigliere of his plans to move to Nevada.
Powerful stuff indeed, thanks to the acting. The delight in watching the performances in this film come in the little things: John Cazale, as Fredo, drunkenly greeting brother Michael and Kay; Alex Rocco, as Moe Greene, as he irritatedly adjusts his tie as he shrugs off Michael’s business propositions in Nevada; Marlon Brando, as Vito, as he gestures for Barzini’s silence in order to challenge Tattaglia. All performers have much to work with. Indeed, the strength here comes in the writing; a Shakespearean sense of plot and character drive, with all loose-ends tied up in a dramatic final shift—the montage sequence which, even when the film wanes on emotional attachment upon rewatches, always conjures up a climactic feeling rarely paralleled in Film. Its long-standing #1 spot on IMDb pay testament to its lasting qualities. Over thirty years on, this is still essential viewing.
CREDITS
Director
Francis Ford Coppola
Producer
Albert S. Ruddy
Screenplay
Francis Ford Coppola
Mario Puzo
Based on the novel by Mario Puzo
Cinematography
Gordon Willis
Film Editing
William Reynolds
Peter Zinner
Original Music
Nino Rota
Carmine Coppola
Production Design
Dean Tavoularis
CAST
Marlon Brando
Vito Corleone
Al Pacino
Michael Corleone
James Caan
Sonny Corleone
Robert Duvall
Tom Hagen
John Cazale
Fredo Corleone
Richard Castellano
Peter Clemenza
Abe Vigoda
Sal Tessio
Diane Keaton
Kay Adams
Talia Shire
Connie Rizzi
Gianni Russo
Carlo Rizzi
Sterling Hayden
Capt. McCluskey
John Marley
Jack Woltz
Al Martino
Johnny Fontane
Alex Rocco
Moe Greene
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 14, 2006 21:32:52 GMT
I've seen both part 1 and part 2 maybe 10 times each, and it's become pretty clear to me that part 2 blows part 1 out of the water. I don't even think it's close.
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Jan 16, 2006 17:44:12 GMT
Seemingly the fanbase is rather spilt between the first 2 movies, personally I like the first one better. 2 is the best sequel Ive ever seen
|
|
|
|
Post by ps1ch on Jul 26, 2006 1:02:13 GMT
To me, this is probably the closest thing to a perfect film.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Dec 1, 2008 19:03:33 GMT
What demoted the Godfather movies from greatness in your mind (I think they used to be among your favorites)? One and two stars for the first two films respectively is harsh... I think the problem with the first Godfather is its crude source material. It's better than the novel in every way possible, but I find it overwhelmingly episodic and verbose. The acting and music are tremendous, but it's rhythm is very clunky and the narrative is unrewarding. A few moments are great: Michael's pivotal moment in the hospital when he says, "I'm with you now, Pop"; his subsequent killing of Sollozzo and McClusky is a great set-piece in itself; the baptism scene is genius; Brando drives the film whenever he's onscreen. But its sidesteps, such as the whole thunderbolt episode in Sicily, dampen the drama. The whole Jack Woltz episode, immediately after the (lengthy) wedding sequence crawls along with no real purpose or energy. And the whole dramatic arc of the film is supposed to rest on Michael's unexpected spiral into the Family business. But Coppola cheats: whereas the first thirty minutes of the film comprise one single wedding, the final third of the film jumps and leaps in time that the characterisation is implausible. Pacino's particularly excellent as the outcast war vet in the opening scenes, and he's convincing too as the cold Don in the final moments, but there's no in between. We're supposed to accept his ruthlessness stems from Apollonia's death in Sicily, but there's no spiral there. All of a sudden he's emerging from a car and saying to Kay, "I've been back a year. Longer than that, I think." I was as bewildered and frustrated by this as Kay was (Keaton's fantastic, by the way). It has a loaded air to it, from the opening slow track back from Bonasera to Clemenza kissing Michael's cheek at the end. "OMG EPIC!" might be overly facetious and reductive on my part, but it's a feeling I haven't yet shirked (I watched it on Friday night). |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Sullivan on Dec 1, 2008 22:05:54 GMT
I have to agree that the time line in the second half of the film is confusing. So much time passes. Michael goes to Sicily in 1946 or 1947, yet over half a decade is covered in the hour and a half after the Sollozzo killing.
That's my one gripe about the film. But that doesn't seem to matter. I think however that it works. I certainly don't care about it in the end. It still flows beautifully, even if the time line is highly improbable. I don't see the romance in Sicily as a sidestep. I think a good argument can be made about the Woltz material being stuff that could have been sheered off. But it demonstrates Corleone's power. It's our first glimpse at what they're capable of.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 1, 2008 22:10:01 GMT
I actually think this film (along with its sequel) and Paris, Texas are the pinnacle of storytelling in cinema.
I said this recently, but whenever I'm watching The Godfather part I or II, I'm always taken completely in by it; the rest of the world is made obsolete. It's amazing how Coppola is able to captivate his audience so that a 3 hour+ film never drags for a single moment.
I should watch these again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Sullivan on Dec 1, 2008 22:14:18 GMT
I did so about a month ago. Such a rewarding experience. They're quite rich and there's always something to catch.
It's one of the highpoints in American cinema. I highly recommend the bluray release of this film.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 1, 2008 22:25:08 GMT
666 posts!  I think it's wonderful how every time Brando is in the frame, the viewer feels his presence like no other character. There's kind of a mystique surrounding his character...even with DeNiro portraying him in part II, there still lingers a sort of mystery about him, a need to fill in the blanks about his character. |
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Dec 1, 2008 23:46:11 GMT
I concur with you guys that it is a captivating experience for me now. But the first time I watched, it was a drag. And also frustrating for someone who is not familiar with the novel and the back stories. A few days ago, I watched the part 2. I didn't quite enjoy the flashback scenes and DeNiro was a bit annoying. That said, the modern day story was amazing and held my interest absolutely.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Dec 2, 2008 1:26:33 GMT
I concur with you guys that it is a captivating experience for me now. But the first time I watched, it was a drag. And also frustrating for someone who is not familiar with the novel and the back stories. A few days ago, I watched the part 2. I didn't quite enjoy the flashback scenes and DeNiro was a bit annoying. That said, the modern day story was amazing and held my interest absolutely. Interestingly, Coppola in I believe his commentary track for GODFATHER 2 remarked of how in his linear-TV cut of the first two GODFATHER pictures (starts with young Vito of GF2, then to first GF, then to older Michael of GF2), that without being part of the flashback structure with the Michael scenes, that the DeNiro scenes aren't as powerful or interesting on their individual own. |
|
Jenson71
Ghost writer
Bush is watching you
Posts: 810
|
Post by Jenson71 on Dec 2, 2008 4:39:52 GMT
A lot of times, I feel The Godfathers are the only movies I can even tolerate.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Dec 2, 2008 15:33:04 GMT
This is the first time I've seen the film since January 2006. I've just read my initial review above, and don't disagree with much of it, vague superlatives aside.
Stuff like this is certainly true:
The most powerful scenes in the film deal with [power]: Vito’s democratic, if strict, rule over his sons, in the meeting with Solozzo; the scene in which Michael’s initiative and ability to quickly assess a situation in crisis, when he arrives at the hospital to find his father’s bodyguards have been chased off; later in the film, Carlo, the groom being married into the family at the film’s opening, beats his wife with a whip; and the scene in which Michael, now head of the family, tells his caporegimes and consigliere of his plans to move to Nevada.
And this:
The delight in watching the performances in this film come in the little things: John Cazale, as Fredo, drunkenly greeting brother Michael and Kay; Alex Rocco, as Moe Greene, as he irritatedly adjusts his tie as he shrugs off Michael’s business propositions in Nevada; Marlon Brando, as Vito, as he gestures for Barzini’s silence in order to challenge Tattaglia.
But there's more to my involvement with a film than the acting. I think, compared to the second film (ironic, considering how simple this is story-wise), it's incredibly muddled in rhythm and pacing. Part II is much more polished and moving.
|
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Dec 2, 2008 19:40:48 GMT
For me, each of the aspects deserves a 3 or 4 star rating - cinematography, music, acting, story (credit to puzo, great idea, but his novel was trash), editing. If I were to choose only one aspect that really stands out, it must be music by Nino Rota for me. Haunting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Sullivan on Dec 2, 2008 22:53:48 GMT
Capo, I do feel that Part II is far more polished and ultimately rewarding work. But it works only with Part I en tow. Again, that chilling end to Part II with Michael watching into Lake Tahoe has to be one of the most satisfying conclusions to any film.
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Dec 3, 2008 19:35:36 GMT
Again, that chilling end to Part II with Michael watching into Lake Tahoe has to be one of the most satisfying conclusions to any film. I was watching "Cries and Whispers" a little while ago, and the flashback ending to it reminded me very much of the way "The Godfather Part II" closes. In both films, it works tremendously. |
|
