It doesn't feel like I just watched a movie. It feels like I just witnessed a story unfold.
There were no signs of the movies here. No obvious dramatic arc, no character cliches... It was pure realism. An interesting story that I got lost in. Once again... I found myself lost in this world.
There is nothing fancy about this filmmaking. Again, it was only Coppola's job to hold together a Puzo story. And the actors had to be perfect. The story is everything though. As long as a story like this is portrayed with realism, it's bound to be one of the greatest movies ever.
I feel less connected to this film than the first. I knew lots about the first before I saw it. I knew nothing about this one. Maybe I need to see it again--get these characters and events engrained in my consciousness as I did the predecessor. Even with a running time of three and a half hours, I would not be opposed.
It's basically just perfect. A flawless film. That's what 4/4 means.... flawless. The first Godfather was better than flawless though. In engaged me that thoroughly. This film is almost on that level. It is not quite as accessible; it is longer, slower, and has fewer Marlon Brandos. It doesn't have the legacy the first one has, so I consider it a bit worse. But still, it had no trouble keeping my interest.
Michael is such a great character to me. I respect him and feel for him. Tom Hagen is another great character. So talented and loyal.
I say this is just extensions on the original Godfather. It is a sequel and a prequel that serves to expand on the world of the first, not stand up to it.
I don't understand those who would call this better than the original. That population exists. I do understand Roger Ebert, though, who would give this a less-than-spectacular rating as a standalone movie, but instead groups it together with Part I. That is my final, lasting belief. The Godfather Parts I & II is one movie, and Part II is a valuable and terrific section of the whole story.
Listen: as I watched this movie, I didn't see Michael as the great villain he's made out to be by the media. I didn't feel as if the golden age of the Corleones was over. I felt as if Michael was a powerful and talented ruler. I felt that he was intelligent and highly capable of taking over his father's position. I only felt that he forgot a couple values that the Godfather had held tight to. I don't see him as an unforgivable or incomprehensible villain, and I don't see this film as a total devolution of character. He holds the same character we saw at the end of the first film. The devolution happened then, in stages beginning when his father was shot for the first time. He became more and more involved and passionate about the business. About protecting his family. Then there was no jump to the second film, and throughout the second film I don't see much as changing. Killing Fredo... that was in the name of the family. In the name of loyalty. It wasn't about forsaking the family, as you would think. Fredo proved by his actions that he doesn't deserve to be a part of the family, even though he's there by blood. Unless blood trumps actions. It's a tough call, but I don't see Michael as entirely out-of-line and definitely not mercilessly murdering. He has a heart. But he has passion for the strength of his family (the organization, not blood relatives) that overrules it.
I don't understand those who would call this better than the original. That population exists. I do understand Roger Ebert, though, who would give this a less-than-spectacular rating as a standalone movie, but instead groups it together with Part I. That is my final, lasting belief. The Godfather Parts I & II is one movie, and Part II is a valuable and terrific section of the whole story.
Listen: as I watched this movie, I didn't see Michael as the great villain he's made out to be by the media. I didn't feel as if the golden age of the Corleones was over. I felt as if Michael was a powerful and talented ruler. I felt that he was intelligent and highly capable of taking over his father's position. I only felt that he forgot a couple values that the Godfather had held tight to. I don't see him as an unforgivable or incomprehensible villain, and I don't see this film as a total devolution of character. He holds the same character we saw at the end of the first film. The devolution happened then, in stages beginning when his father was shot for the first time. He became more and more involved and passionate about the business. About protecting his family. Then there was no jump to the second film, and throughout the second film I don't see much as changing. Killing Fredo... that was in the name of the family. In the name of loyalty. It wasn't about forsaking the family, as you would think. Fredo proved by his actions that he doesn't deserve to be a part of the family, even though he's there by blood. Unless blood trumps actions. It's a tough call, but I don't see Michael as entirely out-of-line and definitely not mercilessly murdering. He has a heart. But he has passion for the strength of his family (the organization, not blood relatives) that overrules it.
No comments:
Post a Comment