So, we come to the ultimate in supposed ‘must see’ movies. Everyone who hasn’t got this particular monkey off their back is guaranteed to have endured someone who layers every word in the following sentence with incredulity: “You haven’t seen The Godfather?”
Now, its been well over a month since my last review, and I did say that I was going to reel these movies off rather quickly. However, The Godfather seems to have been an exception. There are three reasons for this. Firstly, the film is 3 hours long, and it was hard to find the time for it in my busy schedule.
Secondly, its The freaking Godfather. It ranks second in IMDB’s Top 250 of all time, just ahead of itself Part 2. Its not the film you put on during a lazy weekday between Jeremy Kyle and Pointless, surely? It’s supposed to be an experience to savour at the exact right time. You disable the front doorbell, draw your curtains, and ready yourself to see what all the fuss is about.
And thirdly, once I had gone through all that trouble, I proudly told my dad that I had ticked off another film from his extensive collection, which resembles a cinema purists branch of Blockbusters. He smiled back and said. “Excellent”, before pausing, and delivering a knock-out blow. “Now you’ve got Part I out of the way, you’re in for a real treat.” So, rather deflatedly, I decided to view the first two instalments of The Godfather series before submitting this review.
So, I bet you guys want a sort of plot summation, as is the style in film reviews? Right. Marlon Brando plays Vito “Godfather” Corleone, don of an organised crime family. His sons include hot headed Sonny (James Caan), clever adoptee Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall) and law abiding war hero Michael (Al Pacino). All good so far, you are thinking, so whats it about? What actually happens?
Well, you see, its all very slow burning. The first hour and a half is fairly diplomatic. The Corleones are roughly introduced via a family wedding, Vito shows his rationale dealing with a narcotics investment, and Sonny shows his volatile nature dealing with an abusive brother-in-law. There’s talking and business strategy, punctuated with the occasional whacking and mob war.
From what I have heard, people do complain that the film gets off to a slow start, and only picks up in terms of action towards the end. To those people, I say this: that is how it is supposed to be. What director Francis Ford Coppola does so well is to mirror the emotions in the pace of the movie. While Vito is in charge, the tempo is as calm and measured as he is. But whenever he is out of the picture, the mood and momentum become more impetuous, less considered and what the layperson describes as ‘exciting’.
Dare we move onto the sequel? This would be the more critically acclaimed, having scooped more Oscars than its predecessor. It is a movie broken into two storylines. One is a flashback for the genesis of a young Vito Andolini (Robert De Niro) from Corleone, Sicily to 1920’s New York. The second plot follows the current day efforts of his son to expand the business and crush any opposition in his way.
And… that is all I am going to say about the sequel, because there is not much you need to know having not seen the first instalment yet. What I can say, in some attempt to wade in on this battle between the two movies, is that there should be no competition between them. From what I can see, Part II serves as both a sequel and an prequel (obvious statment), but is simply a continuation or a companion movie (contentious statement). It is better to view them as two halves of one great movie (see how I now discount Part III completely?). Therefore, to keep my word count both respectable and at a readable length, I shall review them as one.
The cast is about as good as you’ll get in a movie, as evidenced by the 2 wins and 7 nominations spread over both Academy Awards ceremonies. The pair of wins came for portrayals of the character Vito Corleone, by both Brando and De Niro. Pacino was nominated Best Supporting Actor for both films, while Duvall and Diane Keaton took notable praise for their roles.
The cinematography by Coppola is excellent (and as I said before, beautifully paced), the soundtrack by Nino Rota is thoroughly understated but menacing, and yet the most credit throughout the production goes to writer Mario Puzo. It is after all, ‘Mario Puzo’s The Godfather’, and allowing him to maintain control in adapting the screenplay was a big factor in the main selling point of these films. The dialogue from this film is widely regarded to be part of the teaching that allows man to train for one of the most mature roles of his life.
Alright, so lets come to a definitive outcome outcome on this. Because there may be some people out there who haven’t seen it yet, and wan’t to know if its worth their time. And to those people I say…
What? You haven’t seen The Godfather?
So, the results are in for the classic movie poll! And as you can clearly see, you suck.
Seriously, 6 votes? Spread thinner than chocolate sauce on Keira Knightley’s midriff (try not to judge me for that thought). So it seems no-one has seen the classic movies so lauded by cinematic hot-heads everywhere. In the lead, with 15.8% of the vote (see how stupid that sounds?), is Apocalypse Now. Four movies (Casablanca, The Godfather, The Good The Bad and The Ugly and Blade Runner) came second with 13.16%. Out of those, I picked The Godfather and Blade Runner to critique. So over the next month, you should receive reviews of all three.
Starting with Blade Runner, mainly as it is the one out of the above my dad has been bugging me to see. And for good reason, having been named as the best ever sci-fi movie by IGN and The Guardian, and 20th in Empire’s Top 500 Films of All Time. So last night, we all sat in anticipation of one of the best science fiction films ever made. Yet, I am under obligation to tell purists just which version I saw. Because it is a movie that has been endlessly tinkered with, to the tune of 7 seperate versions. The one we settled down to was the ‘Final Cut’, also known as The One Version Ridley Scott Was In Control Of. I don’t know how much it differs from the others, and I don’t feel I need to. If it’s the version the director wants, it should be the best version, period.
Anyway, the plot is as follows… The year is 2019. Bio-engineered clones of human life were once commonplace as slave labour on Earth colonies. Yet after sentience-inspired uprisings they have been declared illegal, and to be destroyed upon sight. In light of this, the newest batch of ‘replicants’, Nexus 6, were engineered with a life span of four years, so as to not have time to develop any particular emotional substance. Four of the said newest batch have commandeered a vessel back to Earth in order to meet their maker and gain an extended lifespan. Harrison Ford is the titular ‘Blade Runner’ assigned to track these replicants down and ‘retire’ them. Following so far? I hope so.
First off, the premise doesn’t need much more going into than that. The plot is fairly simple, a cat and mouse game of hunting down the ‘bad guys’. On a deeper level, if you wish to explore them, belongs a discussion on what it is to be human and, more importantly, what it is to live. And the acting all around is superb. Harrison Ford is rarely sub par in any movie, Darryl Hannah juxtaposes humanoid vibrancy and mechanic efficiency to great effect, and Sean Young is possibly the most human character, as a replicant whose implanted memory feels too real for her to come to terms with the realisation that she is an android. However for me, the show is stolen by head replicant Rutger Hauer. He is an exhilarating source of power and suspense throughout, dominating every scene he occupies. It’s a wonder I haven’t seen him in more films.
And yet, if I was to pick anything that was particularly scene stealing, it would be the scenery itself. In this film, Ridley Scott creates a spectacular visual landscape for Earth in 2019. In films I see now, the CGI has made cityscapes look very good. I mean it; very clean, accurate and crisp. But I wouldn’t consider them breathtaking, even in the way that a film from 1982 could do with the creativity of a futuristic landscape.
It’s not about being vast, or accurate, or even pretty. It’s about having a sense of place, something defining and awe inspiring. That is the kind of thing Blade Runner possesses.
If I were to find a fault with this film, it might be that the lack of a particularly complex plot left certain acts dragging on longer than they needed to, and gave the film a sense of plodding along at a pace of its own. But that is only a criticism because you made me think of one, you bloodthirsty hounds.
Ultimately, the question with all these films, ones that are deemed ‘classics’, is this: Do I need to watch this film, before I expire from an untimely, Kentuck Fried Chicken related death? In the case of Blade Runner, no. You don’t need to see it. But you really, really should.