Movie Review: The Godfather (1972)
The Godfather (1972)
Starring: Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, James Caan, Richard Castellano, Robert Duvall, Diane Keaton, Abe Vigoda, Talia Shire, John Cazale
Directed by: Francis Ford Coppola
How do I review one of the best reviewed films of all-time? The film that sits at number one on IMDb's largely ridiculous Top 250. The film that scores a perfect 100 metascore on metacritics. The Best Picture winner for 1972; the movie who has been parodied, copied, and paid homage to more than any other (save, perhaps, Citizen Kane).
I don't know how to review it. I'll start by stating first off, that you aren't going to get a dissenting opinion here. I think it's a phenomenal movie that is as good as they say it is. To get it out of the way, it's a 5 star classic. However, there are some that feel differently. A lot of this has to do with the fact that every one has different opinions, and are thus entitled to them. But, there are also some people that live to be disagreeable, that like nothing better than to tell people that things that most people think are good aren't. We all know the type, the smarter-than-thou type heavily prevalent amongst movie fans. It's kind of like academia-- no one makes their name in academics by telling you that previously accepted knowledge is true.
Anyway, I think the movie is phenomenal. It's not perfect, but its imperfections are of the flub variety, not a flaw in storytelling. (One flub that stood out with my recent viewing was in the scene where Sonny, James Caan, was beating up Carlo, Gianni Russo, the fighting is so poor that you can see that Caan whiffs by a foot on some of his punches. Strangely, Caan apparently injured Russo in that scene). The thing that strikes me while watching the movie now is the feeling that such a movie would never be made today, and if it somehow were made, then it wouldn't be that popular.
The reason is that the film is too slow to be an action film, but too violent to be a drama. Hollywood either wouldn't know how to market it, and thus wouldn't bankroll it. Or, it would dumb the film down, sacrificing nuance for pacing. A perfect example of this is 1987's The Untouchables, a film that so badly wants to be a mobster-epic with the grandeur of The Godfather, only told from the other side of the law. But the best The Untouchables can hope to be is a decent action film. Dramatic classic it is not. And it's 18 years old. Today, a Godfather-type movie would star Vin Diesel and feature CGI and wire-work fight scenes.
Lost would be the quiet moments that breathe life into the film. Where The Godfather succeeds and other gangster films haven't is that it makes its criminal protagonists likable characters who the audience not only cheers for, but also sympathises with, while at the same time shows how bad they can be. Marlon Brando won the Best Actor award for his portrayal of Vito Corleone, becoming perhaps the most imitated character in cinematic history, but for me, the star of the film is Michael Corleone, played by a young Al Pacino. The entire Michael plot-arch is what draws me in, seeing the young war hero who doesn't want to be involved in the family business gradually lose his soul is both heart-breaking and exciting.
The rest of the movie, with all the "make him an offer he can't refuse" and exploding cars are just window dressing (fantastic, histrionic window dressing) for the descent of Michael. The film is a long 3 hours (perhaps too long, but I can't think of any scene to remove in the film, as everything introduced becomes an integral part of the climax), meaning that is a film one only watches on occasion, perhaps once a year. This prevents the movie from being a favourite, something that feels personal that I can throw in anytime I want, but it remains one of the best movies I own, one of the best movies of all-time.
5/5