Seamless Sequels Without The Spark: The Godfather, Part II Leaves Me Less Impressed.

The Good: Decent acting, Great DVD bonus features
The Bad: Character conflicts/developments are actually minimal, Plot has largely been done before
The Basics: The Godfather, Part II might be the only sequel to win Best Picture after its predecessor won, but it is more a tired continuation of the original than something new.


The Godfather, Part II, for those who do not know, holds a distinction that no other movie holds at this point. It is the only movie that is a sequel to a film that won the Best Picture that also won the top Oscar prize. While there have been a few oddities as far as winners for Best Picture goes, there are few noteworthy films that have Best Picture trivia that have less going for them than The Godfather, Part II. While this is the only sequel to win following the first film in the series winning, there are far better sequel movies. Sequels that hold their own with the original or are even better than the first film in the series, like The Empire Strikes Back (reviewed here!) or The Dark Knight (reviewed here!) are not unheard of. But in the case of The Godfather, Part II, writers Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola (who also directed and produced the film) created an extension of the first film which is so closely mirrors the look and feel of the original that one feels more like they are watching some alternate take of the original.

With most movies, it is tough for me to nail down a precise moment when I opt not to recommend the film or I decide that it is not quite the work I thought it might have been at moments I was enjoying it. This is not the case with The Godfather, Part II. Instead, the moment Michael Corleone belts his wife, Kay, across the face, I decided that this was not a film I was going to recommend or one that I was particularly enjoying. I went into The Godfather, Part II blind, so I was actually quite excited to see Robert De Niro playing the younger version of Vito Corleone. But my pleasure at the inspired casting dissipated the longer the film went on and I was left feeling what many people feel when they watch a sequel; that the memory of something great has been brought down by prolonging it.

Now the godfather of the Corleone family, Michael Corleone is extorted by a U.S. Senator when he wants to expand his family's gambling interests in Las Vegas. As Michael confronts the legitimate business interests that have lined up prevent him and his family from taking more of an interest in gambling, he finds himself the target of an assassination attempt. Dealing with Hyman Roth, with whom his father did business despite distrusting, Michael soon begins to suspect that the hit on him came from within the family and it becomes quite clear that his brother Fredo is deeply involved in the conflicting interests in Las Vegas.

As Michael works to go legitimate, save the family business and retain the power his family has accrued over the past fifty years - with the aid of Tom Hagen, his consigliore - the film presents the life story of Vito Corleone, from his younger years in Italy (in the village of Corleone) to his emigration to the United States. Vito's story is told as he arrives in New York and slowly builds power in the community. Starting with helping out a woman who is being evicted for having a dog, Vito becomes more of a powerhouse by refusing to take guff and by doing what others will not to take power.

The mirroring stories are shown with the same sense of color and depth as the original film The Godfather (reviewed here!). This is, in part because Coppola and Puzo wrote and directed the original as well as this sequel. In many ways, The Godfather, Part II continues the story of The Godfather and the characters and their backstories are very much considered assumed knowledge by the producers. So, for example, elements like the climactic scene of the film mean absolutely nothing to people who have not seen the first film. Because the some of the characters in that final scene were only in the first film, the significance of it is only truly realized by those who know the story of all of the characters involved.

What the movie does well - which is why it took me so very long to decide that I did not actually like the film - is both continue the story of the Corleone family and Michael's consolidation of power and casting. When Robert De Niro appeared on screen as the younger Vito Corleone, I instantly saw the resemblance to Marlon Brando's iconic character from The Godfather. De Niro confirms what everyone knows now about him; he is a master actor with a great physical presence and his ability to mimic the mannerisms and even vocal tones of Brando. But the brilliant aspect of De Niro as the younger version of Vito is that he plausibly builds the character from a child into a young man who slowly becomes authoritative and reasons out how to get what he wants from life and those around him.

But beyond that, the movie is remarkably disappointing for those looking for a fresh cinematic experience. While the casting of De Niro is brilliant initially, the mirroring stories start with clear labels of the time and place. As the movie goes on, The Godfather, Part II drops the labels, but the color palate between both times is so remarkably similar that it takes a few moments for the viewer to realize when they are in the story being told. What doesn't help is that Al Pacino and Robert De Niro are frequently made to look like one another and this makes figuring out when one is in the story a bit more difficult.

But more than having real character development in the Michael Corleone plot, The Godfather, Part II simply rehashes much of what viewers have seen before. Michael is slow-burning, but lacks anything to set him apart from the other Corleones. At this point, he is simply a wannabe Vito. As well, he illustrates some of the traits - like smacking around his wife - that he has previously despised. As a result, it becomes quite easy to not care about large chunks of the film. Similarly, while seeing Vito's rise to power is interesting, because viewers who have seen The Godfather know how his story ends, the process is distracted from being truly engaging by the cutaways to Michael's story. As well, peripheral characters like Tom Hagen do not develop or evolve at all in this film.

On the two-disc DVD, The Godfather, Part II is presented with a commentary track and in widescreen format. There may be additional bonus features on newer DVD releases, but the two-disc version is fairly spartan. The film is also not cleaned up ideally for DVD and there were several points in the movie - not correlating to time periods - where the print looked grainier than others.

As far as those who love great drama, The Godfather, Part II is liable to disappoint. There are moments that the film is engaging and the Senate hearings into the Corleone family are different, but for the most part the movie feels like a familiar character study with some scenes we have not seen before. And, considering I'd already sat through three hours of this family doing similar things, this movie just seemed more redundant than incredible.

[As a winner of the Best Picture Oscar, this is part of my Best Picture Project online here! Please check it out!]

For other films with Robert De Niro, please check out:
The Untouchables
Brazil
The Deer Hunter

7/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

Patton: A Character Study Of An Eccentric Warrior

The Good: Decent character work, Decent acting, Cinematically impressive
The Bad: Quite a bit of mood over substance at points (long and feels long)
The Basics: Intense and impressive, Patton is a character study of a very military mind and his counterbalance.


As a pacifist, it probably should not surprise me that I have not watched a whole lot of war movies. War movies - outside Star Wars - never truly interested me. On a deeper psychological level, my antipathy toward war movies probably has a lot to do with my childhood. My former step brother was into war movies and he used that as a point of pride over my brother and I; he got into "R" rated movies before we did by visiting his biological father, who took him to war films. It never thrilled me to hear about the movies as a result. But now, I find myself occasionally taking in a war movie. Tonight's was Patton.

Patton is a character study and it is based on historical events and accounts. Still, it is worth noting that my review is simply of the film, not of the writings upon which it is based or World War II. The longer Patton went on, the more average I felt it was, but what brings it up now in my evaluation is the DVD presentation. On DVD, Patton looks good and sounds good as well. Whatever faults the film has, it is a cinematic triumph and it is an engrossing character study of a weird officer who is presented as a rather unique cinematic character.

Opening with a monologue by General George Patton on the need to thwart the Nazis fearlessly and decisively, the United States enters World War II in force. Arriving at the Kasserine Pass in Tunisia in 1943, General Patton is transferred from a military governorship to the field of battle on the recommendation of General Bradley. Immediately disappointed by how slovenly the troops are taking their jobs, Patton fines, cajoles and threatens his way into the command role he has been given. Responding to a threat by Rommel, Patton marshals his troops and lays an ambush of Nazi forces in north Africa where he defeats the superiorily armored German tanks using Rommel's own strategies!

With the first decisive American victory in Africa, Patton leads his troops forward, competing with and supporting the forces of the British General Montgomery. Patton competes with Montgomery to take Sicily in order to open up the Italian front. Ordered to support Montgomery's advance along the eastern coast of the island, by keeping his western flank clear, Patton defies orders and uses his troops to take Palermo and he and the Allied General race north. But once Sicily is taken successfully, Patton finds himself relieved of duty there as General Bradley is promoted to lead the European Offensive. After an intermission, Patton rallies the French at Corsica, arguably punishment for slapping a soldier who did not feel like fighting. After his probation, Patton enters the European theater as part of an aggressive gambit to break the stalemate that followed the Normandy invasion. As the Germans fret, Patton inspires Allied forces to victory.

More than a standard, straightforward war movie, Patton is a character study. General Patton is presented as something of a contradiction, as he is a law-and-order career officer who also violates military codes (in slapping an enlisted man and humiliating him thus) and defying orders himself. Throughout the film, he expresses an adamant belief in reincarnation. For Patton, reincarnation is not an abstract religious theory, he believes he lived past lives as famous warriors and scholars fighting in Europe. The contradictions in the character actually make for a more engaging and interesting film.

This becomes most impressive in the later parts of the middle when Patton is put on probation and is essentially forced to sit out on D-Day. When one too many faux pas's puts Patton at the mercy of the Chief Of Staff, Patton reluctantly admits that his best hope is in the fact that his judge is known to be fair. Patton, after being stony and cold, is completely desperate and he has a surprisingly realistic sense of who he is. All he wants is to command an army and he knows he is not political, but rather more of an ideal soldier than anything else. And for viewers, there is a sense of empathy with this weird warrior as he seems utterly unable to do anything other than bark orders. In the process, Patton actually inspires his troops. So, when his position is imperiled by his own stupidity, Patton actually is easy to empathize with.

Even so, Patton is a twin character study. Just as Patton is the arrogant and forceful leader of the Americans fighting in Europe and Africa, General Bradley is cool, quiet and efficient. He is in many ways the ideal soldier, doing what he is ordered to. But he is also something of a milquetoast and while he is entirely competent, he is utterly without the charisma. As a result, Patton is naturally offended when Bradley is promoted over him.

But General Bradley makes for a reasonable and human figure amid the larger-than-life nature of Patton. The result is a pair of foil characters who work best when together. Bradley follows Patton and executes his sometimes ridiculous wishes, while Patton is only grounded by Bradley's pragmatism. It is hard to consider, for example, Bradley pulling off the notion of getting a priest to make a special prayer for good weather (which Patton does and pulls off without it seeming too absurd). Bradley is a pragmatist, while Patton is a dreamer, though he is not the classical dreamer. Instead, his dreams are those of a tactician, whereas what motivates Bradley at the end of the day is something of a mystery.

Patton is amazingly cast, though it is monolithically male in its cast. I was thrilled to see Michael Strong in the film, instantly recognizable from his role in "What Are Little Girls Made Of?" (reviewed here! ) the moment he first speaks. Karl Malden plays Bradley and in every scene he is in, he manages to have as much screen presence and sense of character as George C. Scott does as Patton. Malden never tries to outshine or outplay Scott and as a result, he fills out the position incredibly well, with a sense of dignity that is constant. Whereas Scott's role is complicated, Malden is solid, a constant. Malden is able to pull off such simple things as General Bradley asking Patton to dinner in a simple, very human moment. He makes it seem as big as anything Patton does in the rest of the film.

To write anything about George C. Scott's performance as Patton seems strangely pointless. Scott won the Best Actor award for the role and he deserved it for never even letting even the hint of himself through. Scott is flawless as creating a powerful screen persona without any hint of the actor playing him while also making Patton seem entirely human.

On DVD, Patton has an audio featurette on the life of the actual General Patton as well as the film's theatrical trailer. Rumors persist of a two-disc version, but the one-disc version is somewhat minimal on the bonus features. Still, the movie is surprisingly enjoyable, even for those who are not fans of military films.

[As a winner of the Best Picture Oscar, this film is part of W.L.'s Best Picture Project, available here! Please check it out!]

7.5/10

For other film reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

One Man Allows Circumstances To Change His Life With The Godfather (An Almost Perfect Film).

The Good: Amazing acting, Moments of character, Great plot development, Decent soundtrack, Great DVD bonus features.
The Bad: None of the characters are particularly likable.
The Basics: Powerful and well-shot, The Godfather tells the story of the passing of the guard in a Mafia family.


According to the American Film Institute, The Godfather is the second-best film of all time, right behind Citizen Kane (reviewed here!). Neither film made it onto my own "Top Ten Films Of All Time" list, but The Godfather at least makes a run at a perfect film, whereas I'd argue Citizen Kane is largely successful because of the hype as opposed to the substance of the film. Even so, having seen The Godfather twice now, whether or not it is a perfect film or not can be the subject of debate; and ultimately, my take on it is that the film is a near-miss on perfection.

For sure, I understand that The Godfather is an epic tale and that it has depth and subtlety and even a character arc that develops wonderfully throughout the film. But even as the tale of Michael Corleone develops, I find it hard to care. Despite the story developing and unfolding well, Michael Corleone is hardly the greatest character of all time and the true disappointment is not how Michael rises up to become a Mafia Godfather, but rather his failure to resist the pressures on him. In fact, Michael is a weak man whose bad behavior is supposed to be somehow justified by the tragedies that surround him. This makes him far, far less impressive to me and I tend to prefer characters who act, who make their destinies, as opposed to those who surrender to the pressures that overwhelm them. Even so, there is enough in The Godfather to enthusiastically recommend it.

In New York City, in 1945, Connie Corleone is marrying Carlo Rizzi, which brings together the entire Corleone family, a powerful Mafia family that is one of New York's Five Families. On that day, Vito Corleone - the Godfather of the Family - cannot refuse the request of any who request favors of him, as part of an old Sicilian tradition. He is asked by his godson, singer Johnny Fontane, to help him get a movie role and Vito dispatches his consigliere, Tom Hagen, to California to take care of the problem. Among the guests is Vito's youngest son, an American Marine, Michael. Michael has effectively distanced himself from the family business. In fact, he is at such a distance that when rival gangster Sollozzo attempts to get the Corleone's into the heroin trafficking racket and Vito refuses (whatwith it being impractical for the other rackets the Corleones are involved in) and a hit is placed on Vito, no one bothers to take Michael out.

With Vito hanging onto life by a thread, Michael takes out Sollozzo and corrupt cop McCluskey and goes into hiding in Sicily. While Michael is in Sicily, the hotheaded Sonny keeps the Corleone family together during a turf war that wages on. When Carlo begins beating Connie, Sonny is drawn out and killed by his rivals. Michael is forced to return to the United States (his young wife also being killed) and he assumes the mantle of power from Vito, after the Godfather does what he can to end the war.

The Godfather is a weird combination of being packed with characters and being very plot-heavy. The thing is, characters in the film are annoyingly monolithic and as such, the film lacks some emotional impact in that none of them are terribly likable. Almost all of the old guard Mafia types are racists (which brings the drug trafficking plot to a pretty easy, if disturbing, resolution), Carlo is a dumb, abusive wifebeater, and the only aspect of the personalities we see of almost all of the primary characters is their business life. I'm not saying that the film would be better if one of the scenes opened with Sonny being interrupted while making additions to his stamp collection, but it certainly would give him some element of character that is unique and distinctive other than being a violent mobster.

In that regard, the two characters who actually have the most going for them are the Godfather, Vito, and Michael, but both are ultimately unsatisfying characters. Vito actually stands for something in that he does not want to risk his business interests over drugs when he is happy to control more reasonable vices (drinking and gambling). He is a pragmatist in this regard and he doesn't want to jeopardize his political connections with something politicians will never support. He is also something of a family man, but that level of character is displayed in the three lines a rival boss has at the climactic meeting (one of the bosses argues against getting involved in the drug trade because he doesn't want kids to get hooked). As a result, we are left watching a goon for two and a half hours and it is difficult to care what happens to a corrupt individual who is happy to employ murderous henchmen to do his bidding.

Similarly, Michael Corleone starts out as having more character than he ends up with and the transition is problematic in that circumstances change his life, not his strength of character. Michael is off living his own life when he makes a bad decision - getting revenge on the corrupt cop and the man who tried to have his father killed. After his one moment of actually acting and making a choice of his own, he spends the entire film reacting until he is pigeonholed into a role others (or "fate") select for him. He does not have the strength of character to refuse the wishes of others or to get out while he still can. This climaxes in the final scene of the film where he makes a conscious choice to do something truly despicable and by the end of the film, all of his promise is gone.

The thing is, too few people want to make the argument that Michael controls his own actions, but the truth is, he does. After one bad choice, Michael continues to make bad choices, but they are his choices. As a result, when he strikes out in a direction that is problematic or takes his character in a disappointing direction, he owns those mistakes.

The Godfather has a pretty immense cast of characters and they rotate throughout the film and come up or are referenced with such frequency that it might help to have a map. And while the casting of The Godfather is exceptional in that it uses some truly amazing talents, it is problematic in that some of the roles are cast far too closely to one another. So, for example, James Caan (Sonny) and Giani Russo (Carlo) have some resemblance; I stepped out for a moment and returned during a scene where Carlo is beating Connie and it took me a moment to realize it wasn't Sonny. Even Simonetta Stefanelli (Apollonia) looks like a younger, more tanned version of Diane Keaton. But for the essential roles, the casting is wonderful and Robert Duvall, Al Pacino and Marlon Brando are all amazing. Duval plays Tom Hagen and he is respectably smart in the role, embodying a lawyer quite well.

It surprised me to realize how few works I've seen Marlon Brando in before The Godfather. For all of the films I've seen, I've only seen Marlon Brando in The Score and On The Waterfront (reviewed here!). The Godfather is his comeback role and the one that defines him for pretty much anyone born after 1975 or who is not a fan of older movies. Brando mumbles his way through the film as the powerful Vito Corleone, easily establishing himself as one of the most memorable cinematic characters of all time. He has a dignity and strength of presence on screen that never dissipates. In fact, when Vito retires, he manages to change his entire body language and it works.

Similarly, Al Pacino is wonderful as Michael. For all of the problems with the character, Pacino is amazing as Michael. Distinctly different from his role in Glengarry Glen Ross (reviewed here!), Pacino starts the film with Michael as a likable guy who is just trying to avoid becoming like his parents. In those scenes, he is wonderfully casual, he's just a guy and seeing him smile and relax makes him seem like the most unlikely character to go down such a dark path. Pacino is electric as he slowly changes his whole demeanor to become more methodical and cold as the film goes on.

On DVD, The Godfather is packed with bonus features. There is an impressive commentary track that is very informative. In addition, there is an entire disc filled with featurettes on the translation of the novel into the film, the filming of The Godfather, its place in cinematic history and more. As well, there are the theatrical trailers for the movie and extensive interviews with the cast and crew on the effect of the film. Truly this is one of the most impressive DVD sets for a classic film.

In fact, it is just enough to bring up a film that has lousy characters to the status where I can enthusiastically recommend it. The Godfather is close to perfect, but as far as DVD special editions go, it is hard to ask for more.

[As a winner of the Best Picture Oscar, this film is part of W.L.'s Best Picture Project, available here! Please check it out!]

9.5/10

For other film reviews, please be sure to visit my index page on the subject by clicking here!

© 2011, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.


| | |

Nothing Extraordinary About The Rain: The Rainmaker Is Utterly Unmemorable!

The Good: Good acting, Good characters, Good pacing
The Bad: Idealistic themes and plot
The Basics: Simple and predictable, The Rainmaker doesn't fail to please, but it does little beyond meeting our expectations.


There are some novelists who write one or two good novels, then spend the rest of their careers churning out the same two stories over and over again. Their works populate every bus station, airport and drug store. John Grisham, Tom Clancy and V.C. Andrews are three such authors who have written enough garbage such that their paperbacks will always be available in any grocery store that has books.

So, as you may figure, I went into John Grisham's The Rainmaker with pretty low expectations. It turns out that The Rainmaker is one of Grisham's two works that were pretty good, one of the two that established him, it appears, as a paperback staple.

The superlative aspect of this film is the acting. Four actors especially give extraordinary performances. They are: Matt Damon (rather predictably as his character Rudy Baylor, is the lawyer protagonist), Danny DeVito (the loser lawyer Deck Schifflet), Claire Dane (as an abused wife) and Danny Glover (as the strangely uncredited Judge Tyrone Kipler). The real standout of the four is Claire Danes. Danes plays Kelly Riker with amazing versatility. She is vivid as a broken, lost, hurt and depreciated human being. Her acting took me by surprise. She's truly quite fabulous as Kelly.

The Rainmaker focuses on Rudy Baylor, a newly bar-approved lawyer. He is taking on an insurance company for denying the claim (and payment) of a youth with leukemia. With the aid of the sloppy Deck, Rudy makes and tries a case against a corporate law team that seems to have all of the advantages. Interspersed with his big trial, Rudy comes to the aid of Kelly, a victim of domestic abuse by her alcoholic husband. Rudy's special interest in the young woman comes from the fact that he grew up watching his father beat his mother.

That's the type of character fact that is slipped into The Rainmaker throughout. Usually, the details involve Rudy. Occasionally, we get a fact about Deck or Judge Kipler that flesh them out as viable individuals. Character is something sufficiently built up in The Rainmaker and that's refreshing.

What isn't is the plot. It plods along without any real intensity or passion. It's slow and it feels slow. The idealism gets tired early on. The sense of hope throughout the film is labored.

In all, I'd recommend the film for a rainy afternoon where you're bored and want a film you don't have to think much about. Outside that . . .

For other films involving lawyers, please check out my takes on:
The Verdict
The Social Network
Philadelphia

5.5/10

For other film reviews, please check out my lists of movie reviews by clicking here!

© 2011, 2001 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.




| | |