#3 The Godfather Part II:

This movie feels nothing like a sequel. Every drop of essence from the first is carried into the second. It is exactly what it says it is, Part II. Part II of a two part epic. (I chose to discount the third as it was made for other reasons than to complete the story.) I’m glad that I watched these two within the span of a few days. It really helped to tie them together, as they were meant to be. There really isn’t all that much more to say, except to briefly talk about Robert DeNiro. How did Coppola know? Why chose a relative unknown to star as the young Vito? In present day minds, DeNiro and Pacino are inevitably tied together, and not because of Righteous Kill, which sucked. They were two of the best and most intense actors of the 70’s and early 80’s. Names that are almost synonyms. I find it very strange. Having said that, why DeNiro? He gaze in particular is so different from Brando’s Vito Corleone that it almost feels like a different character. I had a difficult time with this aspect. But maybe that’s because I’ve seen too many DeNiro movies. That aside, don’t ask me to choose which of the two is the superior. It’s not like one half of a good sandwich is different from the other.

#2 The Godfather:

Some say it insists upon itself. And to that, I would only slightly agree. It does this only as far as Coppola knew he was making a movie that people would remember. The work is a masterpiece. Everyone in it is spectacular, even showcasing Al Pacino before he became a cartoon character. It’s even a little funny. Michael’s two Italian bodyguards sporting shotguns at his wedding is probably funnier than it is meant to be. One thing I have to commend this film for that has fallen out of practice these days is the careful consideration given to how the film was built. The first 2 hours or so take place over a time period of a few months in late 1945. The coloring, ambience and style on this part are spot on. And then somewhat chaotically, we shift to a few years later, and these same attributes have all changed to comply with the early 1950’s. It’s subtle, but really draws me in, even when I’m trying to think of what to review. The last bit of subtlety I’ll bring up is the character Michael Corleone. His transformation is obvious, and yet not, at the same time. He starts out as an innocent, and becomes cold and cutthroat. He handles the family business in such an absolute manner, to the point of dispatching all his enemies in a single day. The previous Don's manner of governance was more reasoning than bludgeoning. The film almost leans towards vilifying the young Michael. It is certain that Michael sees himself in this way. In the end, it was the acting that really shines though. Pacino and Brando's portrayals of deep and exceedingly complicated men of power put this above and beyond other films. I look forward to Part II.