Reviews: The Godfather Trilogy

Me and one of my friends had planned to do a Godfather marathon for quite a while, but never really got round to it. We then decided what better to celebrate essay hand in with , than watching one of the most iconic trilogies in film history from start to finish. For anyone who hasn't already, I'd highly recommend it. Get together with a mate, or a bunch of mates, get some beverages in, order a pizza, and you've got one heck of a day lined up!

But what can be said about the Godfather trilogy (more specifically parts I & II), that hasn't already been said? Not a lot is the answer, but I'll do my best.

The Godfather: Part I
Many people, including myself, will argue that this is the greatest film of all time, and is the closest thing we've got to cinematic perfection. It is the finest story, the best collection of characters, and really needs no introduction.

Whereas the story, cinematography, and soundtrack are all superb, what really stands out is the cast. The film served as career defining performances for Brando and Pacino as Vito and Michael Corleone, despite the uncertainty of the studio to cast them in their respective roles. But in addition to these; John Cazale, James Caan, and Robert Duvall put on three of the best supporting roles of all time as the hapless Fredo, hot-headed Sonny, and Irish/German lawyer; Tom Hagen.

I could go on for days about the triumphs of this film, but I think I'll leave it for those who haven't seen it to find out about it for themselves, as part of the beauty of this film is watching the story progress, and the characters develop. For those who have seen it, it will hopefully be recognized as the film that defined not only a genre but cinema itself, and the must see film of all time.

I very much doubt for as long as we live, we will never seen anything better The Godfather.

Rating: 5/5.

Verdict: The good.

The Godfather: Part II
I once read somewhere that the Godfather II has something its earlier counterpart does not: De Niro. The beauty of Coppola and Puzo's sequel to their masterpiece from 2 years previous, is that it not only chronicles Michael's reign of fear atop the Corleone family, but also Vito's rise to power, starting from when he was a young boy in Sicily. And who better to play the role, than the best actor of all time, Robert De Niro.

The use of nonlinear narrative is perfect, and unlike other films which use the technique, the backstory is in no way irrelevant, and just as much of a part of the film as the main story is. Again I won't reveal too much about the story for those who have not been fortunate enough to see this masterpiece, but once again, it is completely flawless.

Something else I particularly love about this film, is the larger part John Cazale plays a Fredo, which is one of my all time favourite performances. Watching his relationship with Michael develop and decline, is like poetry in motion, and leads to some of the most emotional and beautifully acted scenes of all time.

I still maintain my view that The Godfather: Part I is the greatest film of all time, but The Godfather: Part II comes extremely close. And although Coppola had brilliant core material to work with in Puzo's original novel, the ability to helm two films as good as this in the space of two years, is extraordinary.

Rating: 5/5.

Verdict: The good.

The Godfather: Part III
Now this is where it gets interesting. Many critics, particularly the guys over at Empire (who gave it 2/5), have absolutely slated the final part of the trilogy, The Godfather: Part III. Most of the negativity revolves around poor performances, and the lack of the beautifully constructed narrative we were accustomed to in the previous masterpieces. Whilst I partially agree with some of these complaints, I think a lot of the criticism is unfair and in some cases unjustified.

I'll start off with what constrains the film from being as good as the first two parts in the trilogy. Whereas the addition of Andy Garcia as Vincent Mancini is a welcome addition to the cast, the lack of Brando, De Niro, and Duvall does pull the standard of acting down. This isn't aided by Sofia Coppola as Mary Corleone, who does not conform to the Oscar winning acting in the previous entries.

The other aspect which seems to cause unsettle amongst film fans is the incestuous romance between Vincent and Mary, as well Michael's rekindled affection towards Kay. I believe however that this is a matter of perspective. The nay-sayers will argue that the contempt ridden character Michael, which has been so well constructed over the last few films, has been unravelled. The argument itself if logical. If you were Michael Corleone, who shot his own brother, would you forgive your wife who tried to take your kids away, and aborted your third without permission? As Michael himself so elegantly put, 'No'.

But this leads onto my view of the film, which is that it is simply, misunderstood. Obviously incestuous romance was not top of our list of 'things we wanted to see in the final part of the greatest trilogy ever', but it did keep it in the family (pardon the pun). The Romeo and Juliet style romance, creates a strong undercurrent of forbidden attraction, and allows tension to slowly seep into the cracks of the story, which comes to a head at the end of the film. Michael's reunion with Kay also allows Coppola to convey one of the major themes of the film, which is forgiveness and reflection, that is also aided by the more religious aspects the film endows.

So what are the high points of the film? The closing 40 minutes almost make any other complaints irrelevant. Again the theme of reflection is brought up, as the finale closely mirrors that of the first film, and if you have any sense of emotion or compassion, you will find yourself balanced on the edge of your seat, with much shorter nails. The soundtrack is also something that stands out, especially with the vocalized rendition of Brucia La Terra, which is used in another of the stand out scenes. And finally although the older prequels are easily preferred, which orchestrated a more poetic portrayal of violence, the more modernized violenced fits in well with the time period, creating a chronologically accurate feel.

The Godfather part III is not as good as its predecesors, but then again, when compared with arguarbly the two greatest films of all time, it is hard to achieve this feat. Although the film does have it's downfalls, there are several prevelant elements in the film which I feel still make it a worthy candidate of the trilogy, despite it being widely misunderstood.

Rating: 4/5.

Verdict: The good.

Hope you've enjoyed reading the reviews, sorry for the delay, and more to follow soon.

Dean