"I Believe In America"

Dubbing Done
THANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOU

That was to Sonny, Rikky and Dennis for giving up more time than I anticipated to put the finishing touches on my movie this afternoon. Now for some chopping and changing and sound effects recording and hopefully an early May "release" (vs. the optimistic March on the original teaser).

The movie is looking less sucky by the day. It's still stupid and all, but at least it kind of works as far as conveying what its supposed to plotwise (an improvement over the original cut a few days ago). It's amazing that anything fits at all given the lack of shot planning, so yeah. I'm happy. Oh and Michael's random peach-eating cameo sequence seems to fit now in its new position so I can include it in the film. I think there's always room for a character eating a peach in any movie.

More Movies I've Seen These Last Few Days
Quiz Show (B+)
The Godfather: Part II (A) (4th favourite film)
The Godfather: Part III (B)
Narnia (C+...Again)
Big Fish (B+)

The Godfather Trilogy
Part I: IMDB 9.1/10 (#1), Rotten Tomatoes 100%
Part II: IMDB 8.9/10 (#3), Rotten Tomatoes 100%
Part III: IMDB 7.4/10, Rotten Tomatoes 77%

There's a reason why Part II is a better film than Part I in spite of its partial reliance on the audience's knowledge of the original for its brilliance (as a continuation of Michael's story). The Godfather is more direct, more blatantly focused and has a greater sense of inevitability about it for the most part, sure (plus it has Brando's iconic performance and about five times as many catch phrases as the sequels), but I think that Part II's avoidance of the original's strengths, stepping out on its own as a completely different experience (like, though to a lesser extent than, Alien and Aliens) is what leads it to ultimately become a more fulfilling, a more challenging and a deeper - both in terms of themes and character - experience. Part II is infinitely more subtle and more complex, employing without question the greatest use of subtext you'll ever see in a film, and while it initially seems - at least regarding the Michael side of the film's dual-narrative - plot-driven as though on course to simply tell a "what happened next" story like so many ill-fated sequels made for the apparent purpose of feeding the audience more of the same, its mostly setup for a great last 70 or so minutes (basically disc 2 of the DVD), with the film only gradually revealing its cards in a masterful display of set-up and pay-off. And you can't not love the Havana sequence (rebel arrest etc.) leading up to and including Michael's meeting with Hyman Roth.

I think there's a close parallel to be drawn between the Godfather films and the Star Wars series. Star Wars is the original, the most adored, the one that made fans fall in love with the series in the first place. It has more of those individual "classic scenes" that film buffs thrive on and it's fresh and original in a way that can't be emulated. That's basically like The Godfather. Part II meanwhile is like The Empire Strikes Back; a less showy, more complex and subtle dramatic exploration of its characters and themes, building to more of an emotionally driven (rather than action-packed) climax - think Blowing Up The Death Star vs The "I Am Your Father" Revelation. This may sound all very vague but to discuss where the brilliance lies requires a discussion of aspects of Michael's character, Vito's story, and what happens in the films. And I'm partially trying to convince you, the reader, to WATCH THESE MOVIES so spoiling it would be stupid ;)

Then, there's Part III. Coppola wanted to call it The Death Of Michael Corleone and the studio, citing the brand name's recognisability as a money spinner, were stupid (financial reasons aside) to intervene. With the name branded on the movie comes expectations of a Godfather-type film. An epic. But Coppola didn't make one - Part III is the only one that doesn't feel epic. It feels like a typical gangster plot stretched out over an epic-length running time. Sure, the climax is executed with almost as much momentum as that of Part I (not surprising really to find similarities here; much of the film is pointlessly spent either copying or sentimentally referencing the original film). And there are many great elements in the film - it's not bad at all. But the story is so simple and the whole film feels so unnecessary and pointless. If you can put that aside - that and the fact that Sofia Coppola gives WITHOUT A DOUBT the single worst performance I have ever seen (to think that Winona Ryder pulled out... she would have been perfect in the role...) - and try to enjoy the film its actually pretty good. But it just doesn't stack up as a GODFATHER MOVIE and doesn't deserve it's title. So in my Star Wars parallel this can be... well, its more like The Phantom Menace than Return Of The Jedi. And Sofia Coppola is Jar-Jar Binks.

Its a good gangster movie (something thinly disguised by the film's settings to instead resemble a Godfather epic), but the depth just isn't there. Still, it's worth watching (1) out of curiosity to see how it all ends, (2) for the scenes between Michael and Kay, (3) to gauge just how awful Sofia Coppola is and (4) to see how Coppola and Puzo could really make two classics in a couple of years and yet after sixteen years only come up with THIS as a conclusion, in case you've seen the first two and refuse to believe that it's possible.

The whole movie feels like Coppola's trying too hard to just MAKE A CLASSIC, and its an awful approach. It still gets a B, don't get me wrong here, but the series deserved a better conclusion. Proof of the film's failure lies in the fact that Michael's silent scream on the steps in the film's dramatic finale doesn't bring with it an ounce of the power that it should despite Pacino's efforts. Unfortunately for him, this moment that so easily could have been the pinnacle crowning achievement of the series is undermined by the fact that by the end of the film we just don't care that much anymore.