GangsterBB.NET


Funko Pop! Movies:
The Godfather 50th Anniversary Collectors Set -
3 Figure Set: Michael, Vito, Sonny

Who's Online Now
2 registered members (Toodoped, 1 invisible), 269 guests, and 6 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Shout Box
Site Links
>Help Page
>More Smilies
>GBB on Facebook
>Job Saver

>Godfather Website
>Scarface Website
>Mario Puzo Website
NEW!
Active Member Birthdays
No birthdays today
Newest Members
TheGhost, Pumpkin, RussianCriminalWorld, JohnnyTheBat, Havana
10349 Registered Users
Top Posters(All Time)
Irishman12 67,467
DE NIRO 44,945
J Geoff 31,285
Hollander 23,884
pizzaboy 23,296
SC 22,902
Turnbull 19,512
Mignon 19,066
Don Cardi 18,238
Sicilian Babe 17,300
plawrence 15,058
Forum Statistics
Forums21
Topics42,324
Posts1,058,610
Members10,349
Most Online796
Jan 21st, 2020
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Ebert's review of Part II #411342
07/06/07 02:53 PM
07/06/07 02:53 PM
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 831
New Market, MD
DeathByClotheshanger Offline OP
Underboss
DeathByClotheshanger  Offline OP
Underboss
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 831
New Market, MD
He gave the film 3 stars but spent most of the review listing his problems with the film. I'd be interested in seeing if he ever followed up this review after subsequent viewings. Anyone know?

As for his review...

 Quote:
Moving through the deep shadows and heavy glooms of his vast estate, Michael Corleone presides over the destruction of his own spirit in "The Godfather, Part II." The character we recall from "The Godfather" as the best and brightest of Don Vito's sons, the one who went to college and enlisted in the Marines, grows into a cold and ruthless man, obsessed with power. The film's closing scenes give us first a memory of a long-ago family dinner, and then Michael at mid-life, cruel, closed, and lonely. He's clearly intended as a tragic figure.

The Corleone saga, as painted by Francis Ford Coppola and Mario Puzo in two films totaling nearly seven hours, has been a sort of success story in reverse. In a crazy way, "The Godfather" and its sequel belong in the same category with those other epics of immigrant achievement in America, "The Emigrants" and "The New Land." The Corleone family worked hard, was ambitious, remembered friends, never forgave disloyalty, and started from humble beginnings to become the most powerful Mafia organization in the country. If it were not that the family business was crime, these films could be an inspiration for us all.

Coppola seems to hold a certain ambivalence toward his material. Don Vito Corleone as portrayed by Marlon Brando in "The Godfather" was a man of honor and dignity, and it was difficult not to sympathize with him, playing with his grandchild in the garden, at peace after a long lifetime of murder, extortion, and the rackets. What exactly were we supposed to think about him? How did Coppola feel toward the Godfather?


Now who's being naive, Roger?

FFC presented it as a life outside the law, but one with moral codes and values. After all, the Corleone's are no different from Senators and Presidents. But Mike ran the family without any codes or morals except to wipe out all his enemies and wanted to be feared more than he wanted to be loved.

 Quote:
"The Godfather, Part II" moves both forward and backward in time from the events in "The Godfather," in an attempt to resolve our feelings about the Corleones. In doing so, it provides for itself a structural weakness from which the film never recovers, but it does something even more disappointing: It reveals a certain simplicity in Coppola's notions of motivation and characterization that wasn't there in the elegant masterpiece of his earlier film.


I'd like to see how he feels now, after the film has come to be one of the best films of all time, and the storylines in the past and present serving as as contrast between Mike's fall and Vito's rise.

 Quote:
He gives us, first of all, the opening chapters in Don Vito's life. His family is killed by a Mafia don in Sicily, he comes to America at the age of nine, he grows up (to be played by Robert De Niro), and edges into a career of crime, first as a penny-ante crook and then as a neighborhood arranger and power broker: a man, as the movie never tires of reminding us, of respect.

This story, of Don Vito's younger days, occupies perhaps a fourth of the film's 200 minutes. Coppola devotes the rest to Michael Corleone, who has taken over the family's business after his father's death, has pulled out of New York, and consolidated operations in Nevada, and has ambitions to expand in Florida and Cuba. Michael is played, again and brilliantly, by Al Pacino, and among the other familiar faces are Robert Duvall as Tom Hagen, the family's lawyer; Diane Keaton as Michael's increasingly despairing wife Kay; and John Cazale as the weak older brother Fredo.

Coppola handles a lot of this material very well. As in the earlier film, he reveals himself as a master of mood, atmosphere, and period. And his exposition is inventive and subtle. The film requires the intelligent participation of the viewer; as Michael attempts to discover who betrayed him and attempted his assassination, he tells different stories to different people, keeping his own counsel, and we have to think as he does so we can tell the truth from the lies.

Pacino is very good at suggesting the furies and passions that lie just beneath his character's controlled exterior. He gives us a Michael who took over the family with the intention of making it "legitimate" in five years, but who is drawn more and more deeply into a byzantine web of deceit and betrayal, all papered over with code words like respect, honor, and gratitude. By the film's end he has been abandoned by almost everyone except those who work for him and fear him, and he is a very lonely man.

But what was his sin? It was not, as we might have imagined or hoped, that he presided over a bloody enterprise of murder and destruction. No, Michael's fault seems to be pride. He has lost the common touch, the dignity he should have inherited from his father. And because he has misplaced his humanity he must suffer.


Even criminals must live by codes... and thats what these movies are largely about. So yes, Michael's sin was pride which lead to the murders.

 Quote:
Coppola suggests this by contrast. His scenes about Don Vito's early life could almost be taken as a campaign biography, and in the most unfortunate flashbacks we're given the young Vito intervening on behalf of a poor widow who is being evicted from her apartment. The don seems more like a precinct captain than a gangster, and we're left with the unsettling impression that Coppola thinks things would have turned out all right for Michael if he'd had the old man's touch.

The flashbacks give Coppola the greatest difficulty in maintaining his pace and narrative force. The story of Michael, told chronologically and without the other material, would have had really substantial impact, but Coppola prevents our complete involvement by breaking the tension. The flashbacks to New York in the early 1900s have a different, a nostalgic tone, and the audience has to keep shifting gears. Coppola was reportedly advised by friends to forget the Don Vito material and stick with Michael, and that was good advice.


He agrees with George Lucas???


 Quote:
There's also some evidence in the film that Coppola never completely mastered the chaotic mass of material in his screenplay. Some scenes seem oddly pointless (why do we get almost no sense of Michael's actual dealings in Cuba, but lots of expensive footage about the night of Castro's takeover?), and others seem not completely explained (I am still not quite sure who really did order that attempted garroting in the Brooklyn saloon).


This has also allowed the films to be totally rewarding, and has lead to more discussion than any other movie I can remember.

 Quote:
What we're left with, then, are a lot of good scenes and good performances set in the midst of a mass of undisciplined material and handicapped by plot construction that prevents the story from ever really building.

There is, for example, the brilliant audacity of the first communion party for Michael's son, which Coppola directs as counterpoint to the wedding scene that opened "The Godfather." There is Lee Strasberg's two-edged performance as Hyman Roth, the boss of the Florida and Cuban operations; Strasberg gives us a soft-spoken, almost kindly old man, and then reveals his steel-hard interior. There is Coppola's use of sudden, brutal bursts of violence to punctuate the film's brooding progress. There is Pacino, suggesting everything, telling nothing.

But Coppola is unable to draw all this together and make it work on the level of simple, absorbing narrative. The stunning text of "The Godfather" is replaced in "Part II" with prologues, epilogues, footnotes, and good intentions.


I probably agreed with most of this review the first time I watched the film. But there is so much to wade through to understand the entire film. It begs to be watched more than once. And it's the most rewarding film I've ever seen.

Your thoughts?

Last edited by DeathByClotheshanger; 07/06/07 02:54 PM.
Re: Ebert's review of Part II [Re: DeathByClotheshanger] #411343
07/06/07 02:56 PM
07/06/07 02:56 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 23,296
Throggs Neck
pizzaboy Offline
The Fuckin Doctor
pizzaboy  Offline
The Fuckin Doctor

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 23,296
Throggs Neck
Ebert is a shmendrick.


"I got news for you. If it wasn't for the toilet, there would be no books." --- George Costanza.
Re: Ebert's review of Part II [Re: pizzaboy] #411358
07/06/07 03:55 PM
07/06/07 03:55 PM
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 165
Boat House
Carson_Corleone Offline
The Best and Brightest Son
Carson_Corleone  Offline
The Best and Brightest Son
Made Member
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 165
Boat House
Ebert is a hollywood Finochio.

But, that aside, I'm sure if he wrote a review tomorrow it would be 4 stars.


-In my HOME!!! In my BEDROOM WHERE MY WIFE SLEEPS!! Where my children come and play with their toys. In my home.

-My father taught me many things here -- he taught me in this room. He taught me -- keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.
Re: Ebert's review of Part II [Re: Carson_Corleone] #411364
07/06/07 04:02 PM
07/06/07 04:02 PM
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 513
UK, Little old Rotherham near ...
Zaf-the-don Offline
Capo di tutti i capi
Zaf-the-don  Offline
Capo di tutti i capi
Underboss
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 513
UK, Little old Rotherham near ...
Yes an odd review.

Re: Ebert's review of Part II [Re: Zaf-the-don] #411510
07/07/07 02:22 AM
07/07/07 02:22 AM
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 15
james_cagney Offline
Wiseguy
james_cagney  Offline
Wiseguy
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 15
I don't think anyone should care what Roger Ebert has to say. I know I don't, because from what he said, he simply needed to watch the film again and rethink his logic.


"It rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again." - Jame Gumb, The Silence of the Lambs.

"I'm sick of carrying guns and beating up women."- James Cagney
Re: Ebert's review of Part II [Re: james_cagney] #411521
07/07/07 04:16 AM
07/07/07 04:16 AM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,190
Brazil
Tony Mosrite Offline
Underboss
Tony Mosrite  Offline
Underboss
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,190
Brazil
Ebert is an idiot.


"I'm just a humble motherfucker with a big ass dick"
The Bunk
Re: Ebert's review of Part II [Re: Tony Mosrite] #411601
07/07/07 11:48 AM
07/07/07 11:48 AM
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,539
My own world.
whisper Offline
Underboss
whisper  Offline
Underboss
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,539
My own world.
Like mentioned previously,Ebert would write a completely different review nowadays.At the time of the review,he probably had only watched it once or twice.


The hero and the coward both feel the same thing, but the hero uses his fear, projects it onto his opponent, while the coward runs. It's the same thing, fear, but it's what you do with it that matters. Cus D'Amato
Re: Ebert's review of Part II [Re: whisper] #412310
07/08/07 10:42 AM
07/08/07 10:42 AM
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 168
W
wtwt5237 Offline
Made Member
wtwt5237  Offline
W
Made Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 168
Althoug I know I should start a new topic, but I just write my question here:
Do you think the Godfather trilogy depicts the mafia heads as people kind of good, responsible and kind?And FFC and Paramount avoided the brutality as best as they could(of course except for Micheal's killing Fredo).
I heard there were true Mafias threatening FFC with bombs when he shot the movies. Did FFC give in to some extent as not to uglify the true mafia life and their negative influence over the American society?


One has only one destiny, he cannot choose it.
Re: Ebert's review of Part II [Re: wtwt5237] #412331
07/08/07 12:33 PM
07/08/07 12:33 PM
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 513
UK, Little old Rotherham near ...
Zaf-the-don Offline
Capo di tutti i capi
Zaf-the-don  Offline
Capo di tutti i capi
Underboss
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 513
UK, Little old Rotherham near ...
No not realy the only thing coppola couldnt put in was the word mafia but in part 2 after the success of the first he couold anything realy. The movie depicts the mob well but also has a deeper meanings about loyalty, power, corruption, greed immigration and family, do to that they had to make the audienece relate to the charachters. It is at the end of the day a movie, but a great one.

Re: Ebert's review of Part II [Re: Zaf-the-don] #412632
07/09/07 09:36 AM
07/09/07 09:36 AM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 11,468
With Geary in Fredo's Brothel
dontomasso Offline
Consigliere to the Stars
dontomasso  Offline
Consigliere to the Stars

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 11,468
With Geary in Fredo's Brothel
No wonder Siskel couldn't stand him.



"Io sono stanco, sono imbigliato, and I wan't everyone here to know, there ain't gonna be no trouble from me..Don Corleone..Cicc' a port!"

"I stood in the courtroom like a fool."

"I am Constanza: Lord of the idiots."

Re: Ebert's review of Part II [Re: dontomasso] #412634
07/09/07 09:42 AM
07/09/07 09:42 AM
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 831
New Market, MD
DeathByClotheshanger Offline OP
Underboss
DeathByClotheshanger  Offline OP
Underboss
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 831
New Market, MD
Ebert is entitled to his own opinion. And watching the movie for the first time and then writing a review, it can be expected that he wouldn't catch everything.

This was a different kind of movie, so I wonder if more and more people didn't feel this way after the movie first came out in 1974 and then watched it again and again and understood it more and appreciated it more as well.


Moderated by  Don Cardi, J Geoff, SC, Turnbull 

Powered by UBB.threads™