Please, No Godfather IV
I have seen this film several times, all the way through or in parts. Frankly, I have mixed emotions about it because, when discussing it, I want to be fair and focus on it as a discrete film, judging it on its own terms; however, for me at least, that is impossible because it is the third of three Godfather films and its two predecessors are masterpieces. I cannot exclude vivid memories of scenes and even comments from films I first saw 18 and then 14 years before seeing this one for the first time in 1990. OK, that's my challenge. I finally decided to try to rate it on its own terms, hence the Three Stars. What it has going for it includes Pacino's talent, several plausible conflicts, brilliant cinematography, and a tone of melancholy which is consistent throughout the narrative. After years of broken promises to wife Kay (Diane Keaton), Michael has almost completed a process by which to extricate himself and his family from organized crime. However, his marriage has ended, mortal...
WHAT'S WRONG WITH IT.
The first time I saw it, I felt disappointed. Several viewings later, I thought it wasn't so bad -not as good as the first two, but not bad. Last night I saw the trilogy non-stop, and yes, it is THAT bad. Here's what's wrong with it:
1.- Tom Hagen. He's crucial and he's missing. There's no Godfather III without him. And if Paramount didn't want to pay Robert Duvall whatever he wanted to reprise his role, they should quit show business altogether. Instead we get George Hamilton! What were they thinking, the penny-pincher idiots!
2.- Michael Corleone. Not the same guy. Sure, Al Pacino plays him, but unfortunately, he forgot everything about the character. Michael Corelone doesn't "love public speech"; he's a soft spoken, cold blooded, silent maniac who feels a fish out of water at weddings, first communions, baptisms, New Year's Eve, anything except funerals. A guy that seldom talks and never reveals his emotions. Here, he's a gregarious and bombastic party guy who...
A Classic -- like Parts I and II
Some critics complain that Sofia Coppola was inexperienced for such a big role. I disagree. Ms. Coppola's inexperience helped her play the character of Mary more convincingly. While it is true she sometimes seemed rather "valley girl," this shouldn't be surprising. Michael did his best to shelter her from the harsh realities of life in the Corleone Family, and the upbringing and guidance from her father came across in her portrayal of Mary.
Another criticism is Michael's quest for redemption... that such a notion does not square with the character in Parts I and II. Again, I disagree. Recall Michael wanted nothing to do with the Family Business in Part I. His father had hopes he might become "Senator Corleone... Governor Corleone," but this was not to be. Michael had to step in for the sake of his family. This necessity does not change the fact that at one time he was a good son, who simply wanted to become a math professor, marry, and have a...
Click to Editorial Reviews
No comments:
Post a Comment