*shrug*

Rating: 3/10 (18 July 2006)

well, i worked in a video store for five years and for five years everyone nagged me to see 'the godfather' and for whatever reason it simply never interested me. i love films but wouldn't consider myself a pedant who nitpicks about minor details. a film doesn't have to be entirely perfect for me to enjoy it or feel that it was worthwhile to watch. i like to get lost in a film when i watch it. be it a quick comedy or an epic saga. there are films that have plenty of continuity errors and even bits of really bad acting, and i've watched them several times, because it's a satisfying experience. well, i finally watched the godfather tonight. i finally felt ready to watch it without bias and without towing all the talk and hype behind it into the experience (well, i did the best i could to start with a clean slate, but couldn't always succeed. for example, i'm sure the horse head in the bed at the beginning would have been more shocking and effective if i hadn't heard that scene referenced thousands of times). overall, i have to say that i really wasn't very impressed, and, even before i remembered that it was, in fact, based on a book, i was left with that empty sensation of too much missing information and imbalance of characters that sadly happens with too many adaptations. also -- and as i said, i don't deliberately go seeking out errors, especially during a first viewing, but... -- the editing in so many parts was really bad enough to take away from the movie experience. it was difficult to pay attention to the dialogue because the cut-to's during some of the conversations were so blatantly recorded at different times that i forgot about my own involvement in the film and instead had to sit through these confusing cuts. likewise with the 40's atmosphere. i'll bring 'the hype' into the argument for a moment here to comment only in retrospection, but for all the talk of how classic and what a masterpiece this film is, i would have thought it to be more... i don't know... scrutinised? and there were just too many times when i would find myself involved in a scene, drawn in, convinced, fully attentive, and then there would be a completely random cut, even dialogue cut in mid-sentence when fading to the next scene. so strange. parts gave me the impression of watching a well-financed, well-meaning rough draft. all that said, some of the acting, not all, but some, was in fact, first rate. Marlon Brando really didn't convince me. he was good. but nothing special, i'm almost sorry to say. the wife (i forget her name) who was married at the beginning, she always seemed really out of place and ... i can't quite put my finger on it, but her fits just didn't flow with the film. i thought James Caan did a great job. i've only ever seen him in 'thief' and 'bottle rocket,' so i can't really make any worthy comparisons with other performances. but his hot-headedness was convincing enough. Robert Duvall was great. i didn't recognise him for almost the first half of the film. another acting gem for me was Al Pacino. he, too, i didn't recognise at the beginning of the film. for a few moments i mistook him for Adrian Brody, even though i knew that was impossible. but i was immediately drawn in by "Michael's" performance. every gesture and every word was electric. it took me about twenty minutes to realise that i was watching Al Pacino. then, furthermore, i was really impressed by the evolution of his character. that's one thing i think they really nailed solid with this film, from Pacino's acting to the storyline and editing and everything all rolled into one. i came away entirely convinced and ruminating on the life and thoughts of this character. i watched and admired the power he carried in his manner even when he was, in the beginning, insofar as the bloody family business was concerned, innocent. then saw that power unfold and transform itself until, in the end, he was finally consumed by the corruption inherent in the prioritisation of his blood-family's honour. however, apart from this character and a few other performances, there really wasn't enough "meat" to this movie to make me want to see it again. i'm curious about the sequel(s), to see where the story goes. but by the end of this first viewing i was mostly just wondering who was going to die next, and i didn't really care. i was plenty intrigued by Michael, but i felt like i was mostly sticking around to see who would be left standing by the time the credits rolled. maybe the whole mafia style depiction thing just isn't enough for me to be able to sympathise or feel anything when the next trench coat gets strangled or shot or stabbed. so, overall, there were indeed a very few classic moments, and some of the acting was really well performed. but on the whole it just didn't chalk up to much for me, least of all a masterpiece.