The Godfather Review

Murdur. Extortion. Bribery. For some, these are taboo actions, certainly things that no law abiding citizen would consider. For the Corleone family, these things are a matter of course. The Godfather is able to give the viewer a morbid glimpse of the dark life.

The characters
The characters in this movie are phenomenal. Each is acted nearly flawlessly, giving the film a sense of realism. Best of all is the infamous Marlon Brando as the godfather himself who delivers his lines with such chilling intensity that you can't help but look behind your shoulder. Joining in this not so merry band of characters are his three sons, Michael Corleone (Al Pacino), Sonny Corleone (James Cain), and Fredo Corleone (John Cazale). Their are also other characters, but they are, in my opinion, of lesser importance, with the possible exception of Kay, Michael's girlfriend (Diane Keaton). However, even these more minor characters are portrayed incredibly well.


Basic Plot Summary

Upon viewing this film, one is quickly enthralled by its sinister beginning-a lively party is going on outside while a man (Bonasera) negotiates with Vito regarding a vengenace killing. We are then quickly exposed to the nature of the Carleone family, that of one of the "five families" in the mafia, and are introduced equally quickly to one of Vito's three sons, Michael Corleone, who at first states he wants nothing to do with the mafia business. The film follows various members and associates of the Corleone family, and gives the viewer a morbid glimpse into the world of the mafia. It also follows the aforementioend son, Michael, from his initial personality of a carefree young man to a cold hearted killer. In one particularly memorable scene, Michael's negotiations to buy out one "Moe Greene" (Alex Rocco), Moe storms out of the room while Mike sits stonily. His brother Fredo becomes enraged, saying
"Mike, you don't come to Las Vegas and talk to a man like Moe Green like that!"

Mike then calmly stares at Fredo, and replies in a chilling monotone

"Fredo, your my older brother, and I love you. But don't ever take sides with anyone against the family again. Ever."

Although this movie is probably not for the squeamish, it tells its dark story with such elegance that is hard to tell anyone not to see this. The quality of the acting was such that it had no problem making the viewer squirm when they are meant to, so to speak.


The one thing that stood out more than anything in this film is the use of lighting, specifically low key lighting. Whenever a shady deal is happening, the room itself seems to dim to reflect the mood. This is especially apparent when the Don (Vito) himself is on screen. With very few exceptions, the Don's face is shown either half or all in shadow, perhaps to reflect his own troubled inner self.
The last thing I wanted to mention about this film is its unbelievable soundtrack. Each song fits perfectly into the scene where it was inserted. As such, the already chilling effects of seeing what is considered "normal mafia business" is amplified even further by its amazing score-the main theme has, as far as I understand, has become famous.

Analyzing Robert Ebert's review of "Spiderman 3"

I saw Spiderman 3 a while ago, after it was released on DVD. My experience can be summed up in one word-underwhelming. Even though I was not, and still am not, experienced enough to give a credible review to a film, I didn't have to be to notice how the movie seemingly looped between meaningless fight scenes, the romance between Marie Jane and Peter Parker, and odd messages of "redemption." I looked at Robert Ebert's review to see if he could change my mind, or indeed, thought differently at all. However, I was glad to see Robert shared my feelings, specifically with the "baddies."

"Superhero movies and Bond movies live and die by their villains. Spidey No. 2 had the superb Doc Ock (Alfred Molina), who is right up there with Goldfinger and the Joker in the Supervillain Hall of Infamy. He had a personality. In Spidey No. 3 we have too many villains, too little infamy."

He goes on to speak with disdain of the Sandman, with all the character depth of a brick, (honestly, he's remorseful that he killed Uncle Ben, he escaped from prison, and now he has super powers, and an attachment to his daughter. It really never goes any further then that), the Green Goblin, or rather Green Goblin 2.0, who, although having slightly more character then the sandman, still is rather flat, and the black organism that creates "Venom" who truly has no character at all beyond "infect Spidey, once Spidey gets rid of me, infect his rival photographer and help him kill Spidey."

Robert also brings up the interesting point, near the end of the review, that the smae person who directed "Spiderman 2" a movie of considerable merit, also directed the train wreck that is "Spiderman 3." He goes on to list several interesting reasons for the wreck...perhaps the director (Sam Raimi) was paralyzed by the budget? In all honesty, I think I agree with his idea that the series may have grown too heavy on its feet. After all, as he says,

"How many times can we see essentially the same romantic scenario repeated? How much dangling in the air can one girl do?"

Finally, Robert points out plot holes that I hadn't noticed, but which are extremely troubling. The worst one was this;

"We know that Spider-Man's powers do not reside in his red suit, which lies in a suitcase under his bed. So how do fake Spideys like Venom gain their powers when they are covered with the black substance? And how does a microorganism from outer space know how to replicate the intricate patternwork of the Spidey costume, right down to the chest decoration? And to what purpose from an evolutionary point of view? And what good luck that the microorganism gets Peter's rival photographer, Eddie Grace, to infect, so that he becomes Venom! And how does Eddie know who he has become?"

How indeed? The alien, for all intents and purposes, is only an alien, be it parasitic or not. How does it grant Spiderman's powers to Eddie Grace (Peter's rival photographer)? An argument could perhaps be made that it copied Spidey's powers from the times that it was infecting Peter himself, but if so, how did it do that? And if it did, why does it need to infect anybody? It might just be powerful enough on its own. There is no backstory to explain any of this, leaving it up to the viewer to draw his own conclusions about nearly everything that is shown. In short, Spiderman 3 is an absolute travesty, and I can not in good faith reccomend it to anyone, friend or foe. Go watch Spiderman 2 again-at least in that movie, you got more backstory then a five second scene and/or flashback.

All quotes in this post came from the Spiderman 3 section of http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/greatmovies

Introductory Post

This blog is a required class assignment for an Art of Film 1 course I am currently taking. I'm looking forward to learning about multiple facets of the film industry. Of the things we have learned thus far, I was most intrigued by the lighting aspect. It is very easy, while watching a movie, to simply ignore a subtle touch like a random lamp that provides light to an otherwise dark room, or at least, its easy to ignore on the first time through the movie. However, when you go deeper, seemingly insignificant things like this have important meaning to the movie. I'm very interested to learn more things like this.