Righteous Kill

What happens when someone in Hollywood gets a great idea, but the execution of said idea becomes mismanaged, resulting in an essentially half-hearted attempt at a movie? Well, one could say that the outcome would resemble something similar to the mind-numbingly formulaic, contrived, and completely devoid of any thrills thriller known as “Righteous Kill” starring screen legends Robert DeNiro (“Goodfellas”) and Al Pacino (“The Godfather” trilogy).

“Righteous Kill” centers upon two detectives, “Turk” (Robert DeNiro) and “Rooster” (Al Pacino), longtime partners within the NYPD for over 30 years. For these two decorated officers the streets shouldn’t be able to offer them any new surprises; that is until several known criminals begin getting murdered by an alleged vigilante. To make matters worse, the dead bodies are all tied to cases the pair had solved over their many years on the force, prompting many in the department to wonder if one of their own has gone over the edge.

Prior to viewing this film I began to notice some rather strange omissions from the trailers preceding the impending release upon DVD and Blu-ray. Namely, the lack of any critical praise being thrown about; of course, this makes perfect sense given that a vast majority of film critics blasted the movie to pieces. With a growing sense that perhaps this movie is as lackluster as the critics had said it was, I found that my eagerness to see it was waning significantly. Yet, like a glutton for punishment I decided to sit down one night to see it for myself, because even though the movie was almost universally panned, I still like to make my own judgments about a film. Needless to say, after watching “Righteous Kill” I find myself in complete agreement with the majority of the critics, and wondering why on Earth did this film ever see the light of day, let alone find its way into the hands of two of Hollywood’s icons?

To attempt to understand where this film went wrong we must first look at the base on which the film stands… the screenplay. Next to the involvement of actors Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino, the other big surprise surrounding this film was the fact that the script was written by the man who penned the outstanding heist film “Inside Man”, writer Russell Gewirtz. After crafting such an entertaining thriller full of twists and turns and originality, I’m surprised that Gewirtz’s follow-up would essentially embody the antithesis of all that was great about his previous script. With “Righteous Kill” there is nary a hint of originality, in place of that is an abundance of predictability that causes all of the potential twists and turns that the story will no doubt throw at the audience to fail due to the sheer obviousness of the proceedings.

On top of that is the fact that the only way any sense of suspense was created in this film was through a contrived plot device where several of the characters are referred to solely by their nicknames. This way the viewer doesn’t know who is really who until the final moments of the film. It is this manufactured form of suspense that made me feel especially disappointed for two reasons. One, I can’t think of a single person whose nickname is the only name by which they are called; and second, if Russell Gewirtz didn’t want certain people’s identities being truly known until the end, there are much more natural ways to achieve this. For instance, many people don’t even refer to someone by name when talking to them, especially if they are very familiar with them. So, in the movie the nickname device could have still been used in conjunction with just casual conversation where no names are ever mentioned. This way the dialogue could still feel natural, and the unknown identities would still be a form of manufactured suspense, but one far less obvious and annoying.

Now lets move on to the director of this travesty, the much maligned (by me, that is) Jon Avnet, director of the abominable “88 Minutes”. From what I have been able to gather after watching Jon’s last two attempts at feature films, if it weren’t for the surprisingly talented cast members he is able to ensnare, his films would most likely wind up on rental shelves or never even see the light of day in the first place. I find myself completely surprised that this man is able to get such high-caliber actors and actresses to flesh out his roles. Granted his track record of television shows (“Boomtown” for instance) is a bit more impressive, even if his shows haven’t been the longest lasting, at least they were compelling; and it is conceivable that news of the utter crap-fest that was “88 Minutes” was not made known until after it was too late and those involved in this film were already signed. With those two thoughts in mind, they may serve as an explanation as to why Pacino and DeNiro would even consider joining up with such a hack director; although Pacino by all rights should have already figured out that this guy didn’t have a clue after his time spent headlining the previous film. Whatever the case may be for why this man still has work coming to him in Hollywood, from my perspective he’s had his first and second chances, and massively blown them both, so I can’t understand why he isn’t just shown the door or at least his way onto the B-list, a.k.a. the Direct-to-DVD list.

As I stated before, the biggest surprise of all surrounding this movie, was the involvement of Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino. The last time these two screen legends had acted opposite each other was in the superbly crafted “Heat” from director Michael Mann. Here we are 13 years later, and what should have been one of the greatest Hollywood reunions of all time, is wasted in a movie that is well below their considerable talents. Although some could argue that neither actor has been at the top of their game in quite some time; I still believed that their common sense would have told them to run away from this mess before it is too late. But I guess I would have been wrong on that count. Which leads me to wonder if these two acting giants have lost the drive that once made them such forces to be reckoned with, and is it too late for them to reclaim what they appear to have lost?

I will say that even though this film is well below the standards of their prime, both Pacino and DeNiro did give decent performances. However, I would have to say that neither one seemed too committed to their respective role, but at least they weren’t just overtly going through the motions without a care, as they have done in some of their recent work (i.e. “88 Minutes”). Joining them we have actress Carla Gugino (“Sin City”) who serves the purpose of being nothing more than the eye candy of the film. Her role doesn’t really offer anything to the proceedings, and the one point in the story when it seems her character may have some relevance after all, is squandered in the end. Other supporting cast members include Donnie Wahlberg (“Saw 2”) and John Leguizamo (“The Happening”) as two other police officers with ties to some of the various criminals being murdered. I’m sure their characters were intended to serve as compelling antagonists to Pacino and DeNiro’s, but in the end both of them appear as bland and uninspired as the rest of the production, despite the efforts of Leguizamo and Wahlberg. Lastly, Brian Dennehy appears in a thankless role so small that it is almost relegated to cameo status as the boss/friend of “Turk” and “Rooster”. Brian Dennehy is a talented actor who has always managed to entertain no matter the role; yet in this film even he can’t make a miracle happen and his choice for signing onto this project seems just as bewildering as the two leads.

It’s a shame that such a large amount of talent was wasted on such a generic movie as “Righteous Kill”, and truth be told had the star power associated with this film not been involved, I have no doubt that most people never would have heard of the movie and it would have found its way directly on to rental shelves instead of in theaters. Now, if you have not seen a mystery/thriller or any kind of cop movie or television program, then perhaps you will find “Righteous Kill” to be outstanding; however, if you have seen any of the aforementioned, then you will most likely find this film to be just as dull and boring as I did.

“Righteous Kill” is rated R for violence, language, and sexuality.

Gran Torino

2008 proved to be another busy year for critically acclaimed writer, director, actor, and producer Clint Eastwood. Earlier in 2008, Clint directed the gripping drama “Changeling” starring Angelina Jolie (“Wanted”); yet it was the second film Clint was involved with that year that garnered most of my attention. This film is none other than the recently released “Gran Torino”, which Clint directed and also starred in, possibly in his final onscreen performance. Just like so many of his other films, “Gran Torino” is yet another instant classic from Clint Eastwood, a man of so many talents and a true living legend among Hollywood.

“Gran Torino” is the story of a Korean War veteran named Walt Kowalski (Clint Eastwood), who despite his intense prejudices remains in the house he shared for so many years with his wife, even though the neighborhood has seen a vast influx of Asian-American homeowners. In spite of his disdain for his neighbors, Walt soon finds himself inadvertently saving the life of one of the local teenagers who is being threatened by an Asian gang after he failed to steal Walt’s beloved Gran Torino. As hard as he tries to fight it, Walt begins to realize that perhaps he may have more in common with his Asian neighbors, despite their vast cultural differences and his pervasive bigotry, than he would ever care to admit.

As one of the most accomplished and iconic actors and/or filmmakers working in Hollywood, with numerous films to his credit, it’s a wonder that Clint can still manage to make a film in which he actually may top himself. Yet, with his terrific performance in this film, I believe Clint has given us one of the best performances of his extremely successful career, if not the best. He imbues his character with such subtle nuances, and an irresistible grandfather-like quality despite his abrasive disposition that you can’t help but like the guy; while at the same time, his mere presence on screen demands our attention and respect. I never believed any actor could make this kind of character so entertaining and likeable, but Clint figured out how to do it, and has succeeded brilliantly.

Speaking of performances, the supporting cast for “Gran Torino” was comprised of mostly newcomers to film. I’m referring to the actors chosen to portray the various Hmong characters that live in the neighborhood that Walt resides in. Leading these cast members are two fairly talented young actors Bee Vang (as Thao) and Ahney Her (as Sue), both of their characters’ interactions with Walt serve as the primary crux on which the majority of the story rests. Surprisingly, Bee and Ahney do very well with their roles providing an authenticity to their struggle for acceptance in a culture that they don’t fully understand and vice versa, while at the same time attempting to reach out to a man who has spent the majority of his life despising those who are different. The remainder of the supporting cast was not focused upon in the film nearly as much as the previous two, yet it would be a disservice to them to not mention that they all delivered very solid, and seemingly genuine performances to further enhance the richness of the overall film.

However, if I had to complain about anything in this movie, there is one performance that is weaker than the others. The one in question would be actor Bee Vang, who seemed a bit unsure of himself in places, and at times he would clearly over-emphasize a line reading, causing his character’s dialogue to sound out of place with the other actor(s) in the scene. Although when all is said and done, if Clint Eastwood didn’t have a problem with Bee’s performance in order to make him change it, then who am I to judge.

A few moments back I mentioned that Clint Eastwood was one of the most accomplished actors and filmmakers in Hollywood, and that perhaps he has actually bested himself with his performance here in “Gran Torino”; yet, I never mentioned whether I thought his directing accomplished the same achievement. As refined as Clint’s directing has become over the many years since 1971, when he first decided to step behind the camera, I don’t know if I can say that “Gran Torino” is any better than his previous efforts from that perspective.

One thing that is for certain about Clint’s directing, it’s that he never shies away from hitting the audience hard with an emotional, visceral, or visual impact, and “Gran Torino” is no exception. In this respect he is uncompromising, which is undoubtedly one of the many attributes that has made him such a powerful directing force to be reckoned with over the last few decades. Even though he has the courage to go for the audience’s gut, when lesser men would pull back out of fear that the audience may be turned off, Clint has come to the understanding that you don’t always have to show everything for the full power of the moment to be felt in a scene; which is something that so many other directors would do well to take a lesson in from this living legend.

It’s been rumored that “Gran Torino” marks Clint’s final onscreen appearance, and that the remainder of his career will be served behind the camera. If that is true, then this is definitely a powerful curtain call from the actor, and one he should definitely be proud of.

“Gran Torino” is rated R for violence and language.

The Godfather Part 3

Sixteen long years after the release of “The Godfather Part 2”, Paramount Pictures along with writer and director Francis Ford Coppola, and co-writer Mario Puzo, delivered to audiences the final chapter in one of the greatest cinematic sagas ever committed to film.

“The Godfather Part 3” finds Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) closer than ever to realizing his dream of transitioning his family into strictly legitimate business dealings. As a part of improving the public’s image of both he and his family, Michael is reaching out to the Catholic Church through the charitable donation of millions of his own dollars. Just as Michael has finally found a viable way out of the life of crime that he’s known for so many years, a rival gangster seeks to move in on the impending power vacuum Michael’s departure will undoubtedly leave behind. Yet this obvious power play may not come without its fair share of bloodshed. Enter Michael’s nephew Vincent (Andy Garcia), an up-and-coming mafia hood who wants nothing more than to protect his beloved uncle and preserve the legacy of the Corleone family for years to come.

For some reason, that I cannot wrap my head around, “The Godfather Part 3” is almost universally panned as being the weakest entry in the trilogy. Personally, I can’t figure out what the problem is with this movie that causes so many people to essentially loathe watching it. For me, no matter how many times I watch the film, and do my best to find some fault in it, I still walk away enjoying it as much as I did its two predecessors. Plus, I can’t seem to find any glaring problems with the film. Perhaps audiences just don’t respond well to the redemptive message inherent within the story, maybe there are just not enough darker elements, such as murder, betrayal, sadness, and despair to satisfy their typical mafia fix. Whatever the case may be, I doubt I will ever understand why this installment is so maligned by most viewers, but I digress.

Now, let’s talk about what I feel is the main focus of this final chapter in “The Godfather saga”. I believe the purpose of this third film is two-fold; first, it is an appropriate vehicle with which Francis Ford Coppola and Mario Puzo nicely tie up any loose ends still left over from the initial two installments, while introducing us to a fascinating final act for the Corleone family. Second, “The Godfather Part 3” can almost be viewed as a thank you to the fans on behalf of the entire cast and crew of the series. What I mean by that is, after “The Godfather Part 2” there was a 16 year gap between films, hinting that perhaps the Corleone family’s story was finished, but by returning to the series for one more film the cast and crew reward the audience for their loyalty (and patience) to the franchise. Not to mention the film brings the entire story of Michael Corleone full circle in a very powerful, yet bittersweet sort of way.

Speaking of Michael’s character arc within this grand trilogy, there is a definite metamorphosis that Michael goes through over the course of his journey. In “The Godfather”, Michael is an idealistic young man, untainted by the dark world that his father and brothers belong to; however, over the course of that film certain events lead to Michael’s eventual baptism by fire into the underworld. Then we come to “The Godfather Part 2”, where the darkness that had once consumed his father and brothers has now consumed Michael completely, and the results of his decisions do not come without a cost. Finally, we arrive at “The Godfather Part 3” and the path he has chosen has resulted in so much death, despair, and loneliness that Michael finally is beginning to realize that perhaps the only way to find some measure of peace is to seek redemption for the sins of his past.

On a side note, as a fan of the entire series, I appreciate that this film’s story includes numerous nods and/or mentions to events that occurred in the previous films in the trilogy. When a film franchise references events within its own history, I find that to be an added bonus, and shows that those involved in the films take great pride in their work, and strive to further enrich the audience’s experience while watching them.

From an acting standpoint, this series continues to be one of the greatest examples of brilliant acting one could ever hope to witness. For Al Pacino and Diane Keaton, I’m surprised that they were still able to find new ground to cover with their respective characters. Al’s performance as Michael is more reserved and at times weary, yet still as emotionally charged as ever. Diane Keaton brings to Kay a quiet strength and an indomitable will power that at times rivals even that of Michael’s, a trait no doubt developed over the course of many years of dealing in his world. Also returning for a third go-round is actress Talia Shire (“Rocky” franchise) as Michael’s older sister, Connie. Finally, Talia is given a character arc that has much more substance to it than what she previously had been given, no doubt a rewarding turn of events for her as an actress. Talia’s arc was much different from that of the previous two films; no longer a victim of any kind, Connie is much more in charge, and accepting of the world that had consumed her entire family for the last two generations.

Newcomers to the franchise include the considerable talents of Andy Garcia, Bridget Fonda, Eli Wallach, and Joe Mantegna. Each of the new cast members brought a sense of newness to the film, something that each of these three films has surprisingly managed to do with every release. Andy Garcia was the standout performance for me out of the new members of the cast. His energetic performance harkened back to James Caan’s volatile character of Sonny from the original film, a character void that had never truly been filled by any other member of the cast within the series.

One thing is for certain after watching not only “The Godfather Part 3”, but the entire trilogy, is that no matter how glamorized the life of the mafia may appear to be (as shown by most movies dealing with the subject), this kind of lifestyle is not worth all the heartache, sadness, and death that surrounds everyone involved. It’s true that even “The Godfather” trilogy glamorized this life to an extent, but at the same time, each of the films took some time within their respective stories to reveal the consequences of the dark choices of life and death that these people make throughout their lives.

”The Godfather Part 3” is yet another triumphant piece of American cinema, expertly crafted by Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola, serving as the perfect final chapter in one of the most beloved film sagas of all time.

“The Godfather Part 3” is rated R for violence and language.

The Godfather Part 2

A sequel to any film, whether it follows a smaller movie, a mega blockbuster, or an instant classic, can be a daunting task to undertake for any director no matter how talented he or she may be. In the case of acclaimed director Francis Ford Coppola he was faced with one of the greatest sequel challenges of all, making a second chapter, in what would eventually become an epic trilogy, to the magnificent gangster ode, “The Godfather”.

“The Godfather Part 2” takes place a few years after the climactic ending to the mafia war, as Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) oversees all facets of the Corleone family business from their new home in Las Vegas. As Michael continues to lead the family in a similar fashion to that of his father, his vow to move the family into strictly legitimate business dealings is proving much more difficult than he had anticipated. With new enemies appearing in virtually every direction, and treachery around every corner, leaving no one above suspicion; Michael must do all he can to ensure his family’s legacy without losing everything he has worked so hard to attain. So the question is in whom do you trust when even those closest to you may have betrayed?

Here’s the astounding part about director Francis Ford Coppola’s achievement with his second installment in the “Godfather” saga; besides the fact that Francis returned as both co-writer and director for the sequel, a massive chore all its own, is the reality that his sequel may have actually managed to surpass the original movie, which is one of the most iconic films of American cinema. Francis and co-writer Mario Puzo (author of “The Godfather” novel and co-writer of all three films) did an amazing job of crafting yet another gripping gangland saga centered around the Corleone family, without really repeating anything they had done in the previous film; starting with the structure for this one’s storyline.

The first film’s story was very linear from start to finish, whereas in “The Godfather Part 2” the story takes place in two time periods. The primary story takes place within the present day as Michael runs the Corleone family operations, and struggles to maintain his power and keep his family together; the secondary storyline occurs via flashbacks that showcase Vito Corleone (played by Robert DeNiro) arriving in America and his subsequent rise to power within the underworld of organized crime. What I found most intriguing about the two separate storylines is how Francis edited the film together to make them run concurrently with each other, in essence providing the audience a comparison between father and son, and the differences in how they handled their business. An interesting side note is that the flashbacks of young Vito were a part of the novel (which is essentially the original film’s story); however, since these segments were not included in the previous film, Francis and Mario felt they would fit in nicely within the sequel to serve as a parallel between the two men and their families.

“The Godfather Part 2” also included some intriguing story elements that seemed to mirror events that had occurred in our nation’s fight against “La Cosa Nostra”, namely Joe Valachi’s admission to the congressional committee on organized crime that the mafia did indeed exist, and the inquisitions of mafia members that followed that event. The inclusion of the United States government’s investigation into organized crime within the movie’s storyline created an added depth and realism to the proceedings. While at the same time these moments within the film allows the audience to see just how twisted, dangerous and powerful Michael has become, and how far from his original plan of becoming legitimate he has gone in such a short time.

Many of the primary cast members for “The Godfather Part 2” were reprising their roles from the original film. Even though many members of the cast were playing characters that they no doubt had become reasonably familiar with; each actor or actress seemed to bring a fresh approach to their characters, almost as if they were portraying them for the first time. Thus serving as an example of just how different almost every single one of the returning characters had become since the conclusion of “The Godfather”.

Al Pacino and Diane Keaton continued to have great onscreen chemistry as Michael and Kay Corleone. Every one of their numerous verbal exchanges was charged full of emotion and intensity, never once disappointing for even an instant. I appreciated that the story for Kay continued to build upon the revelation she had at the end of the original film, where she realized what exactly Michael had become and just how much she had sacrificed to be with him. Seeing her continued struggle with herself and Michael just building to a crescendo over the course of this film was intriguing, and provided some of the most intensely dramatic moments within the series. I was impressed by the way Al Pacino took Michael into even darker, and at times frightening, areas of his character, to the point that the innocence he once had in the first film is all but destroyed by the darkness he has embraced for his life. “The Godfather Part 2” is the movie where Al Pacino truly began to shine as an actor (in my opinion), and where we as an audience began to see the incredible passion and drive that he brings to each of his performances first beginning to manifest.

Three other returning cast members were Robert Duvall, Talia Shire, and John Cazale; all three delivered solid performances, especially Robert and John, both of whom seemed to receive even more screen time than previously. Talia was strong during her moments on screen, although she wasn’t involved in this story as much as she was in the first one (which even then wasn’t a whole lot); yet her scenes still provided plenty of dramatic punch and she made the most of the time she was allotted. Robert Duvall once again gave a terrific performance as Tom Hagen, the one-time consigliere turned family lawyer. Throughout the mid-section of the film, Robert was given an opportunity to take Tom in a new, more powerful direction which he handled perfectly and even added a hint of menace to the character that surprised me. Lastly, John Cazale as middle brother Freddo benefited greatly from a beefed up story compared to his previous turn as the weak-willed sibling. John showed us in “The Godfather” that he was a good actor, but it wasn’t until this film that we were shown just how talented he really was. One scene in particular near the end of the movie provides John his moment to shine opposite Al Pacino, and in these few brief moments, John completely steals the scene away from Al with a devastatingly emotional performance.

One other cast member worthy of note would be Robert DeNiro as a young Vito Corleone. His scenes in the various flashbacks sprinkled throughout the film are superb. When watching his portrayal, with all the little nods to Brando’s performance, and the flashes of intensity and power, it’s not surprising that Robert won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for this role.

Achieving what I personally would have believed impossible at the time, “The Godfather Part 2” manages to at least equal its predecessor, and possibly even surpasses it in the end. With a gripping dramatic story that spans two generations, incredible performances, and an ending that will leave you stunned, “The Godfather Part 2” is as perfect a continuation of the story from the original film as anyone could have ever hoped for.

“The Godfather Part 2” is rated R for violence and language.

The Godfather

The mafia is a subject that has captivated the imaginations of both Hollywood and moviegoers alike for years and years. Generally, when the mob is chosen as the topic for another movie, assuming the film is done with the proper attention and care, it’s pretty much a guarantee that there will be the potential for plenty of money flowing in at the box office. Many of the most successful mafia-themed movies rank amongst some of the best films Hollywood has ever offered to the public. With entries into this particular film grouping including some of Martin Scorcese’s classics, such as “Goodfellas” and “Casino”, to Sam Mendes’ “Road to Perdition”, and even on TV with HBO’s “The Sopranos”, it’s no wonder this is a sub-genre that has lasted for so many decades; however, as great as all of those titles are, there is one trilogy of films that truly set the bar for what all others would be compared to. I’m referring to none other than the best of the best of the mafia film sub-genre…The Godfather trilogy. To kick things off lets talk about the one that started it all, the original classic film in director and co-writer Francis Ford Coppola’s gangland magnum opus, “The Godfather”.

“The Godfather” focuses on the fictional Corleone crime family. The family, as led by Don Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando), vies for money and power amidst the dark world of organized crime. Set in the years following the Second World War, Don Vito Corleone is offered a chance for his family to further expand their empire via the fledgling, yet profitable drug trade. However, the Don is not convinced that this is the way their organization should take for more profits, a school of thought that the other rival families aren’t too comfortable with. As tensions mount and battle lines are being drawn, Don Vito along with his sons, Sonny (James Caan) and Fredo, and consigliere Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall), prepare to do what must be done to preserve the power they have fought so long and hard to attain. As an all-out mafia war begins to claim casualties on all sides, it seems some new blood may be needed to turn the tide. Enter Michael Corleone (Al Pacino), the youngest of the Corleone children, and the one who had vowed to steer clear of the dark world that has consumed the rest of his family. However, certain events are unfolding that will force Michael to choose whether his destiny lies by his father’s side or on his own path separate from a life of crime.

Based upon the novel by Mario Puzo, who also served as co-writer alongside director Francis Ford Coppola, “The Godfather” is one of the most faithful adaptations of a book that I have ever seen. Having read the book and seen the movie, I find both to be perfect companion pieces to one another. Even though it is cemented within the dark underworld of organized crime, the story is one that can resonate with virtually every person on some level, thanks in no small part to the many themes inherent within the screenplay and the novel.

The biggest theme that this film deals with throughout its nearly three-hour running time is the concept of family, displayed in both a literal and metaphorical sense (as shown in the numerous references to a person’s mafia affiliation and/or organization as a family). For me this was the most intriguing aspect of the film’s richly layered story. Seeing how the various Corleone children grappled with the weight of eventually taking the reins of the family’s various affairs, both personal and business related, was truly interesting and provided the strongest dramatic firepower for the script to draw from. For me, making the primary driving force of the screenplay focus upon the family aspect, made “The Godfather” stand apart from all other mafia themed movies that had come before it, and many that arrived after it, for that matter. Many times in these types of films we get a very violent story, full of intense drama and plenty of colorful language, and even some allusions to the themes found in this film, but it seems to be a bit of a rarity to find a mafia movie outside of this series that takes the time to delve deeply into the personal relationships these people establish over the course of their lives and nefarious careers as criminal figures. We all know that the mafia is all about loyalty, respect and living by certain codes of honor, but what we rarely get to see is where those attributes come from, which can only be found in the personal relationships these characters share with each other over the course of the film. To me, it is the personal touches found in this movie and its sequels that make the story all the more accessible, and elevate it from being just another mafia movie to something far greater.

The casting choices made for “The Godfather” seem to perfectly embody every single character from Mario Puzo’s classic novel, as if they could have walked right off of the page and onto the screen. Marlon Brando (“Superman: The Movie”) as the Corleone family’s patriarch and Don of the Corleone crime family is simply iconic in his portrayal. He brings a warmth and magnetism to the character that instantly draws you in, essentially erasing all thoughts of the evil acts this man has committed either personally or via his organization. Yet behind the almost grandfatherly quality Brando gives the character, lies an extremely dangerous man, who possesses a quiet and powerful inner-strength, along with a worldly power that is unparalleled by any other member of the underworld.

Portraying the other primary members of the story are veteran actors (although at the time they were still rising stars in Hollywood) James Caan (“Misery”), Robert Duvall (“Secondhand Lions”), and Al Pacino (“Heat”). James Caan plays the hot-headed eldest son of Vito Corleone named Sonny, who is first in line to take over the family business whenever the Don steps down or passes on. Caan perfectly portrays the character with a dangerous volatility that is electrifying and borderline insane at times, yet he also brings to the table an unyielding devotion to his family that is both his greatest strength and biggest weakness. Robert Duvall as Tom Hagen the surrogate son and consigliere to the Corleone family, seems an ideal choice lending the character plenty of gravitas, while at the same time giving a sense that he is constantly seeking approval from the other members of the family due to him being of German/Irish descent, and therefore an outsider to the otherwise Italian family. Lastly, we have Al Pacino, giving his most restrained performance of his career, long before he became the iconic actor he is today, as the youngest Corleone sibling and the one member of the family that tries his hardest to remain at a safe distance from the crime and corruption that has consumed the other family members. So, in a sense, even though Tom is an outsider due to his heritage, it is Michael who is the one that is truly the outsider, a position that he finds harder and harder to retain the more the story unfolds.

Other cast members worthy of note would include Talia Shire (“Rocky”), Diane Keaton (“Because I Said So”), and John Cazale (“The Deer Hunter”). To be fair there are so many more actors and actresses that deserve attention, I just don’t have the time to devote to them. Talia Shire played Connie Corleone, the lone girl amongst the Corleone children. Talia does a very good job with her character, even though she isn’t given a very large amount of screen time. Nevertheless, if it weren’t for her character’s involvement many of the major events within the story never would have come to fruition. So, even though she possibly has the least amount of time in front of the camera, out of the entire family, her character’s story arc is one of the most pivotal ones of all. The always terrific Diane Keaton is Kay Adams, the young woman who finds herself inadvertently dragged into this dark world through her romantic relationship with Michael. Diane gives Kay an innocence that balances the otherwise corrupt nature of essentially every other character within the film; however, it’s fascinating to see her character’s temptation by the power and money that accompanies such a dangerous world. To see how Kay grapples with the person she is and the person she may become via her romance is interesting, and provides some very small, yet important moments within the film. Rounding out this particular grouping we have Fredo Corleone played by rarely seen actor John Cazale (“The Deer Hunter”). Fredo is the middle child of the three Corleone boys, and is generally perceived as weak and relatively simple-minded in the grand scheme of things. Even though Fredo is given very little to do in this film, John is spot-on with his interpretation of the character, and it’s a shame that an actor as talented as John clearly is, has for some reason chosen to shy away from movie roles ever since “The Godfather Part II”.

It seems somewhat strange to me that a film such as “The Godfather” has become such a globally recognizable film and essentially a major brand name for games, toys, etc. I feel this is strange partly because of these films’ subject matter (which could be perceived as a reflection on our dwindling morality), but also because this film almost didn’t see the light of day, at least not in the way we all have come to know and love. Prior to anyone really being attached to this film, the head of troubled film studio Paramount Pictures, Robert Evans, was having a difficult time convincing anyone to direct this gangland epic after acquiring the rights to the novel. It wasn’t until director Francis Ford Coppola (“Dracula”) took the gig, in an effort to save his fledgling production company, that the film truly began to take shape. Even so, if it hadn’t been for Francis’ stubbornness, Italian heritage, and cinematic vision, who knows what this film would have ended up as, most likely it would not have been the masterpiece it wound up being, that is if the attempted studio tampering had prevailed. So, thank God for directors who know what they want, and have the courage to see their vision through.

With a gripping story rife with powerful thematic elements, intense drama, and some of the best acting you will ever find in any film throughout history, “The Godfather” is a film that truly defines what it is to be a definitive tour de force of American cinema. If you have yet to see this film or its sequels, do yourself a gigantic favor and rent a copy today.

“The Godfather” is rated R for violence, brief language, and brief nudity.