list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around The Godfather Part II on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/The_Godfather_Part_II/13612/default.aspx Title: The Godfather Part II
Year: 1974
Director: Francis Ford Coppola
Plot: Francis Ford Coppola's legendary continuation and sequel to his landmark 1972 film, The Godfather, parallels the young Vito Corleone's rise with his son Michael's spiritual fall, deepening The Godfather's depiction of the dark side of the American dream. In the early 1900s, the child Vito flees his Sicilian village for America after the local Mafia kills his family. Vito (Robert De Niro) struggles to make a living, legally or illegally, for his wife and growing brood in Little Italy, killing the local Black Hand Fanucci (Gastone Moschin) after he demands his customary cut of the tyro's business. With Fanucci gone, Vito's communal stature grows, but it is his family (past and present) who matters most to him -- a familial legacy then upended by Michael's (Al Pacino) business expansion in the 1950s. Now based in Lake Tahoe, Michael conspires to make inroads in Las Vegas and Havana pleasure industries by any means necessary. As he realizes that allies like Hyman Roth (Lee Strasberg) are trying to kill him, the increasingly paranoid Michael also discovers that his ambition has crippled his marriage to Kay (Diane Keaton) and turned his brother, Fredo (John Cazale), against him. Barely escaping a federal indictment, Michael turns his attention to dealing with his enemies, completing his own corruption. ~ Lucia Bozzola, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 67
Number of Lists: 111
Number of blog posts: 17
Number of discussion threads: 6
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Sun, 16 Aug 2009 19:44:39 GMTThe Godfather Part II1974Francis Ford Coppola<a href="/players/P____85868/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Francis Ford Coppola</a>'s legendary continuation and sequel to his landmark 1972 film, <a href=/films/13611/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>The Godfather</a>, parallels the young Vito Corleone's rise with his son Michael's spiritual fall, deepening <a href=/films/13611/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>The Godfather</a>'s depiction of the dark side of the American dream. In the early 1900s, the child Vito flees his Sicilian village for America after the local Mafia kills his family. Vito (<a href="/players/P____17593/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Robert De Niro</a>) struggles to make a living, legally or illegally, for his wife and growing brood in Little Italy, killing the local Black Hand Fanucci (Gastone Moschin) after he demands his customary cut of the tyro's business. With Fanucci gone, Vito's communal stature grows, but it is his family (past and present) who matters most to him -- a familial legacy then upended by Michael's (<a href="/players/P____54596/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Al Pacino</a>) business expansion in the 1950s. Now based in Lake Tahoe, Michael conspires to make inroads in Las Vegas and Havana pleasure industries by any means necessary. As he realizes that allies like Hyman Roth (<a href="/players/P____68625/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Lee Strasberg</a>) are trying to kill him, the increasingly paranoid Michael also discovers that his ambition has crippled his marriage to Kay (<a href="/players/P____96996/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Diane Keaton</a>) and turned his brother, Fredo (<a href="/players/P____11919/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>John Cazale</a>), against him. Barely escaping a federal indictment, Michael turns his attention to dealing with his enemies, completing his own corruption. ~ Lucia Bozzola, All Movie Guide67Tag Target (>10)1111764http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t57636p4vrp.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Godfather_Part_II/13612/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/groups/Coming_Soon/Week_of_2_20_fashion_cheerleaders_prison_an/216/40484/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: spout
Post To: Coming Soon
Post Date: 2/16/2009 3:10:31 PM
Body: NEW TO THEATRES 2/20 1. Madea Goes to Jail - Watch the trailer. Until today, I thought Tyler Perry's Madea was like a kooky update of Jim Varney's Ernest P. Worrell. (Considering Ernest Goes to Jail, can you blame me?) Then I started looking into Tyler Perry, and even though I don't think his movies are for me, he seems like a really interesting guy. Two quotes from him on Wikipedia really caught my eye: 1) "I know my audience, and they're not people that the studios know anything about." 2) "Did you know you can't say 'Jesus' in a sitcom? They told me that and I was like, You gotta be kiddin' me...God has been too good to me to go and try to sell out to get some money." I was impressed to learn that Tyler Perry's been writing plays since he was 18, and according to Wikipedia, by 2005 his plays earned $75 million in ticket sales! Who knew? Madea Goes to Jail itself was a stage play in 2006, and a filmed version has already appeared on DVD. Has anyone seen that? 2. Fired Up - Watch the trailer. Teen comedy, whooooooo! Two randy football players avoid summer football camp by becoming cheerleaders. 3. Eleven Minutes (limited) - Watch the trailer. A documentary about fashion designer Jay McCarroll trying to set up an independently-produced runway show. NEW TO DVD - 2/17 1. Quarantine - Watch the trailer. This one looked pretty thrilling to me. An inner city apartment building is subjected to a government quarantine, but what's infecting the victims? 2. Body of Lies - Watch the trailer. Kevin Buist from FilmCouch saw this and didn't love it. Here's his review. 3. Choke - Watch the trailer. Kevin Buist wasn't crazy about this one either, so maybe he's just a big fuddy-duddy. Listen to his review. 4. Changeling - Watch the trailer. This was getting a lot of Oscars buzz until everyone actually saw it. Oh well, Clint Eastwood made a winner with Gran Torino. 5. High School Musical 3 - Watch the trailer. Well, I'm sure that whatever this movie's supposed to do, it does it well. Does anyone else think 'Corbin Bleu' sounds like a gourmet meal? 6. Righteous Kill - Watch the trailer. Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro are in the same movie for only the third time. Since the first two movies were Godfather Pt. II and Heat, this third time is most definitely not 'a charm.' 7. Midnight Meat Train - Watch the trailer. Here's another dose of Bradley Cooper for everyone who's crushing (or man-crushing) on him from He's Just Not That Into You. Myself, I have a bit of a man-crush on the villain, who's played by tough-as-nails Vinnie Jones. 8. How to Lose Friends and Alienate People - Watch the trailer. Simon Pegg starts working for a pompous fashion magazine. Also stars Kirsten Dunst, Megan Fox, Jeff Bridges and Danny Huston -- all people I like. The movie didn't get very good reviews, though... I'm looking forward to Simon Pegg teaming up with Edgar Wright (Hot Fuzz) again, and I'm glad he's playing Scotty in the new Star Trek movie.
]]>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 20:10:31 GMTspoutComing Soon2/16/2009 3:10:31 PMNEW TO THEATRES 2/20 1. Madea Goes to Jail - Watch the trailer. Until today, I thought Tyler Perry's Madea was like a kooky update of Jim Varney's Ernest P. Worrell. (Considering Ernest Goes to Jail, can you blame me?) Then I started looking into Tyler Perry, and even though I don't think his movies are for me, he seems like a really interesting guy. Two quotes from him on Wikipedia really caught my eye: 1) "I know my audience, and they're not people that the studios know anything about." 2) "Did you know you can't say 'Jesus' in a sitcom? They told me that and I was like, You gotta be kiddin' me...God has been too good to me to go and try to sell out to get some money." I was impressed to learn that Tyler Perry's been writing plays since he was 18, and according to Wikipedia, by 2005 his plays earned $75 million in ticket sales! Who knew? Madea Goes to Jail itself was a stage play in 2006, and a filmed version has already appeared on DVD. Has anyone seen that? 2. Fired Up - Watch the trailer. Teen comedy, whooooooo! Two randy football players avoid summer football camp by becoming cheerleaders. 3. Eleven Minutes (limited) - Watch the trailer. A documentary about fashion designer Jay McCarroll trying to set up an independently-produced runway show. NEW TO DVD - 2/17 1. Quarantine - Watch the trailer. This one looked pretty thrilling to me. An inner city apartment building is subjected to a government quarantine, but what's infecting the victims? 2. Body of Lies - Watch the trailer. Kevin Buist from FilmCouch saw this and didn't love it. Here's his review. 3. Choke - Watch the trailer. Kevin Buist wasn't crazy about this one either, so maybe he's just a big fuddy-duddy. Listen to his review. 4. Changeling - Watch the trailer. This was getting a lot of Oscars buzz until everyone actually saw it. Oh well, Clint Eastwood made a winner with Gran Torino. 5. High School Musical 3 - Watch the trailer. Well, I'm sure that whatever this movie's supposed to do, it does it well. Does anyone else think 'Corbin Bleu' sounds like a gourmet meal? 6. Righteous Kill - Watch the trailer. Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro are in the same movie for only the third time. Since the first two movies were Godfather Pt. II and Heat, this third time is most definitely not 'a charm.' 7. Midnight Meat Train - Watch the trailer. Here's another dose of Bradley Cooper for everyone who's crushing (or man-crushing) on him from He's Just Not That Into You. Myself, I have a bit of a man-crush on the villain, who's played by tough-as-nails Vinnie Jones. 8. How to Lose Friends and Alienate People - Watch the trailer. Simon Pegg starts working for a pompous fashion magazine. Also stars Kirsten Dunst, Megan Fox, Jeff Bridges and Danny Huston -- all people I like. The movie didn't get very good reviews, though... I'm looking forward to Simon Pegg teaming up with Edgar Wright (Hot Fuzz) again, and I'm glad he's playing Scotty in the new Star Trek movie. http://www.spout.com/blogs/risselada/archive/2009/2/2/40144.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Risselada Blog
Post Date: 2/2/2009 12:43:12 PM
Body: If you are interested in cinematography, great cinematography, and great cinematographers, Cinematographer Style would probably be both a highly interesting and highly frustrating experience. Keep reading to find out why! First of all, as an irrelevant piece of information (you can skip this paragraph if you just want to hear about the movie itself) I first heard about this movie from one of my former roommates. He was quite a young guy that I found on craig's list who was studying cinematography at Columbia College in Chicago. He mentioned that he knew a guy who was working on this production, and I think he may have even visited the set one day they were filming one of the cinematographers in the film. Anyways he made the whole thing sound very exciting and epic. A couple months later, after never moving anything else into the apartment except for a few articles of clothing and his guitar and sleeping on our couch until 2 PM every day, and after failing to pay any rent, he showed up in the middle of the night bloody and beat up after going back to a mafia owned bar that he had recently been fired from. After that he never really showed up again. Just one of a series of interesting roommate stories I had at that apartment. But again, that's all irrelevant. Anyways, the structure of the movie Cinematographer Style is a montage of interviews with many famous cinematographers. And when I say many I mean one hundred and ten! This is actually not a number that you should be excited about, although the filmmakers don't seem to realize. With a running time of 86 minutes, this means that on average each person gets an average of fifty seconds of speaking time. Of course in actuality the more famous and respected cinematographers get more speaking time, but when you look at the special features and realize that at least for Vittorio Storaro and Gordon Willis that the filmmakers got at least close to an hour of quite interesting footage you wonder why they felt the need to pack so many people into this movie. And the first five minutes of the movie are just all of the 110 cinematographers in the movie reciting their name (for some of them this is probably about a fourth of the time they'll even get on screen, so why bother?). And at the end of the movie there is actually a piece of text stating something to the effect that due to scheduling there were many cinematographers they wanted in the movie that they couldn't get, and they suggest that maybe there should be a sequel! What's the point of stuffing more people in there if that just means that everyone else gets less time to talk? The reason I'm frustrated by this is because many of the people clearly have very interesting things to say, but they cut back and forth between people that we don't really get any sense of these people individually or their fully story. Again, you can watch the specials features to hear Vittorio and Gordon speak longer, but you lose that chance with a lot of other people in the film. One other frustration is that, although you know these people have done some amazing work and they are making a lot of specific comments about their work, you never seen a single shot from any of their movies. Maybe the filmmakers couldn't get the rights to show segments from these movies. Or maybe they thought it wouldn't be fair to select which movies to show and which not to. Either way, it's hard to hear these people talking about their artwork which is in the same medium in which their interview is being shown to you, and yet you don't get to see any examples of it. A lot of the cinematographers come to the same conclusions, and in the special features you can hear the director kind of prompt the interviewee to say certain things such as "the idea is more important than the tool or technique." But to hear each artists approach to this conclusion is what's interesting, not hearing a 110 headed monster coming to one single conclusion. So in conclusion if you are are interested in cinematography at all you should watch this movie, but you may be frustrated by the quantity of interviews over the chance to really focus on any one person and the lack of examples of their work. Spout usually asks us to include recommendations for other movies if you like the one that is being reviewed. In this case, I would recommend some of the movies that these great cinematographers actually worked on: O Brother, Where Art Thou? (Roger Deakins), Memento (Wally Pfister), Apocalypse Now (Vittorio Storaro), One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (Haskell Wexler), The Godfather Part II (Gordon Willis) Rating: 7/10
]]>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 17:43:12 GMTRisseladaRisselada Blog2/2/2009 12:43:12 PMIf you are interested in cinematography, great cinematography, and great cinematographers, Cinematographer Style would probably be both a highly interesting and highly frustrating experience. Keep reading to find out why! First of all, as an irrelevant piece of information (you can skip this paragraph if you just want to hear about the movie itself) I first heard about this movie from one of my former roommates. He was quite a young guy that I found on craig's list who was studying cinematography at Columbia College in Chicago. He mentioned that he knew a guy who was working on this production, and I think he may have even visited the set one day they were filming one of the cinematographers in the film. Anyways he made the whole thing sound very exciting and epic. A couple months later, after never moving anything else into the apartment except for a few articles of clothing and his guitar and sleeping on our couch until 2 PM every day, and after failing to pay any rent, he showed up in the middle of the night bloody and beat up after going back to a mafia owned bar that he had recently been fired from. After that he never really showed up again. Just one of a series of interesting roommate stories I had at that apartment. But again, that's all irrelevant. Anyways, the structure of the movie Cinematographer Style is a montage of interviews with many famous cinematographers. And when I say many I mean one hundred and ten! This is actually not a number that you should be excited about, although the filmmakers don't seem to realize. With a running time of 86 minutes, this means that on average each person gets an average of fifty seconds of speaking time. Of course in actuality the more famous and respected cinematographers get more speaking time, but when you look at the special features and realize that at least for Vittorio Storaro and Gordon Willis that the filmmakers got at least close to an hour of quite interesting footage you wonder why they felt the need to pack so many people into this movie. And the first five minutes of the movie are just all of the 110 cinematographers in the movie reciting their name (for some of them this is probably about a fourth of the time they'll even get on screen, so why bother?). And at the end of the movie there is actually a piece of text stating something to the effect that due to scheduling there were many cinematographers they wanted in the movie that they couldn't get, and they suggest that maybe there should be a sequel! What's the point of stuffing more people in there if that just means that everyone else gets less time to talk? The reason I'm frustrated by this is because many of the people clearly have very interesting things to say, but they cut back and forth between people that we don't really get any sense of these people individually or their fully story. Again, you can watch the specials features to hear Vittorio and Gordon speak longer, but you lose that chance with a lot of other people in the film. One other frustration is that, although you know these people have done some amazing work and they are making a lot of specific comments about their work, you never seen a single shot from any of their movies. Maybe the filmmakers couldn't get the rights to show segments from these movies. Or maybe they thought it wouldn't be fair to select which movies to show and which not to. Either way, it's hard to hear these people talking about their artwork which is in the same medium in which their interview is being shown to you, and yet you don't get to see any examples of it. A lot of the cinematographers come to the same conclusions, and in the special features you can hear the director kind of prompt the interviewee to say certain things such as "the idea is more important than the tool or technique." But to hear each artists approach to this conclusion is what's interesting, not hearing a 110 headed monster coming to one single conclusion. So in conclusion if you are are interested in cinematography at all you should watch this movie, but you may be frustrated by the quantity of interviews over the chance to really focus on any one person and the lack of examples of their work. Spout usually asks us to include recommendations for other movies if you like the one that is being reviewed. In this case, I would recommend some of the movies that these great cinematographers actually worked on: O Brother, Where Art Thou? (Roger Deakins), Memento (Wally Pfister), Apocalypse Now (Vittorio Storaro), One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (Haskell Wexler), The Godfather Part II (Gordon Willis) Rating: 7/10 http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Polls/Re_The_Onion_AV_Club_recently_featured_a_list_of/657/39516/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Movie Polls
Post Date: 1/14/2009 10:19:51 AM
Body: Wow, I'm the first one to vote for Before Sunset! I'll tell you why. The article in the paper I picked up didn't define their criteria further than the phrase "unnecessary film sequels that are great anyway" Here's what I think they mean by that. 1. The original film must have been great 2. After finishing watching the first movie you do not necessarily feel like a sequel is warrented or required to fulfill the full movie experience 3. The sequel must be almost equally great So here's my reasoning. First of all, I just have not seen The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 so I can't say much about that. I absolutely LOVED Alien. And after watching it you do not feel like a sequel is necessarily required. As for Aliens, it was cool that since it was unnecessary it was in a different genre, more of sort of a straight up action movie than horror / suspence. But I did not like it nearly as much. It is kind of the opposite for me with the Mad Max movies. While I enjoyed the original I did not think it was really THAT great. Also the same as before, the sequel was not necessary and it was in a different genre of sorts. The Road Warrior is really more of a straight up action movie over Mad Max which had a lot more drama. In fact it's maybe my favorite action movie. But since I did not find the original as great, I didn't vote for it. Is that fair? Maybe not. As for the Godfather series, I'd say that both movies are fantastic! But, maybe it's difficult for me to judge on this since as long as I've been alive I've known that there was a sequel, so the first time I watched the original I had that in mind. And so to me the sequel didn't seem that uncessary. I felt like I needed to know more. You may disagree with me. You may disagree with me even more and say that the same is the case with Before Sunrise and Before Sunset, that in that case you also want to know what happens later! Maybe it's because the movie was made so much later with such a different outcome than you would have assumed after watching the first movie that makes me love it. Anyways, I think both of these films are fantastic.
]]>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:19:51 GMTRisseladaMovie Polls1/14/2009 10:19:51 AMWow, I'm the first one to vote for Before Sunset! I'll tell you why. The article in the paper I picked up didn't define their criteria further than the phrase "unnecessary film sequels that are great anyway" Here's what I think they mean by that. 1. The original film must have been great 2. After finishing watching the first movie you do not necessarily feel like a sequel is warrented or required to fulfill the full movie experience 3. The sequel must be almost equally great So here's my reasoning. First of all, I just have not seen The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 so I can't say much about that. I absolutely LOVED Alien. And after watching it you do not feel like a sequel is necessarily required. As for Aliens, it was cool that since it was unnecessary it was in a different genre, more of sort of a straight up action movie than horror / suspence. But I did not like it nearly as much. It is kind of the opposite for me with the Mad Max movies. While I enjoyed the original I did not think it was really THAT great. Also the same as before, the sequel was not necessary and it was in a different genre of sorts. The Road Warrior is really more of a straight up action movie over Mad Max which had a lot more drama. In fact it's maybe my favorite action movie. But since I did not find the original as great, I didn't vote for it. Is that fair? Maybe not. As for the Godfather series, I'd say that both movies are fantastic! But, maybe it's difficult for me to judge on this since as long as I've been alive I've known that there was a sequel, so the first time I watched the original I had that in mind. And so to me the sequel didn't seem that uncessary. I felt like I needed to know more. You may disagree with me. You may disagree with me even more and say that the same is the case with Before Sunrise and Before Sunset, that in that case you also want to know what happens later! Maybe it's because the movie was made so much later with such a different outcome than you would have assumed after watching the first movie that makes me love it. Anyways, I think both of these films are fantastic. http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Polls/Re_The_Onion_AV_Club_recently_featured_a_list_of/657/39502/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: QFLW
Post To: Movie Polls
Post Date: 1/14/2009 12:14:37 AM
Body: [quote user="Risselada"]AliensTexas Chainsaw Massacre 2Mad Max 2: The Road WarriorBefore SunsetTHe Godfather Part II[/quote] OK, so I haven't seen all of these, either. Another close choice--Road Warrior or Godfather II? Love them both. In the end I went with Road Warrior, mostly because it's better than its predecessor (and certainly better than the following Thunderdome). Better written, better filmed, more sophisticated. But I really wanted to vote for both. Aliens didn't impress as well as the first one did; have no desire to see any of the Chainsaw films ever. Never got around to Sunrise or Sunset.
]]>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 05:14:37 GMTQFLWMovie Polls1/14/2009 12:14:37 AM[quote user="Risselada"]AliensTexas Chainsaw Massacre 2Mad Max 2: The Road WarriorBefore SunsetTHe Godfather Part II[/quote] OK, so I haven't seen all of these, either. Another close choice--Road Warrior or Godfather II? Love them both. In the end I went with Road Warrior, mostly because it's better than its predecessor (and certainly better than the following Thunderdome). Better written, better filmed, more sophisticated. But I really wanted to vote for both. Aliens didn't impress as well as the first one did; have no desire to see any of the Chainsaw films ever. Never got around to Sunrise or Sunset. http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Polls/The_Onion_AV_Club_recently_featured_a_list_of_5_u/657/39496/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Movie Polls
Post Date: 1/13/2009 9:40:08 PM
Body: Please reference this thread for the rules of this group. Please vote only once in each poll. Movies referenced in this poll:AliensTexas Chainsaw Massacre 2Mad Max 2: The Road WarriorBefore SunsetTHe Godfather Part II
]]>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 02:40:08 GMTRisseladaMovie Polls1/13/2009 9:40:08 PMPlease reference this thread for the rules of this group. Please vote only once in each poll. Movies referenced in this poll:AliensTexas Chainsaw Massacre 2Mad Max 2: The Road WarriorBefore SunsetTHe Godfather Part II http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/15/38418.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/15/2008 6:00:57 PM
Body: When the Golden Globe nominations were announced last week, there was one glaring omission from the Best Supporting Actor category: a nod for Milk. Actually, there were four glaring omissions, because Milk still does not have a definite forerunner among its quartet of campaigned-for supporting actors, which includes Josh Brolin, James Franco, Emile Hirsch and Diego Luna. Did the Hollywood Foreign Press Association truly snub the film, as has been suggested, or could the organization simply not decide which actor to nominate? Perhaps the two favorites, Brolin and Franco, cancelled each other out. If so, the Academy needs to ensure that such a thing doesn’t happen with its Oscar nominations. And the best way to do this is to get behind Diego Luna for Best Supporting Actor. This will no doubt seem like a ridiculous suggestion this late in the game, particularly to the critics who fail to appreciate Luna’s performance. His character, Jack Lira, has been labeled underwritten and unnecessary –– neither of which is true –– and “annoying,” which is precisely how the real Lira was thought of anyway. Kirk Honeycutt at The Hollywood Reporter called Luna’s performance “looped,” Wesley Morris of The Boston Globe joked that the actor “appears to have wandered over from some drunken college production of Pedro Almodovar’s Bad Education,” and A.O. Scott at The New York Times wrote that Lira is played “with an operatic verve that stops just short of camp,” which is a little more polite than the multiple reviews that actually straight-up call it camp. Then, there’s Slant critic Ed Gonzalez, who does the most damage, claiming the performance is “embarrassing, miscalculated.” The easiest way to lash back at these criticisms is to accuse most reviewers as being biased against flamboyancy. Sure, Luna’s portrayal of Lira can be viewed as over the top, but that’s not the fault of the actor. And to otherwise negatively respond to the character as “camp” is to display an issue with such insecure personalities as Lira, who projects a boisterous over-identification with the flamboyancy of homosexuality as a sort of masochistic masquerade. The character of Lira is not so much underwritten as unknown and unwelcome, which was basically the reality of his context within Harvey Milk’s campaign. But then to consider the accuracy of Lira’s character and of Luna’s portrayal is to wrongly think that Milk is concrete in capturing the true story. Rather, Milk is more the familiar tale of any martyr who sacrifices his own happiness for the happiness of the masses, who damages his own relationships in order to make possible others’ relationships. For this, Lira is a necessary narrative device, both in terms of contrasting with Franco’s more reserved love-interest character and in terms of contrasting, as the single-save, with the larger civil rights goal at hand. In this role, Luna certainly goes above and beyond the call for serviceability in his portrait of jealous desperation and the politically dismissed individual. Highlighting the critics’ praises for Luna would unfortunately amount to quoting mostly also-ran notices in which he’s included, by name or not, within celebrations of the whole supporting ensemble (including the one supporting actress contender, Alison Pill). Indeed, it is this recognition of the film’s ensemble that has probably allowed for so much of a split among the film’s kudos, and yet it’s one of Milk’s greater assets that there is such equality and consistency with regards to the characters and the acting. Sean Penn may be the obvious lead, and his performance may be spotlighted above the others as a result, but in group scenes Gus Van Sant places the titular character in a fairly even playing field with the rest, enough that Focus Features may just as well have included Joseph Cross, Victor Garber and other unrecognized cast members on its For Your Consideration posters for Milk. In a perfect world they all could be nominated, and honored, as they will be when the film most assuredly wins the Outstanding Performance by a Cast award at the Screen Actors Guild Awards. But the closest thing for the Academy to do in this fashion would be to name all four campaigned-for supporting actors from Milk. Considering a lack of sure things in the category other than Heath Ledger, who is certain to win the award posthumously, there would be little harm in having the other slots filled by Brolin, Franco, Hirsch and Luna. Plus, it would make Oscar history, as it would be the first time the Academy nominated four actors in this category (three films have had three actors nominated: On the Waterfront; The Godfather and The Godfather Part II). Another idea is to simply shrug away the three most celebrated contenders (Brolin, Franco and Hirsch, respectively #2, #6 and #10 on The Envelope’s Supporting Actor Buzzmeter) and pull out the underdog, the non-registering yet still deserving Luna. The other alternative is to continue the divide, which will lead to a category as follows: Ledger (The Dark Knight); Michael Shannon (Revolutionary Road); Philip Seymour Hoffman (Doubt); Robert Downey Jr. (Tropic Thunder); Dev Patel (Slumdog Millionaire). With no love for either Franco, who has been chosen by the Independent Spirit Awards and the Golden Satellite Awards, or Brolin, who has been picked by the National Board of Review and the New York Film Critics. Both actors were actually jointly selected as nominees for the Broadcast Film Critics Association’s awards, but it’s difficult to imagine this compromise happening with the Academy’s voters, who may have a one-or-the-other attitude when considering whose year, Brolin’s or Franco’s, it really was. Both actors equally deserve the recognition for their collective 2008 performances, though that shouldn’t necessarily count towards a nomination for a single role, and both are sure to be cast in more Oscar-worthy parts in the future. Hirsch, likewise, is due for the honor after being ignored last year and will similarly continue to acquire juicy roles in the future. Luna, on the other hand, is less likely to get the kinds of roles that attract Oscar recognition, especially if his negative reviews from Milk follow him in his career. So, in a way, he’s the more deserving supporting actor in the bunch.  Not only did he give as remarkable a performance as his fellow cast members, but also he’s probably the one who’ll most benefit from the honor. And the Oscars needn’t be so much a competition and marking of who is best; it ought to be a general celebration of great talent and also a push for further excellence from such talent. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:00:57 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/15/2008 6:00:57 PMWhen the Golden Globe nominations were announced last week, there was one glaring omission from the Best Supporting Actor category: a nod for Milk. Actually, there were four glaring omissions, because Milk still does not have a definite forerunner among its quartet of campaigned-for supporting actors, which includes Josh Brolin, James Franco, Emile Hirsch and Diego Luna. Did the Hollywood Foreign Press Association truly snub the film, as has been suggested, or could the organization simply not decide which actor to nominate? Perhaps the two favorites, Brolin and Franco, cancelled each other out. If so, the Academy needs to ensure that such a thing doesn’t happen with its Oscar nominations. And the best way to do this is to get behind Diego Luna for Best Supporting Actor. This will no doubt seem like a ridiculous suggestion this late in the game, particularly to the critics who fail to appreciate Luna’s performance. His character, Jack Lira, has been labeled underwritten and unnecessary –– neither of which is true –– and “annoying,” which is precisely how the real Lira was thought of anyway. Kirk Honeycutt at The Hollywood Reporter called Luna’s performance “looped,” Wesley Morris of The Boston Globe joked that the actor “appears to have wandered over from some drunken college production of Pedro Almodovar’s Bad Education,” and A.O. Scott at The New York Times wrote that Lira is played “with an operatic verve that stops just short of camp,” which is a little more polite than the multiple reviews that actually straight-up call it camp. Then, there’s Slant critic Ed Gonzalez, who does the most damage, claiming the performance is “embarrassing, miscalculated.” The easiest way to lash back at these criticisms is to accuse most reviewers as being biased against flamboyancy. Sure, Luna’s portrayal of Lira can be viewed as over the top, but that’s not the fault of the actor. And to otherwise negatively respond to the character as “camp” is to display an issue with such insecure personalities as Lira, who projects a boisterous over-identification with the flamboyancy of homosexuality as a sort of masochistic masquerade. The character of Lira is not so much underwritten as unknown and unwelcome, which was basically the reality of his context within Harvey Milk’s campaign. But then to consider the accuracy of Lira’s character and of Luna’s portrayal is to wrongly think that Milk is concrete in capturing the true story. Rather, Milk is more the familiar tale of any martyr who sacrifices his own happiness for the happiness of the masses, who damages his own relationships in order to make possible others’ relationships. For this, Lira is a necessary narrative device, both in terms of contrasting with Franco’s more reserved love-interest character and in terms of contrasting, as the single-save, with the larger civil rights goal at hand. In this role, Luna certainly goes above and beyond the call for serviceability in his portrait of jealous desperation and the politically dismissed individual. Highlighting the critics’ praises for Luna would unfortunately amount to quoting mostly also-ran notices in which he’s included, by name or not, within celebrations of the whole supporting ensemble (including the one supporting actress contender, Alison Pill). Indeed, it is this recognition of the film’s ensemble that has probably allowed for so much of a split among the film’s kudos, and yet it’s one of Milk’s greater assets that there is such equality and consistency with regards to the characters and the acting. Sean Penn may be the obvious lead, and his performance may be spotlighted above the others as a result, but in group scenes Gus Van Sant places the titular character in a fairly even playing field with the rest, enough that Focus Features may just as well have included Joseph Cross, Victor Garber and other unrecognized cast members on its For Your Consideration posters for Milk. In a perfect world they all could be nominated, and honored, as they will be when the film most assuredly wins the Outstanding Performance by a Cast award at the Screen Actors Guild Awards. But the closest thing for the Academy to do in this fashion would be to name all four campaigned-for supporting actors from Milk. Considering a lack of sure things in the category other than Heath Ledger, who is certain to win the award posthumously, there would be little harm in having the other slots filled by Brolin, Franco, Hirsch and Luna. Plus, it would make Oscar history, as it would be the first time the Academy nominated four actors in this category (three films have had three actors nominated: On the Waterfront; The Godfather and The Godfather Part II). Another idea is to simply shrug away the three most celebrated contenders (Brolin, Franco and Hirsch, respectively #2, #6 and #10 on The Envelope’s Supporting Actor Buzzmeter) and pull out the underdog, the non-registering yet still deserving Luna. The other alternative is to continue the divide, which will lead to a category as follows: Ledger (The Dark Knight); Michael Shannon (Revolutionary Road); Philip Seymour Hoffman (Doubt); Robert Downey Jr. (Tropic Thunder); Dev Patel (Slumdog Millionaire). With no love for either Franco, who has been chosen by the Independent Spirit Awards and the Golden Satellite Awards, or Brolin, who has been picked by the National Board of Review and the New York Film Critics. Both actors were actually jointly selected as nominees for the Broadcast Film Critics Association’s awards, but it’s difficult to imagine this compromise happening with the Academy’s voters, who may have a one-or-the-other attitude when considering whose year, Brolin’s or Franco’s, it really was. Both actors equally deserve the recognition for their collective 2008 performances, though that shouldn’t necessarily count towards a nomination for a single role, and both are sure to be cast in more Oscar-worthy parts in the future. Hirsch, likewise, is due for the honor after being ignored last year and will similarly continue to acquire juicy roles in the future. Luna, on the other hand, is less likely to get the kinds of roles that attract Oscar recognition, especially if his negative reviews from Milk follow him in his career. So, in a way, he’s the more deserving supporting actor in the bunch.  Not only did he give as remarkable a performance as his fellow cast members, but also he’s probably the one who’ll most benefit from the honor. And the Oscars needn’t be so much a competition and marking of who is best; it ought to be a general celebration of great talent and also a push for further excellence from such talent. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/11/37228.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/11/2008 6:01:24 PM
Body: The holidays are coming, and that either means spending time with your dysfunctional family or escaping them for the movies … where you’re likely to be met by other, fictional dysfunctional families. Already this season, Rachel Getting Married introduced us to the f’ed up faux masala of the Buchman clan, and later this month we get to follow Vince Vaughn and Reese Witherspoon as they’re pulled into their separate quadrants of kin in Four Christmases. Also, for those who think dysfunction is an American tradition, this weekend sees the release of the French film A Christmas Tale (Un conte de Noël), which unites the two major premises of dysfunctional family movies by being set during the holidays and involving an ill family member. With two more weeks left until Thanksgiving, after which we might not want to think about another family, real or cinematic, for the rest of our lives, it’s a perfect time to celebrate those dysfunctional tribes we love the best. Literally thousands of movies feature such families, though, so we’re sure to have left out some of your favorites. Definitely chime in below, and/or join the discussion currently going on over in our Top 5 group. The Corleones in The Godfather, The Godfather Part II and The Godfather Part III Any film about a family business is sure to qualify, but none exhibit more dysfunction than those in which the business is the mafia. Some other good examples include the Tempios of The Funeral and the Russian clan in Eastern Promises. But there’s no doubt that the Corleones take the cake. Maybe it’s Fredo’s fault, because inspiring fratricide is certainly evidence of a failing family. No, the Corleones are dysfunctional from the time Fredo and his siblings are little children, when Vito enters his family into a life of crime, from which none of its members will be able to escape. The “Johnsons” in Pink Flamingos If you only define dysfunctional as non-functioning, you leave out a great number of truly dysfunctional families, the kind that apparently gets along quite fine on their own but which doesn’t function within society. Think the Hewitts in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre films and the motley crew made up of Sycamores, Vanderhofs, Carmichaels and others in You Can’t Take it With You. Technically the “Johnsons” are an internally functioning group, and they even have an official place in society as “the filtiest people alive,” but with a shit-eating matriarch, an egg-obsessed granny and a son who likes to have sex employing live chickens, it doesn’t really get much more abnormal, and therefore dysfunctional, than this family. The Lisbons in The Virgin Suicides Both abnormal and non-functioning, it also doesn’t get much more dysfunctional than a family in which the kids commit collective suicide (well, one of them started the trend early). The Tenenbaums in The Royal Tenenbaums They’re clearly born out of Salinger’s Glass family, and their situation is so common that A Christmas Tale almost seems like a French remake of the Wes Anderson’s movie. But the Tenenbaums have come to be one of the most beloved dysfunctional families in cinema, so it’d be a crime to leave them off this list. They’re so popular that many fans probably wouldn’t mind having such an asshole for a father as long as they got to be a member of the family, similar to the dreams of outsider Eli Cash (Owen Wilson). Also, there are probably some guys out there who dream of having Margot (Gwyneth Paltrow) as a non-blood-related sister — as long as she’s really into making out with adopted-family siblings. The Aibellis in Spanking the Monkey Non-blood-related “incest” is one thing, but the Tenenbaums have nothing on the dysfunction of the Aibellis, with their motherloving son, Ray (Jeremy Davies), and the disturbingly consentual — though alcohol-induced — sex that occurs one awkward summer. The only incestuous family that might actually be more dysfunctional is the Cross clan of Chinatown. The Proffitts in Overboard The movie’s tone allows it to seem like such an innocently fun premise, but imagine a family in real life that would kidnap and exploit an amnesiac woman the way Dean Proffitt (Kurt Russell) and his four sons do. And imagine the woman who escapes this situation only to return in a Stockholm syndrome-as-happy-ending decision. Not only is it immoral, illegal and unlikely, it’s highly dysfunctional. The Crumbs in Crumb Dysfunctional families are obviously not limited to fiction, so it’s necessary to cite at least one documentary. Again, it’s difficult to narrow down. There are the scandal-stricken Friedmans of Capturing the Friedmans, the daffy duo in Grey Gardens (and The Beales of Grey Gardens) and the fraternal foursome of Brother’s Keeper. But it’s comic artist R. Crumb’s family that comes off as the most interestingly screwed up. Equally expected and revealing for a man of Crumb’s odd nature, reclusive brother Charles, bowel-cleansing Maxon and uncomfortable mother Beatrice are almost too strange to believe real. The Browns in Buffalo ‘66 Dysfunctional family movies often peak with their respective dinner scenes, in which uncomfortable announcements are made or food is thrown or climactic fights occur. None are funnier, however, than the reunion meal between Billy Brown (Vincent Gallo) and his unloving parents (Angelica Huston and Ben Gazzara). Mom ignores her son in order to watch football while Dad mostly hits on Billy’s pretend wife (Christina Ricci). The Dilwegs in The Pharmacist W.C. Fields has given us a few of the funniest dysfunctional families in film, and many fans would quickly reference the Sousés from The Bank Dick as his greatest tribe. But its this family from Fields’ earlier short The Pharmacist that should come to mind first, if only thanks to the daughter who shakes a martini with a pogo stick and eats the family pet after being denied supper. Radha’s family in Mother India The entire genre of melodrama offers up worthy selections for this list, but Bollywood arguably makes the most dysfunctional family melodramas of all, perhaps because a lot of them are meant as allegories for the dysfunctions of the Indian subcontinent. Mother India is possibly the most significant example from Indian cinema, even more than monumental films like Pather Panchali that aren’t of the Bollywood tradition. The film has all the necessary components: the metaphorically castrated and eventually abandoning patriarch; the desperate yet enduring matriarch; the sons who follow paths on separate side of the law. There’s even a familial sacrifice that’s comparable to the one in The Godfather Part II. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 23:01:24 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/11/2008 6:01:24 PMThe holidays are coming, and that either means spending time with your dysfunctional family or escaping them for the movies … where you’re likely to be met by other, fictional dysfunctional families. Already this season, Rachel Getting Married introduced us to the f’ed up faux masala of the Buchman clan, and later this month we get to follow Vince Vaughn and Reese Witherspoon as they’re pulled into their separate quadrants of kin in Four Christmases. Also, for those who think dysfunction is an American tradition, this weekend sees the release of the French film A Christmas Tale (Un conte de Noël), which unites the two major premises of dysfunctional family movies by being set during the holidays and involving an ill family member. With two more weeks left until Thanksgiving, after which we might not want to think about another family, real or cinematic, for the rest of our lives, it’s a perfect time to celebrate those dysfunctional tribes we love the best. Literally thousands of movies feature such families, though, so we’re sure to have left out some of your favorites. Definitely chime in below, and/or join the discussion currently going on over in our Top 5 group. The Corleones in The Godfather, The Godfather Part II and The Godfather Part III Any film about a family business is sure to qualify, but none exhibit more dysfunction than those in which the business is the mafia. Some other good examples include the Tempios of The Funeral and the Russian clan in Eastern Promises. But there’s no doubt that the Corleones take the cake. Maybe it’s Fredo’s fault, because inspiring fratricide is certainly evidence of a failing family. No, the Corleones are dysfunctional from the time Fredo and his siblings are little children, when Vito enters his family into a life of crime, from which none of its members will be able to escape. The “Johnsons” in Pink Flamingos If you only define dysfunctional as non-functioning, you leave out a great number of truly dysfunctional families, the kind that apparently gets along quite fine on their own but which doesn’t function within society. Think the Hewitts in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre films and the motley crew made up of Sycamores, Vanderhofs, Carmichaels and others in You Can’t Take it With You. Technically the “Johnsons” are an internally functioning group, and they even have an official place in society as “the filtiest people alive,” but with a shit-eating matriarch, an egg-obsessed granny and a son who likes to have sex employing live chickens, it doesn’t really get much more abnormal, and therefore dysfunctional, than this family. The Lisbons in The Virgin Suicides Both abnormal and non-functioning, it also doesn’t get much more dysfunctional than a family in which the kids commit collective suicide (well, one of them started the trend early). The Tenenbaums in The Royal Tenenbaums They’re clearly born out of Salinger’s Glass family, and their situation is so common that A Christmas Tale almost seems like a French remake of the Wes Anderson’s movie. But the Tenenbaums have come to be one of the most beloved dysfunctional families in cinema, so it’d be a crime to leave them off this list. They’re so popular that many fans probably wouldn’t mind having such an asshole for a father as long as they got to be a member of the family, similar to the dreams of outsider Eli Cash (Owen Wilson). Also, there are probably some guys out there who dream of having Margot (Gwyneth Paltrow) as a non-blood-related sister — as long as she’s really into making out with adopted-family siblings. The Aibellis in Spanking the Monkey Non-blood-related “incest” is one thing, but the Tenenbaums have nothing on the dysfunction of the Aibellis, with their motherloving son, Ray (Jeremy Davies), and the disturbingly consentual — though alcohol-induced — sex that occurs one awkward summer. The only incestuous family that might actually be more dysfunctional is the Cross clan of Chinatown. The Proffitts in Overboard The movie’s tone allows it to seem like such an innocently fun premise, but imagine a family in real life that would kidnap and exploit an amnesiac woman the way Dean Proffitt (Kurt Russell) and his four sons do. And imagine the woman who escapes this situation only to return in a Stockholm syndrome-as-happy-ending decision. Not only is it immoral, illegal and unlikely, it’s highly dysfunctional. The Crumbs in Crumb Dysfunctional families are obviously not limited to fiction, so it’s necessary to cite at least one documentary. Again, it’s difficult to narrow down. There are the scandal-stricken Friedmans of Capturing the Friedmans, the daffy duo in Grey Gardens (and The Beales of Grey Gardens) and the fraternal foursome of Brother’s Keeper. But it’s comic artist R. Crumb’s family that comes off as the most interestingly screwed up. Equally expected and revealing for a man of Crumb’s odd nature, reclusive brother Charles, bowel-cleansing Maxon and uncomfortable mother Beatrice are almost too strange to believe real. The Browns in Buffalo ‘66 Dysfunctional family movies often peak with their respective dinner scenes, in which uncomfortable announcements are made or food is thrown or climactic fights occur. None are funnier, however, than the reunion meal between Billy Brown (Vincent Gallo) and his unloving parents (Angelica Huston and Ben Gazzara). Mom ignores her son in order to watch football while Dad mostly hits on Billy’s pretend wife (Christina Ricci). The Dilwegs in The Pharmacist W.C. Fields has given us a few of the funniest dysfunctional families in film, and many fans would quickly reference the Sousés from The Bank Dick as his greatest tribe. But its this family from Fields’ earlier short The Pharmacist that should come to mind first, if only thanks to the daughter who shakes a martini with a pogo stick and eats the family pet after being denied supper. Radha’s family in Mother India The entire genre of melodrama offers up worthy selections for this list, but Bollywood arguably makes the most dysfunctional family melodramas of all, perhaps because a lot of them are meant as allegories for the dysfunctions of the Indian subcontinent. Mother India is possibly the most significant example from Indian cinema, even more than monumental films like Pather Panchali that aren’t of the Bollywood tradition. The film has all the necessary components: the metaphorically castrated and eventually abandoning patriarch; the desperate yet enduring matriarch; the sons who follow paths on separate side of the law. There’s even a familial sacrifice that’s comparable to the one in The Godfather Part II. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/11/4/36939.aspx Post By: pippin06
Post To: Reel Thoughts
Post Date: 11/4/2008 11:57:36 AM
Body: What's the AFI Project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here: http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx The Godfather Part II is on the following AFI lists: The Original Top 100 (#32)100 Years...100 Heroes and Villains (Michael Corleone is the #11 villain)100 Movie Quotes (#58 - Michael Corleone: "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.")The Revised Top 100 (#32)10 Top 10's (#3 Gangster) Since I own the Godfather trilogy, I own the second part of the trilogy. The test would have passed anyway. As much as the first one, the second Godfather movie is a masterpiece (a perfect 10 from me!). The reason why it's such a masterpiece is because, when held up to its predecessor, it feels both like a sequel and like its own separate film, that could stand on its own without knowing how Michael (Al Pacino) achieved his crime boss status. It's richer though when the viewer knows the events of the first movie. The question is whether it's better than the original. Some try to argue that it is, but I have issues with that stance. Ergo, I disagree wih that assessment, but before I discuss that opinion - plot summary! Michael thinks he's being strong for his family, but his decisions do more to alienate and divide than to keep the Corleones together. He tries to expand the family's interests in Las Vegas and Miami with the help of a former associate of his father's, Hyman Roth (Lee Strasberg), though both are engaged in a silent and duplicitous power struggle in the name of business and profit. Michael's wife Kay (Diane Keaton) tires of the threats on her life and her family and her husband's cold and distant demeanor, occasionally begging him to make the family legitimate. Michael's siblings feel various states of alienation - Connie (Talia Shire) is committed to self-destruction in the face of her overprotective older brother; Fredo (John Cazale) feels the sting of being branded the family idiot (and the consequences of that); and adoptive brother and family lawyer Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall) is treated with distrust, so much so that he comes to distrust Michael. All the while, Michael's heretofore pure intentions and aims to liberate himself from his family are long forgotten, as his ambition transforms into his spiritual degradation. Brilliantly, his downfall is paralleled with the interspliced backstory surrounding the rise of Vito's power. Young Vito (eventually played by Oscar winner Robert DeNiro) escapes Sicily after his entire family is murdered in cold blood by the local mafia boss. He survives and manages to make it to New York City and Little Italy, where Black Hand Fanucci bullies the tenants with extortion and violence. Vito, and his friends, including a young Clemenza (Bruno Kirby), take matters into their own hands and achieve a powerful reputation and status. Like the original movie, the second film is a thing of beauty in just how well it was made. The performances, particularly by Pacino and DeNiro, are mesmerizingly brilliantly awesome. I don't have enough adjectives for them! Bobby won the Supporting Oscar, deservedly, for evoking Marlon Brando's mannerisms and complex emotional portrayals even when he was not involved in the film. And Pacino gave his career-making performance in this film (it'll probably be referred to on his tombstone, for pete's sake). For consideration of just how good his performance is, I call attention to a couple of scenes: the scene in which Kay tells him she's leaving him; the scene in which he talks to his mother about what she believed his father used to think about; the scene in which he confronts Fredo; the scenes in the Congressional hearing; and the scenes during which he's talking to his sister Connie (at the beginning and at the end). Compare the moods of each scene and notice how Pacino morphed his silence and facial expressions into so many faces and reactions, from explosive anger to fear to heartbreaking sadness to stoicism to disappointment and resignation. That's the genius about Michael Corleone, Pacino's performance, and Coppola's overall direction of this character and this film. Michael's supposed to be the villain. You're supposed to hate him. He's singlehandedly torn apart that which his father worked so hard to build. The family that he wanted to keep together no longer exists. Yet, he remains so oddly sympathetic; occasionally, you find yourself rooting him on. You can see, through the nuances and total picture painted by Pacino, that Michael believes that what he's doing is the right thing, even though it couldn't be more wrong. That's a powerful and poignant realization, particularly when held up in parallel to Vito who, though morally ambiguous, is never morally corrupt as his son eventually becomes. It's this fulcrum around which this second chapter revolves and what makes the film the great sequel that it is. The art direction, the cinematography, the score - all of the technical ingredients were given the same treatment and care they were given in the first film. The flashback scenes had the grainy, gold-brown quality that made them feel like old movies, contrasting with the cold, dark ,almost oppressive hues of Michael's present. In addition, the art direction, particularly in turn-of-the-century and Depression-era Little Italy, was beautiful. I noticed all of the little store fronts and details inside the grocery store in which Vito worked and contrasted those details with the 50s-era post-modern decor in Michael's Nevada compound. It was all just very well done. The whole movie feels like an opera, minus the singing, and I think that's why people are more inclined to call the sequel better. I call the sequel "as good as the first," because it's like comparing apples to oranges, really. The first Godfather is about moral ambiguity and how riding the fence is not the same as simply doing what's right. It's the portrait of a man and his family, as well as the study of a son's devotion to his father, at the expense of his innocence, and it's far less dark than the second. The second film is about moral degradation - how riding the fence actually leads to falling off the fence entirely and the consequences of doing so and how making bad choices can lead to a dangerously slippery slope and self-ruination. The two films taken together chronicle the spiritual fall of the son, so, for me, it's hard to separate them and compare. I like them both equally for different reasons. This is just a cheeky aside, but have you ever noticed that the story here and the overall story in the original Star Wars films feel very similar, with the exception that Luke Skywalker, the prodigal son in the latter, doesn't choose the dark side of the Force while Michael does? Ok, that might be a stretch, but in my analysis, it's hard to deny the similarities, though George Lucas and Francis Coppola have been longtime friends. In any event, The Godfather Part II is a powerful film, as great as its predecessor, because it's comprised of the same great elements that worked so well with the first film. Now, at some point, I'm going to break down and watch the third part, and see if it's as bad as everyone says it is. I have a feeling that they probably just waited too long to make it - we'll see what I think in the end.
]]>Tue, 04 Nov 2008 16:57:36 GMTpippin06Reel Thoughts11/4/2008 11:57:36 AMWhat's the AFI Project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here: http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx The Godfather Part II is on the following AFI lists: The Original Top 100 (#32)100 Years...100 Heroes and Villains (Michael Corleone is the #11 villain)100 Movie Quotes (#58 - Michael Corleone: "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.")The Revised Top 100 (#32)10 Top 10's (#3 Gangster) Since I own the Godfather trilogy, I own the second part of the trilogy. The test would have passed anyway. As much as the first one, the second Godfather movie is a masterpiece (a perfect 10 from me!). The reason why it's such a masterpiece is because, when held up to its predecessor, it feels both like a sequel and like its own separate film, that could stand on its own without knowing how Michael (Al Pacino) achieved his crime boss status. It's richer though when the viewer knows the events of the first movie. The question is whether it's better than the original. Some try to argue that it is, but I have issues with that stance. Ergo, I disagree wih that assessment, but before I discuss that opinion - plot summary! Michael thinks he's being strong for his family, but his decisions do more to alienate and divide than to keep the Corleones together. He tries to expand the family's interests in Las Vegas and Miami with the help of a former associate of his father's, Hyman Roth (Lee Strasberg), though both are engaged in a silent and duplicitous power struggle in the name of business and profit. Michael's wife Kay (Diane Keaton) tires of the threats on her life and her family and her husband's cold and distant demeanor, occasionally begging him to make the family legitimate. Michael's siblings feel various states of alienation - Connie (Talia Shire) is committed to self-destruction in the face of her overprotective older brother; Fredo (John Cazale) feels the sting of being branded the family idiot (and the consequences of that); and adoptive brother and family lawyer Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall) is treated with distrust, so much so that he comes to distrust Michael. All the while, Michael's heretofore pure intentions and aims to liberate himself from his family are long forgotten, as his ambition transforms into his spiritual degradation. Brilliantly, his downfall is paralleled with the interspliced backstory surrounding the rise of Vito's power. Young Vito (eventually played by Oscar winner Robert DeNiro) escapes Sicily after his entire family is murdered in cold blood by the local mafia boss. He survives and manages to make it to New York City and Little Italy, where Black Hand Fanucci bullies the tenants with extortion and violence. Vito, and his friends, including a young Clemenza (Bruno Kirby), take matters into their own hands and achieve a powerful reputation and status. Like the original movie, the second film is a thing of beauty in just how well it was made. The performances, particularly by Pacino and DeNiro, are mesmerizingly brilliantly awesome. I don't have enough adjectives for them! Bobby won the Supporting Oscar, deservedly, for evoking Marlon Brando's mannerisms and complex emotional portrayals even when he was not involved in the film. And Pacino gave his career-making performance in this film (it'll probably be referred to on his tombstone, for pete's sake). For consideration of just how good his performance is, I call attention to a couple of scenes: the scene in which Kay tells him she's leaving him; the scene in which he talks to his mother about what she believed his father used to think about; the scene in which he confronts Fredo; the scenes in the Congressional hearing; and the scenes during which he's talking to his sister Connie (at the beginning and at the end). Compare the moods of each scene and notice how Pacino morphed his silence and facial expressions into so many faces and reactions, from explosive anger to fear to heartbreaking sadness to stoicism to disappointment and resignation. That's the genius about Michael Corleone, Pacino's performance, and Coppola's overall direction of this character and this film. Michael's supposed to be the villain. You're supposed to hate him. He's singlehandedly torn apart that which his father worked so hard to build. The family that he wanted to keep together no longer exists. Yet, he remains so oddly sympathetic; occasionally, you find yourself rooting him on. You can see, through the nuances and total picture painted by Pacino, that Michael believes that what he's doing is the right thing, even though it couldn't be more wrong. That's a powerful and poignant realization, particularly when held up in parallel to Vito who, though morally ambiguous, is never morally corrupt as his son eventually becomes. It's this fulcrum around which this second chapter revolves and what makes the film the great sequel that it is. The art direction, the cinematography, the score - all of the technical ingredients were given the same treatment and care they were given in the first film. The flashback scenes had the grainy, gold-brown quality that made them feel like old movies, contrasting with the cold, dark ,almost oppressive hues of Michael's present. In addition, the art direction, particularly in turn-of-the-century and Depression-era Little Italy, was beautiful. I noticed all of the little store fronts and details inside the grocery store in which Vito worked and contrasted those details with the 50s-era post-modern decor in Michael's Nevada compound. It was all just very well done. The whole movie feels like an opera, minus the singing, and I think that's why people are more inclined to call the sequel better. I call the sequel "as good as the first," because it's like comparing apples to oranges, really. The first Godfather is about moral ambiguity and how riding the fence is not the same as simply doing what's right. It's the portrait of a man and his family, as well as the study of a son's devotion to his father, at the expense of his innocence, and it's far less dark than the second. The second film is about moral degradation - how riding the fence actually leads to falling off the fence entirely and the consequences of doing so and how making bad choices can lead to a dangerously slippery slope and self-ruination. The two films taken together chronicle the spiritual fall of the son, so, for me, it's hard to separate them and compare. I like them both equally for different reasons. This is just a cheeky aside, but have you ever noticed that the story here and the overall story in the original Star Wars films feel very similar, with the exception that Luke Skywalker, the prodigal son in the latter, doesn't choose the dark side of the Force while Michael does? Ok, that might be a stretch, but in my analysis, it's hard to deny the similarities, though George Lucas and Francis Coppola have been longtime friends. In any event, The Godfather Part II is a powerful film, as great as its predecessor, because it's comprised of the same great elements that worked so well with the first film. Now, at some point, I'm going to break down and watch the third part, and see if it's as bad as everyone says it is. I have a feeling that they probably just waited too long to make it - we'll see what I think in the end. http://www.spout.com/blogs/christhilk/archive/2008/8/26/34428.aspx Post By: ChrisThilk
Post To: ChrisThilk Blog
Post Date: 8/26/2008 10:01:09 PM
Body: At the same time I was revisiting the Marx Brothers early films I felt the need to hit the Godfather films once again and engage in some serious pathos over the notions of what’s right, what’s wrong and how far is too far in your attempts to keep your family - both extended and immediate - safe and provided for. Any criticism, even of Godfather Part III, is at this point going to be redundant of something. It’s enough at this stage in the lives of it, as well as The Godfather and The Godfather Part II, to say that this sweeping epic is one that manages to combine both the grandiose and the intimate. In that way it’s actually sort of the thematic predecessor to movies like There Will Be Blood that present a very small story on a large stage. That later movie also engages in a similar sort of debate about achieving success in life despite that success coming at the expense of any real, lasting human connections. The main problem (OK, I’ll go down this road briefly) with Part III is that everyone involved is just trying to damn hard, from Coppola on down. There’s too much of a conscious effort to bring this in line with the previous installments rather than just letting the story progress naturally. That manages to actually take away from the un-forced story unfolding that went on in the first two films. Still, all three form a necessary arc that completes the saga in, really, the only way it could have possibly turned out. Originally posted on:Chris Thilk
]]>Wed, 27 Aug 2008 02:01:09 GMTChrisThilkChrisThilk Blog8/26/2008 10:01:09 PMAt the same time I was revisiting the Marx Brothers early films I felt the need to hit the Godfather films once again and engage in some serious pathos over the notions of what’s right, what’s wrong and how far is too far in your attempts to keep your family - both extended and immediate - safe and provided for. Any criticism, even of Godfather Part III, is at this point going to be redundant of something. It’s enough at this stage in the lives of it, as well as The Godfather and The Godfather Part II, to say that this sweeping epic is one that manages to combine both the grandiose and the intimate. In that way it’s actually sort of the thematic predecessor to movies like There Will Be Blood that present a very small story on a large stage. That later movie also engages in a similar sort of debate about achieving success in life despite that success coming at the expense of any real, lasting human connections. The main problem (OK, I’ll go down this road briefly) with Part III is that everyone involved is just trying to damn hard, from Coppola on down. There’s too much of a conscious effort to bring this in line with the previous installments rather than just letting the story progress naturally. That manages to actually take away from the un-forced story unfolding that went on in the first two films. Still, all three form a necessary arc that completes the saga in, really, the only way it could have possibly turned out. Originally posted on:Chris Thilk http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/8/8/33748.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 8/8/2008 11:01:32 AM
Body: Brad Pitt has officially signed on to play the lead role in Quentin Tarantino’s Inglorious Bastards. Other stars who have deals in the works: Nastassja Kinski, Simon Pegg, David Krumholtz. Electronic Arts is producing a video game based on The Godfather II. The game will loosely follow the plot of the movie, but will omit the flashbacks to the life of young Vito Corleone. Robert Duvall is doing voice work, and all the stars of the original film except for Al Pacino have signed off on the use of their likenesses. Paramount will release a two-disc Iron Man DVD on September 30. The set will include Robert Downey Jr’s screen test (they made him test? Ouch.), “a seven-part making-of documentary and a six-part feature on the origins of the Marvel superhero.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth
]]>Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:01:32 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog8/8/2008 11:01:32 AM Brad Pitt has officially signed on to play the lead role in Quentin Tarantino’s Inglorious Bastards. Other stars who have deals in the works: Nastassja Kinski, Simon Pegg, David Krumholtz. Electronic Arts is producing a video game based on The Godfather II. The game will loosely follow the plot of the movie, but will omit the flashbacks to the life of young Vito Corleone. Robert Duvall is doing voice work, and all the stars of the original film except for Al Pacino have signed off on the use of their likenesses. Paramount will release a two-disc Iron Man DVD on September 30. The set will include Robert Downey Jr’s screen test (they made him test? Ouch.), “a seven-part making-of documentary and a six-part feature on the origins of the Marvel superhero.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxClassic
Number of films tagged: 816

Number of people who tagged: 313

Number of times used: 1454

]]>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:30:46 GMT8163131454Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/family/MemberTagFilms.aspxfamily
Number of films tagged: 6289

Number of people who tagged: 227

Number of times used: 1140

]]>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:51:34 GMT62892271140Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/masterpiece/MemberTagFilms.aspxmasterpiece
Number of films tagged: 226

Number of people who tagged: 101

Number of times used: 215

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:28 GMT226101215Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/gangster/MemberTagFilms.aspxgangster
Number of films tagged: 4065

Number of people who tagged: 60

Number of times used: 145

]]>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 01:37:08 GMT406560145Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/corruption/MemberTagFilms.aspxcorruption
Number of films tagged: 1236

Number of people who tagged: 47

Number of times used: 108

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT123647108Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/italy/MemberTagFilms.aspxitaly
Number of films tagged: 527

Number of people who tagged: 46

Number of times used: 66

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:42 GMT5274666Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/assassination/MemberTagFilms.aspxassassination
Number of films tagged: 1052

Number of people who tagged: 44

Number of times used: 90

]]>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:55:14 GMT10524490Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/mafia/MemberTagFilms.aspxmafia
Number of films tagged: 232

Number of people who tagged: 40

Number of times used: 66

]]>Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:01:24 GMT2324066Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/brother/MemberTagFilms.aspxbrother
Number of films tagged: 2301

Number of people who tagged: 30

Number of times used: 82

]]>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:51:56 GMT23013082Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Italian/MemberTagFilms.aspxItalian
Number of films tagged: 50

Number of people who tagged: 30

Number of times used: 55

]]>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 19:27:48 GMT503055Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/nyc/MemberTagFilms.aspxnyc
Number of films tagged: 90

Number of people who tagged: 29

Number of times used: 113

]]>Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:39:05 GMT9029113Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/business/MemberTagFilms.aspxbusiness
Number of films tagged: 1747

Number of people who tagged: 27

Number of times used: 70

]]>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:05:14 GMT17472770Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Changed-My-Life/MemberTagFilms.aspxChanged-My-Life
Number of films tagged: 46

Number of people who tagged: 27

Number of times used: 60

]]>Tue, 12 Jun 2007 03:22:35 GMT462760Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Best-Picture/MemberTagFilms.aspxBest-Picture
Number of films tagged: 83

Number of people who tagged: 26

Number of times used: 118

]]>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:16:34 GMT8326118Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/cuba/MemberTagFilms.aspxcuba
Number of films tagged: 225

Number of people who tagged: 24

Number of times used: 46

]]>Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:19:27 GMT2252446Tag