?

Log in

The Godfather - Scrambled Porn [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Scrambled Porn

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

The Godfather [Nov. 25th, 2004|03:02 pm]
Scrambled Porn

scrambledporn

[tyrven]
Heather and I just watched The Godfather, which I hadn't seen in a while. I'm still trying to get my mind around Michael Corleone's character. I think it's his complexity that makes the films so compelling. Vito Corleone's character, by contrast, is a lot more consistent to a strictly established ideological discipline; in Al Pacino's role, though, there are a lot of competing variables which come into play.

In some ways, he seems far more objective and intellectual than his father. In other regards, he constantly disregards the idea that "it's only business" even despite his own attachment to that concept. Perhaps it's his pride.

What makes him tick? Is he driven by his selfish best interest? Or by carefully instrumented rationalizations of base emotional reactions?
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: jessiesquash
2004-11-26 01:02 pm (UTC)
I've never seen The Godfather! *hides head in shame* I really need to have a movie catch-up day to watch all the "classics".
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: tyrven
2004-11-26 01:30 pm (UTC)
Go rent the first two right now! Then you can help me psychoanalyze Michael Corleone's character. Really, though, they're fantastic films... definitely worth watching. If ever I come to think negatively of Francis Ford Coppola (as I'm sometimes tempted to do) I just think back to movies like The Godfather or Apocalypse Now! and all is forgiven :)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: jessiesquash
2004-11-26 01:58 pm (UTC)
Right now!? Sheesh. Pushy aren't we. ;)

I'll work on it and then get back to you ASAP. I suppose if you didn't see it until you were 25, I'm still doing okay. There are so many good movies but sometimes I just feel like watching crap, such as The Chronicles of Riddick. Crap but highly entertaining crap.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: tyrven
2004-11-26 02:12 pm (UTC)
I just watched The Chronicles of Riddick the other day and enjoyed it quite a bit. I had initially avoided it because, despite liking Vin Diesel in Stupid Action Movies, I thought the special effects looked really hokey and that it might be overly stylized (ala, The Matrix. Heather gave it a good word, though, and my roommates bought it so I watched it and thought it was very entertaining.

Conversely, high brow art films we're supposed to like, as good cultured citizens, like the *qatsi series, I often find heavy-handed, pretentious, and boring. Ultimately I think the purpose of film is to entertain and if a film doesn't cater to your values or interests, why humor it?

That said, The Godfather is not only technically well done, cinemetographically relevent and culturally significant... it's also very entertaining and will leave you in a mood I've only fully felt after watching that series.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: jessiesquash
2004-11-26 02:22 pm (UTC)
It's funny that although I sometimes enjoy the more artsy films, the movies that I keep coming back to and watching repeatedly and therefore the ones that I own are the "low brow" ones. I loved the special effects in The Chronicles of Riddick, I thought they were, for lack of a better word, pretty.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: tyrven
2004-11-26 02:44 pm (UTC)
There were two scenes where I thought the special effects didn't quite work and, ironically, those were the ones used in the preview. I ended up liking the effects quite a bit.

By contrast, a movie like Van Helsing (another my roomies bought) ended up being quite representative of the poor effects in the preview, although it also offered an unexpected supply of excellent effects; it's only unfortunate that these weren't put to better use by a more reasonable script.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: jessiesquash
2004-11-26 02:57 pm (UTC)
I have a tendency to get lost in the story and therefore miss the mistakes and/or problems in special effects. I usually have to watch a movie several times before I pick up on that, so I didn't catch any in Riddick. I was probably too busy admiring Vin Diesel's...er...acting skills. ;p

Van Helsing was such a disappointment. I know now why they did it but I can't get past the idea that they changed Van Helsing's name to Gabriel. I could barely watch the movie, it bothered me so much. Silly perhaps but still true. Some of the effects bothered me, especially the beginning scenes with Mr. Hyde. I thought they could have done a better job with him. I liked the rest of the monsters. If nothing else, I give kudos to Stephen Sommers for his enthusiasm. He just needs to polish up his work a bit.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: tyrven
2004-11-26 03:35 pm (UTC)
I'm sort of the opposite; I tend to get caught up analyzing a movie and have to watch it a couple times before I can suspend disbelief and just enjoy it. Which is why I like movies like Moulen Rouge; it threw out all reality up-front and so it was easier to get sucked into it. Personally, I hate it when fantastical films try to find some basis in logic as it's just inviting criticism.

I think my main problem with Van Helsing was the story: I don't really like it when they mix mythologies.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: tyrven
2004-11-26 01:30 pm (UTC)
Oh, and I didn't see it for the first time until a few years ago, when I was 25. To note.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)