The Godfather Saga

Guess who has two thumbs and is phoning this post in? That's right, this guy. I have spent the last week rewatching the Godfather saga in all of it's glory and I have decided that this post will be dedicated to all three instead of doing individual posts for each one. Why? Because if you need my opinion on the Godfather Saga to determine whether or not your interested in watching it then your probably better off not watching it.
What I do intend to do with each one is attempt to briefly give my opinions about each after watching them again and how they work together. The first film in the saga in my opinion is the masterpiece. It is cemented in my list of five desert island films and honestly it is in my opinion the greatest film I have ever seen. It is presently ranked second on the American Film Institutes list of greatest films that was compiled back in 2007. It has been referenced and parodied in so many ways over the years that if you haven't seen it you would recognize huge chunks of this film from the way it's been represented in various media over the past 30 years. From the films opening scene to it's bitter end every scene and character breathes with a life that is rarely scene on film. We meet the Corleone family on the day of daughter Connie's wedding and we see the families matriarch Vito meeting with various people in his home office while the reception continues on the families estate. From the moment we meet Vito he is a calm yet imposing figure. His son Santino (Sunny) and adopted son Tom are in with him and are seemingly taking notes so that when Don Vito retires Sunny can take over.
We meet other family members too including Michael, the one son who is not being groomed to aid in the family business. Michael arrives with Kay and assures her that he is not like his family. However, weeks later when the Don is nearly murdered Michael finds his love for his father and family thrusting him into a situation in which he is forced to help in the family business.
The compelling elements of the first Godfather are Vito's unflinching ability to run his business without emotional influence and Michael's assimilation to that business along the resulting corruption of character that Michael succumbs too. I can remember taking the Godfather over to a friends house once and starting it at midnight thinking we would watch half that night and the next night we would finish. In the back of my head I think I knew we would be up until 3 am because that's the kind of film the Godfather is. Once it begins it is virtually impossible to look a way.
Which brings us to The Godfather Part 2. I have seen many times were critics will refer to the second one as being the greatest sequel of all time and there are those who would argue that it is better than the original. I would not. It's worth noting that part 2 is presently ranked 32nd on AFI's top one hundred list and is the only sequel on the list (I am not counting Star Wars Episode IV because when it was released it was not presented as a sequel).
The films takes the two central characters from the original and breaks the film into 2 stories. The first is an origin story that follows Vito from Sicily to New York and his rise to underworld power as a young man struggling to take care of his family. The second story follows Michael seven years after the first film ended as he continues to rule over the Corleone family and it's interests. By the end of the first film I believe director Francis Ford Coppola laid out the depths to which Michael had sunk by splicing together a sequence in which he stood Godfather to his nephew while hits that he ordered were being carried out across New York and Las Vegas. By the time the second film opens Michael seems to be wallowing in his inability to control the monster he has created. He has set a goal to move his family into a legitimate business world and yet the closer he gets to that the further he gets. His singular motivation appears to be the protection of his family but he is so blinded by his own immorality that he can't see how his actions are destroying his marriage and family. He still manages to be slick enough to avoid inquisition from a senate panel and the film also includes a compelling sequence in Cuba as Michael looks to move his business there but is indirectly stopped by the revolution in 1960. This is the darkest content area of the saga and by it's end we see Michael a shell of the man he was when he arrived at his sisters wedding seemingly taking out his anger on those he feels are responsible for the failure of his marriage without ever looking at his own errors. Had this been the film only focus it would have been very difficult to get through.
Of course, the film also includes Vito's origin story as I mentioned and that is a thoroughly compelling and entertaining tale. Told mostly in Italian and lacking the vulgarity of Goodfellas it manages to make Vito a sympathetic character who is willing to work hard to take care of his family in an unjust world. We see why Vito was tragically forced to leave Sicily and how some chance encounters lead to him being in a position to go from taking orders to delivering them. It's this part of the film that is most entertaining and exhibits some of the best film making of the series. Without the Vito origin story I think this film ultimately would not have lived up to the expectations set by it's predecessor, but with it The Godfather Part 2 is a great film.
The Godfather Part 3 however, not so much. This film has been much maligned over the 20 years since it's release as not being worthy of the first two films and I must admit that I have long been an apologist for the third film. After all, it was nominated for the Best Picture Oscar in 1990 and it's hard to live up to the standards the first two had built.
Watching it again though I can still sight a few good things including Michael giving his confessions to a priest and his pursuit of Kay's forgiveness. The confession scene in particular I find to be compelling as we see a man come face to face with the horrible things he has done and break down because of it.
But, other than that the film plays too much like a tribute to the first two by consistently throwing in reminders of them through out. There is also a sense that the film most over compensate for how evil Michael had become by setting itself nearly twenty years after the second had ended and showing Michael as an extraordinarily charitable man still seeking a way out of the family business.
Yet the film is brought down by a sense of obligation to follow the same formulas the first two films established and while the first one seemingly gave these characters life this one seems to being trying to choke the life out of it's characters. Kay has been reduced to quips about Michael's past while Michael is played boorishly by Al Pacino in the same way that he has been over acting almost every role he has had for the past twenty years. I should also point out the unfortunate casting of Sophia Coppola as Michael's daughter, but considering she left acting after this to be a director I would suggest that even she was smart enough to realize acting was not for her. Also, I guess the film makers did not get the memo regarding how audiences are still not comfortable with cousin love stories (are you listening George Michael?).
The third film does give the saga proper closure. There is no happy ending when one lives this life. Vito was never happy that Michael had taken over the family business and Michael was never able to have the family he wanted. The saga at it's best represents the very best that film making can be and despite the flaws of the third film the saga should be viewed by everyone at least once. Unless of course you consider all the references you have seen through the Simpsons as enough.