Search
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Tom and Jerry (2021) in Movies
Mar 11, 2021 (Updated Mar 27, 2021)
The animation looks nice (2 more)
Decent laughs
Gets the Tom and Jerry part of the movie right
Too predictable (2 more)
Bad plot
Barely above average movie overall
Visually Pleasing With Decent Laughs Sprinkled Throughout
Tom and Jerry is a 2021 live-action/CGI animated comedy movie directed by Tim Story and written by Kevin Costello. The film was produced by Chris DeFaria and Warner Animation Group, The Story Company, and Turner Entertainment Co. and distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures. The movie stars Chloe Grace Moretz, Michael Pena, Colin Jost, Robe Delaney and Ken Jeong.
Kayla Forester (Chloe Grace Moretz) is a street smart woman doing odd jobs in Manhattan when she bumps into Tom while he's chasing Jerry in Central Park. Jerry, who picked a fight with Tom during a impromptu piano performance is also house hunting and in search of a new home. Kayla, is fortuitous when she goes to the Royal Gate Hotel for a "free" breakfast and presents a stolen resume as her own. She's given a position with helping event manager Terence Mendoza (Michael Pena) with a high profile wedding the very day that Jerry takes up residence in the hotel. Tom and Jerry's usual shenanigans ensue when Kayla hires Tom to "exterminate" him when Jerry begins stealing food and items causing concern about Ben (Colin Jost) and Preeta's (Pallavi Sharda) wedding and for the hotel's reputation to Mr. Dubros (Rob Delaney) the hotel's owner and general manager.
This was a movie that I watched on a whim and didn't have any expectations going into other than the animation looking really nice in the trailer when I first saw it. Also trying to get into the groove of getting back on doing my reviews on the regular again. I'm also a fan of both Chloe Grace Moretz from the Kick-Ass movies and Michael Pena from just about everything he comes out in. Plus I've always been a fan of Tom and Jerry, watching the cartoons as a kid was always fun and it's something that I can still enjoy anytime even though it's something that is really old. But enough of that and let's get to what I thought about the movie. I liked how the movie setup the Tom and Jerry character's similar to how it would in an episode. It showed both of them individually with their own goals before bringing them together. Tom is shown to have aspirations of becoming an accomplished pianist and Jerry is shown house hunting and looking for a new home to live in. That's when Jerry finds Tom pulling a scam in Central Park conning people as a "blind" piano player. Jerry tries to "cash in" on Tom's scheme and begins trying to get in on the action and adding himself and a little flair to the performance. That's when their usual antics ruin the opportunity for both of them. This was a pretty decent opening and I really liked how their animation looked and how the live-action aspect interacted with them, it was very visually pleasing. I really didn't like how it seemed Jerry was the agitator between the two or at least the one who starts the "rivalry" in this movie but I think I've always looked at him through rose colored glasses if you will since he is the smaller and more vulnerable of the two. The comedic antics were very spot on emulating a lot of classic moments from the cartoon with most not all working fairly well in a "real-world" setting. I think where this movie lost me the most was not the backdrop of the New York City being the setting or even the live-action part and actors like Chloe Grace Moretz and Michael Pena but the whole wedding plot being a primary focus of the film. I mean I can totally see it as a catalyst to the whole plot but for it to be the main focus didn't really thrill me. I thought the acting was decent and comedy was good but this movie didn't really strike me as a super funny movie, though it did have me laughing out loud at a couple of parts. I was happy that they also added Spike and the pretty white cat whose name is Toots which are regulars in the cartoon and a host of other cats as part of the alley cat gang who many of which looked familiar. The music soundtrack was good too and had a bunch of popular artists from music of today which didn't really go with the whole "vibe" of Tom and Jerry but didn't take a way from the movie either. Droopy the dog's cameo was also a nice added touch. All-in-all this movie was barely above average for me and I think that's me mainly having nostalgia for the characters and what the show used to be. Definitely not something I would see at theaters but if you have HBO Max you should give it a shot. I give this movie a 6/10.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
So I gave this movie a 6/10 which for me is above average but this movie barely met that criteria. It started off pretty good and funny with Jerry looking for a new place to live and dealing with a dodgy real estate rat. It was also cool to see Tom having dreams or aspirations of becoming a pianist and then seeing how they collide when Jerry tries to own in on his action on the whole blind piano player scheme. That was all classic Tom and Jerry. I also enjoyed the way they interacted with the whole live-action aspect of the film and how the people reacted to them and the environments and how that all worked out was pretty good to me in my opinion. The pigeon singing opening was also pretty funny and cool and when he sings again later in the movie was awesome. I really like Chloe Grace Moretz as Kayla Forester and thought that she did a pretty good job for acting with what was probably people wearing green screen costumes or props and Michael Pena was pretty funny as the event manager. The movie was pretty predictable except for one thing that I guess I would have known about if I bothered to see the second trailer but I never did, and that's the whole sub-plot of the wedding being such a big focus for the film. I don't have anything against weddings except for when it comes to Tv shows and how if any of them run long enough then there's going to be a wedding episode somewhere. But I really felt that it kind of took a way from the whole vibe of it being a Tom and Jerry movie. It was cool how they brought Spike and Toots into the picture by them being the pets of Ben and Preeta. It was pretty obvious when they introduced the bartend character Cameron that he would be Kayla's love interest but I'm kind of glad that they didn't lean too hard into that. I thought that it was pretty funny how Kayla made Tom and Jerry be friends and go out on the town on their own and it was kind of fun to see them get a long for a while but I knew it would never last. I also thought it was pretty messed up that Kayla let Terence take the blame for Spike, Tom and Jerry tearing up the hotel when it all started with Jerry who returned when she said Tom had taken care of him already. I could totally tell that Terence would become the villain of the movie after that but most of the movie is predictable anyways. There was surprisingly an after credits scene where Ben is charged for two different weddings by the hotel which is pretty funny too. Not a great movie by no means and definitely barely above average but if you have HBO Max you should give it a watch for nostalgia's sake especially if your an old Tom and Jerry fan. I gave it a 6/10.
https://youtu.be/nrdsTy_KpwQ
Kayla Forester (Chloe Grace Moretz) is a street smart woman doing odd jobs in Manhattan when she bumps into Tom while he's chasing Jerry in Central Park. Jerry, who picked a fight with Tom during a impromptu piano performance is also house hunting and in search of a new home. Kayla, is fortuitous when she goes to the Royal Gate Hotel for a "free" breakfast and presents a stolen resume as her own. She's given a position with helping event manager Terence Mendoza (Michael Pena) with a high profile wedding the very day that Jerry takes up residence in the hotel. Tom and Jerry's usual shenanigans ensue when Kayla hires Tom to "exterminate" him when Jerry begins stealing food and items causing concern about Ben (Colin Jost) and Preeta's (Pallavi Sharda) wedding and for the hotel's reputation to Mr. Dubros (Rob Delaney) the hotel's owner and general manager.
This was a movie that I watched on a whim and didn't have any expectations going into other than the animation looking really nice in the trailer when I first saw it. Also trying to get into the groove of getting back on doing my reviews on the regular again. I'm also a fan of both Chloe Grace Moretz from the Kick-Ass movies and Michael Pena from just about everything he comes out in. Plus I've always been a fan of Tom and Jerry, watching the cartoons as a kid was always fun and it's something that I can still enjoy anytime even though it's something that is really old. But enough of that and let's get to what I thought about the movie. I liked how the movie setup the Tom and Jerry character's similar to how it would in an episode. It showed both of them individually with their own goals before bringing them together. Tom is shown to have aspirations of becoming an accomplished pianist and Jerry is shown house hunting and looking for a new home to live in. That's when Jerry finds Tom pulling a scam in Central Park conning people as a "blind" piano player. Jerry tries to "cash in" on Tom's scheme and begins trying to get in on the action and adding himself and a little flair to the performance. That's when their usual antics ruin the opportunity for both of them. This was a pretty decent opening and I really liked how their animation looked and how the live-action aspect interacted with them, it was very visually pleasing. I really didn't like how it seemed Jerry was the agitator between the two or at least the one who starts the "rivalry" in this movie but I think I've always looked at him through rose colored glasses if you will since he is the smaller and more vulnerable of the two. The comedic antics were very spot on emulating a lot of classic moments from the cartoon with most not all working fairly well in a "real-world" setting. I think where this movie lost me the most was not the backdrop of the New York City being the setting or even the live-action part and actors like Chloe Grace Moretz and Michael Pena but the whole wedding plot being a primary focus of the film. I mean I can totally see it as a catalyst to the whole plot but for it to be the main focus didn't really thrill me. I thought the acting was decent and comedy was good but this movie didn't really strike me as a super funny movie, though it did have me laughing out loud at a couple of parts. I was happy that they also added Spike and the pretty white cat whose name is Toots which are regulars in the cartoon and a host of other cats as part of the alley cat gang who many of which looked familiar. The music soundtrack was good too and had a bunch of popular artists from music of today which didn't really go with the whole "vibe" of Tom and Jerry but didn't take a way from the movie either. Droopy the dog's cameo was also a nice added touch. All-in-all this movie was barely above average for me and I think that's me mainly having nostalgia for the characters and what the show used to be. Definitely not something I would see at theaters but if you have HBO Max you should give it a shot. I give this movie a 6/10.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
So I gave this movie a 6/10 which for me is above average but this movie barely met that criteria. It started off pretty good and funny with Jerry looking for a new place to live and dealing with a dodgy real estate rat. It was also cool to see Tom having dreams or aspirations of becoming a pianist and then seeing how they collide when Jerry tries to own in on his action on the whole blind piano player scheme. That was all classic Tom and Jerry. I also enjoyed the way they interacted with the whole live-action aspect of the film and how the people reacted to them and the environments and how that all worked out was pretty good to me in my opinion. The pigeon singing opening was also pretty funny and cool and when he sings again later in the movie was awesome. I really like Chloe Grace Moretz as Kayla Forester and thought that she did a pretty good job for acting with what was probably people wearing green screen costumes or props and Michael Pena was pretty funny as the event manager. The movie was pretty predictable except for one thing that I guess I would have known about if I bothered to see the second trailer but I never did, and that's the whole sub-plot of the wedding being such a big focus for the film. I don't have anything against weddings except for when it comes to Tv shows and how if any of them run long enough then there's going to be a wedding episode somewhere. But I really felt that it kind of took a way from the whole vibe of it being a Tom and Jerry movie. It was cool how they brought Spike and Toots into the picture by them being the pets of Ben and Preeta. It was pretty obvious when they introduced the bartend character Cameron that he would be Kayla's love interest but I'm kind of glad that they didn't lean too hard into that. I thought that it was pretty funny how Kayla made Tom and Jerry be friends and go out on the town on their own and it was kind of fun to see them get a long for a while but I knew it would never last. I also thought it was pretty messed up that Kayla let Terence take the blame for Spike, Tom and Jerry tearing up the hotel when it all started with Jerry who returned when she said Tom had taken care of him already. I could totally tell that Terence would become the villain of the movie after that but most of the movie is predictable anyways. There was surprisingly an after credits scene where Ben is charged for two different weddings by the hotel which is pretty funny too. Not a great movie by no means and definitely barely above average but if you have HBO Max you should give it a watch for nostalgia's sake especially if your an old Tom and Jerry fan. I gave it a 6/10.
https://youtu.be/nrdsTy_KpwQ
Lee (2222 KP) rated Yesterday (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Rocketman recently did a great job of reminding us just how good Elton John songs are, making us want to dust off our vinyl/plastic/streaming service collection and reacquaint ourselves with his back catalogue all over again. Last year the Bohemian Rhapsody movie did a similar thing for the music of Queen and now it's the turn of The Beatles, with Yesterday. Written by Richard Curtis, and directed by Danny Boyle, Yesterday doesn't go down the musical/biopic route, instead taking classic Beatles songs and weaving them into a high concept romantic comedy.
Yesterday follows struggling musician Jack (Himesh Patel) and his long-term best friend/manager Ellie (Lily James). Gigging in pubs is getting him nowhere and he's resigned himself to the fact that he might have to give it all up and return to teaching. He lands a spot on the Suffolk stage at Latitude festival, expecting it to be his big break, but only his friends and a handful of bored kids show up to watch him play.
But then, while riding home on his bike that night, something mysterious happens. An unexplained 12 second power cut hits the entire globe and in the resulting chaos, Jack is struck by a bus and flung from his bike. When he awakes in hospital, bruised and missing a couple of front teeth, he plays a Beatles song to Ellie and his friends, who all think it's amazing, claiming to have never heard of the song before, or even The Beatles. After a bit of Googling, it becomes clear that The Beatles never actually existed, and only Jack is able to remember them. There are a few other things which crop up as we go along, that also turn out never to have existed, in what is a bit of a running gag throughout the movie.
Jack immediately realises his chance of success at last and sets about trying to remember as many of The Beatles songs and music as he can. His friends love the new songs, and there's a hilarious scene where he tries to introduce his parents to a Beatles song too (The Kumars, Sanjeev Bhaskar and Meera Syal on top form here), but it's still not really working out for him at the pub gigs and weddings where he performs them. It's only when he gets the chance to professionally lay down his tracks, and starts handing out free CDs to customers at the store he works at, that things really take off for Jack, drawing the attentions of none other than Mr Ed Sheeran. Ed has fun sending himself up, and actually features quite heavily in the movie, particularly in these early stages - turning up at Jack's house, asking him to come and support him on tour, arranging a 10 minute songwriting challenge between him and Jack. I'm not really a fan of Ed Sheeran but he actually turns out to be responsible for a lot of the movies humour as he eventually concedes that Jack is a better songwriter than him.
As Jack starts to hit the big time, traveling to LA and being managed by Ed's manager Debra (Kate McKinnon), we hit a bit of a mid-movie slump. Luckily though, Himesh Patel portrays Jack with such a relatable and likeable charm - his bewilderment and frustrations at the ridiculousness of the music industry, not to mention the building pressures of living the lie that his success has come from using someone else's work, guides us nicely through the slower moments of the movie. The romance part of the story continues to play out too, with Jack and Ellie both clearly loving each other for 20 years now, but with neither of them committing to taking it further. Lily James is once again wonderful, despite being very underused in this role, and it's the love story element of the movie which isn't quite as strong as the rest of it.
The movie does manage to pull things together nicely for the final act, resolving the unease and tension that dominates much of the movie. It could have done with a bit more rom and a bit more com, but is still an enjoyable movie and a perfect reminder of just how great The Beatles are.
Yesterday follows struggling musician Jack (Himesh Patel) and his long-term best friend/manager Ellie (Lily James). Gigging in pubs is getting him nowhere and he's resigned himself to the fact that he might have to give it all up and return to teaching. He lands a spot on the Suffolk stage at Latitude festival, expecting it to be his big break, but only his friends and a handful of bored kids show up to watch him play.
But then, while riding home on his bike that night, something mysterious happens. An unexplained 12 second power cut hits the entire globe and in the resulting chaos, Jack is struck by a bus and flung from his bike. When he awakes in hospital, bruised and missing a couple of front teeth, he plays a Beatles song to Ellie and his friends, who all think it's amazing, claiming to have never heard of the song before, or even The Beatles. After a bit of Googling, it becomes clear that The Beatles never actually existed, and only Jack is able to remember them. There are a few other things which crop up as we go along, that also turn out never to have existed, in what is a bit of a running gag throughout the movie.
Jack immediately realises his chance of success at last and sets about trying to remember as many of The Beatles songs and music as he can. His friends love the new songs, and there's a hilarious scene where he tries to introduce his parents to a Beatles song too (The Kumars, Sanjeev Bhaskar and Meera Syal on top form here), but it's still not really working out for him at the pub gigs and weddings where he performs them. It's only when he gets the chance to professionally lay down his tracks, and starts handing out free CDs to customers at the store he works at, that things really take off for Jack, drawing the attentions of none other than Mr Ed Sheeran. Ed has fun sending himself up, and actually features quite heavily in the movie, particularly in these early stages - turning up at Jack's house, asking him to come and support him on tour, arranging a 10 minute songwriting challenge between him and Jack. I'm not really a fan of Ed Sheeran but he actually turns out to be responsible for a lot of the movies humour as he eventually concedes that Jack is a better songwriter than him.
As Jack starts to hit the big time, traveling to LA and being managed by Ed's manager Debra (Kate McKinnon), we hit a bit of a mid-movie slump. Luckily though, Himesh Patel portrays Jack with such a relatable and likeable charm - his bewilderment and frustrations at the ridiculousness of the music industry, not to mention the building pressures of living the lie that his success has come from using someone else's work, guides us nicely through the slower moments of the movie. The romance part of the story continues to play out too, with Jack and Ellie both clearly loving each other for 20 years now, but with neither of them committing to taking it further. Lily James is once again wonderful, despite being very underused in this role, and it's the love story element of the movie which isn't quite as strong as the rest of it.
The movie does manage to pull things together nicely for the final act, resolving the unease and tension that dominates much of the movie. It could have done with a bit more rom and a bit more com, but is still an enjoyable movie and a perfect reminder of just how great The Beatles are.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Viceroy's House (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The 80:20 Rule.
India, 1947. Churchill’s government has sent Lord Grantham – – sorry — Lord Louis Mountbatten of Burma (Hugh Bonneville, “The Monuments Men“) as the new Viceroy. His mission is to make sure he is the last ever Viceroy, for India is to be returned to independence. But racial tensions between the Hindu and minority Muslim populations are brittle and deteriorating fast. Can India survive as a single country, or will Mountbatten be forced to partition the country along religious lines to avoid civil-war and countless deaths?
Of course, there is little tension in this plot line since we know Pakistan was indeed founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (played by Denzil Smith) on August 14th 1947. (In reality, Jinnah’s victory was short lived as he died of TB the following year). The rest of India went on to be ruled by Jawaharlal Nehru (played by Tanveer Ghani). What the film does remind this generation of is the extreme cost of that partition, with riots, mass abductions and rapes, over a million estimated deaths and one of the biggest migrations of populations ever seen. (All of this is largely shown through original newsreel footage, which is effectively inter-weaved with the film).
So as an educational documentary it is useful. However, as an entertaining movie night out? Not so much. After coming out of the film we needed to buy some milk at Tesco and I was put on the spot by the checkout lady to sum-up the film: “Worthy but dull” was what I came up with, which with further time to reflect still seems a good summary.
This shouldn’t have been the case, since the film is directed by the well-respected Gurinder Chadha (“Bend it like Beckham) and boasts a stellar cast, with Bonneville supported by Gillian Anderson (“The X Files”) as Lady Mountbatten; Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as General Ismay (Mountbatten’s chief of staff); Simon Callow (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”) as Radcliffe (the drawer of ‘the new map’); and Om Puri (“The Hundred Foot Journey“) as former political prisoner Ali Rahim Noor. Playing Mountbatten’s daughter is Lily Travers (“Kingsman: The Secret Service“): Virginia McKenna’s granddaughter.
But unfortunately, for me at least, the film lumbers from scene to scene, seldom engaging with me. Bonneville’s Mountbatten, whilst perfectly sound, was just a re-tread of Downton with added humidity and curry; Anderson’s (probably extremely accurate) crystal-glass English accent quickly becomes tiresome; and elsewhere a lot of the acting of the broader Indian cast is, I’m sorry to comment, rather sub-par. For me, only Om Puri, who sadly died in January, delivers an effective and moving performance as the blind father (literally) unable to see that the arranged marriage for his daughter Aalia (Huma Qureshi) is heading for trouble thanks to Mountbatten’s man-servant. And no, that isn’t a euphemism…. I’m talking about his real manservant, Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal)!!
As an aside, the late Puri (probably most famous in western cinema for “East is East”) has made over 270 feature films in his prolific career, over and above his many appearances on Indian TV. And he still has another 6 films to be released! May he rest in peace.
Probably realising that the historical plot is not enough to sustain the film, the screenwriters Paul Mayeda Berges (“Bend it like Beckham”), Moira Buffini (“Tamara Drewe”) and Gurinder Chadha try to add more substance with the illicit romance between the Hindu Jeet and the Muslim Aalia. Unfortunately this is clunky at best, with an incessant 30 minutes-worth of longing looks before anything of substance happens. Even the “Lion“-style denouement (also with a railway train connection) is unconvincing.
After that, the film just tends to peter out, with a ‘real-life photograph’ segue delivering a rather tenuous connection between a character not even featured in the film and the director!
Mrs. Chadha has clearly corralled an army of extras to deliver some of the scenes in the film, in the hope of delivering a historical epic of the scale of Attenborough’s “Gandhi”. For me, she misses by a considerable margin. But that’s just my view….. if you like historical dramas, its a film you might enjoy: as the great man himself said “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress”.
Of course, there is little tension in this plot line since we know Pakistan was indeed founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (played by Denzil Smith) on August 14th 1947. (In reality, Jinnah’s victory was short lived as he died of TB the following year). The rest of India went on to be ruled by Jawaharlal Nehru (played by Tanveer Ghani). What the film does remind this generation of is the extreme cost of that partition, with riots, mass abductions and rapes, over a million estimated deaths and one of the biggest migrations of populations ever seen. (All of this is largely shown through original newsreel footage, which is effectively inter-weaved with the film).
So as an educational documentary it is useful. However, as an entertaining movie night out? Not so much. After coming out of the film we needed to buy some milk at Tesco and I was put on the spot by the checkout lady to sum-up the film: “Worthy but dull” was what I came up with, which with further time to reflect still seems a good summary.
This shouldn’t have been the case, since the film is directed by the well-respected Gurinder Chadha (“Bend it like Beckham) and boasts a stellar cast, with Bonneville supported by Gillian Anderson (“The X Files”) as Lady Mountbatten; Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as General Ismay (Mountbatten’s chief of staff); Simon Callow (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”) as Radcliffe (the drawer of ‘the new map’); and Om Puri (“The Hundred Foot Journey“) as former political prisoner Ali Rahim Noor. Playing Mountbatten’s daughter is Lily Travers (“Kingsman: The Secret Service“): Virginia McKenna’s granddaughter.
But unfortunately, for me at least, the film lumbers from scene to scene, seldom engaging with me. Bonneville’s Mountbatten, whilst perfectly sound, was just a re-tread of Downton with added humidity and curry; Anderson’s (probably extremely accurate) crystal-glass English accent quickly becomes tiresome; and elsewhere a lot of the acting of the broader Indian cast is, I’m sorry to comment, rather sub-par. For me, only Om Puri, who sadly died in January, delivers an effective and moving performance as the blind father (literally) unable to see that the arranged marriage for his daughter Aalia (Huma Qureshi) is heading for trouble thanks to Mountbatten’s man-servant. And no, that isn’t a euphemism…. I’m talking about his real manservant, Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal)!!
As an aside, the late Puri (probably most famous in western cinema for “East is East”) has made over 270 feature films in his prolific career, over and above his many appearances on Indian TV. And he still has another 6 films to be released! May he rest in peace.
Probably realising that the historical plot is not enough to sustain the film, the screenwriters Paul Mayeda Berges (“Bend it like Beckham”), Moira Buffini (“Tamara Drewe”) and Gurinder Chadha try to add more substance with the illicit romance between the Hindu Jeet and the Muslim Aalia. Unfortunately this is clunky at best, with an incessant 30 minutes-worth of longing looks before anything of substance happens. Even the “Lion“-style denouement (also with a railway train connection) is unconvincing.
After that, the film just tends to peter out, with a ‘real-life photograph’ segue delivering a rather tenuous connection between a character not even featured in the film and the director!
Mrs. Chadha has clearly corralled an army of extras to deliver some of the scenes in the film, in the hope of delivering a historical epic of the scale of Attenborough’s “Gandhi”. For me, she misses by a considerable margin. But that’s just my view….. if you like historical dramas, its a film you might enjoy: as the great man himself said “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress”.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Contented with little, wishing for more”.
Here’s a curious little British film that has some merit, both as an entertainment vehicle and as a history lesson.
Set in a split-timeline between 1941 and 1946, the film tells the story of Juliet Ashton (Lily James, “Darkest Hour“, “Baby Driver“), a young British writer who seems all at sea emotion-wise following the war. She is struggling to fit in with her high-society London life, and can’t seem to put her heart into either her publishing commitments, much to the frustration of her publisher Sidney (Matthew Goode, “The Imitation Game“, “Stoker“), or her boyfriend Mark (Glen Powell, “Hidden Figures“), the dashing and well-off American army officer.
Into this mix drops a letter out of the blue from Guernsey from a pig-farmer called Dawsey Adams (Michiel Huisman, “The Age of Adeline“, “Game of Thrones”), which leads her on a trail of discovery into the mysterious back-story of the strangely named book club. The secrets of the tightly-knit St Peter Port community, and what really happened during the Nazi occupation, come progressively to light as Juliet digs deeper.
Much as “Their Finest” shone a light on the rather invisible war efforts of the British propaganda film industry, so here we get an interesting and (I believe) relatively untapped view of the historical background of the German occupation of the Channel Islands. How many viewers I wonder, especially those outside of the UK, knew that the Nazis occupied “British” territory* during the war?
(* Well, strictly speaking, the Channel Islands are a “crown dependency” rather than being part of the UK per se).
Story-wise the screenplay splits the drama between:
the love triangle (which I almost took to be a love square at the start of the film… and to be honest I’m still not 100% sure!) between the main protagonists and;
the mystery surrounding Guernsey’s Elizabeth McKenna (Jessica Brown Findlay, “The Riot Club”, Lady Sybil from Downton Abbey).
In the first instance, you would need to be pretty dim I think, particularly if you’ve seen the trailer already, not to work out where the story is going to head! (Although, to be fair, I thought that about “Their Finest” and was woefully wrong!). I found this all rather paint-by-numbers stuff, but livened up immensely by a scene between James and Powell and a bottle of champagne which is wonderfully and refreshingly pulled off.
The second strand of the story is slightly more intriguing and provides the opportunity to see the wonderful Jessica Brown Findlay in action: it is just disappointing that she actually features so little in the film, and also disappointing that, at a crucial dramatic moment, the action moves “off-stage”. I wanted to see more of that story.
In terms of casting, Susie Figgis must have had a TERRIBLE job in casting Juliet: “Gemma Arterton not available…. hmmm… who else would fit…. think… think… think… think dammit….! Ah, yes!!” Lily James might be in danger of becoming typecast as a 40’s-style love interest. But she just fits the bill in terms of looks and mannerisms SO perfectly.
Elsewhere in the cast, Penelope Wilton (“The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“, “The BFG“) is superb as the deeply damaged Amelia; Tom Courtenay is 300% better than in his last movie outing as the cranky old postmaster; and TV’s Katherine Parkinson impresses greatly as the kooky gin-swilling Isola Pribby. All in all this is a fine ensemble cast. (With James, Goode, Wilton and Brown Findlay there, it must have also felt like a “Downton Abbey” reunion party!)
I’d also like to say that the Guernsey scenery was gloriously filmed, but as this article suggests, most of it was actually filmed in glorious Devon instead! Given the Guernsey Tourist Board have been going overboard (at least in the Southampton area) on film tie-in advertising, this feels rather like false representation! But I’m sure its equally lovely!
So in summary, it’s a thoughtful period piece, with some great acting performances and well-directed by Mike Newell (still most famous for “Four Weddings and a Funeral”). I enjoyed it but I felt it moved at a GLACIAL pace, taking over two hours to unfold, and I thought a few editing nips and tucks on the long lingering looks and leisurely strolls could have given it most impetus. But to be fair, my wife and cinema buddy for this film thought it was PERFECTLY paced, giving the story the space it needed for the drama and Juliet’s state of mind to unfold. In fact she gave it “5 Mads” as her rating… top marks! For me though a very creditable…
Set in a split-timeline between 1941 and 1946, the film tells the story of Juliet Ashton (Lily James, “Darkest Hour“, “Baby Driver“), a young British writer who seems all at sea emotion-wise following the war. She is struggling to fit in with her high-society London life, and can’t seem to put her heart into either her publishing commitments, much to the frustration of her publisher Sidney (Matthew Goode, “The Imitation Game“, “Stoker“), or her boyfriend Mark (Glen Powell, “Hidden Figures“), the dashing and well-off American army officer.
Into this mix drops a letter out of the blue from Guernsey from a pig-farmer called Dawsey Adams (Michiel Huisman, “The Age of Adeline“, “Game of Thrones”), which leads her on a trail of discovery into the mysterious back-story of the strangely named book club. The secrets of the tightly-knit St Peter Port community, and what really happened during the Nazi occupation, come progressively to light as Juliet digs deeper.
Much as “Their Finest” shone a light on the rather invisible war efforts of the British propaganda film industry, so here we get an interesting and (I believe) relatively untapped view of the historical background of the German occupation of the Channel Islands. How many viewers I wonder, especially those outside of the UK, knew that the Nazis occupied “British” territory* during the war?
(* Well, strictly speaking, the Channel Islands are a “crown dependency” rather than being part of the UK per se).
Story-wise the screenplay splits the drama between:
the love triangle (which I almost took to be a love square at the start of the film… and to be honest I’m still not 100% sure!) between the main protagonists and;
the mystery surrounding Guernsey’s Elizabeth McKenna (Jessica Brown Findlay, “The Riot Club”, Lady Sybil from Downton Abbey).
In the first instance, you would need to be pretty dim I think, particularly if you’ve seen the trailer already, not to work out where the story is going to head! (Although, to be fair, I thought that about “Their Finest” and was woefully wrong!). I found this all rather paint-by-numbers stuff, but livened up immensely by a scene between James and Powell and a bottle of champagne which is wonderfully and refreshingly pulled off.
The second strand of the story is slightly more intriguing and provides the opportunity to see the wonderful Jessica Brown Findlay in action: it is just disappointing that she actually features so little in the film, and also disappointing that, at a crucial dramatic moment, the action moves “off-stage”. I wanted to see more of that story.
In terms of casting, Susie Figgis must have had a TERRIBLE job in casting Juliet: “Gemma Arterton not available…. hmmm… who else would fit…. think… think… think… think dammit….! Ah, yes!!” Lily James might be in danger of becoming typecast as a 40’s-style love interest. But she just fits the bill in terms of looks and mannerisms SO perfectly.
Elsewhere in the cast, Penelope Wilton (“The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“, “The BFG“) is superb as the deeply damaged Amelia; Tom Courtenay is 300% better than in his last movie outing as the cranky old postmaster; and TV’s Katherine Parkinson impresses greatly as the kooky gin-swilling Isola Pribby. All in all this is a fine ensemble cast. (With James, Goode, Wilton and Brown Findlay there, it must have also felt like a “Downton Abbey” reunion party!)
I’d also like to say that the Guernsey scenery was gloriously filmed, but as this article suggests, most of it was actually filmed in glorious Devon instead! Given the Guernsey Tourist Board have been going overboard (at least in the Southampton area) on film tie-in advertising, this feels rather like false representation! But I’m sure its equally lovely!
So in summary, it’s a thoughtful period piece, with some great acting performances and well-directed by Mike Newell (still most famous for “Four Weddings and a Funeral”). I enjoyed it but I felt it moved at a GLACIAL pace, taking over two hours to unfold, and I thought a few editing nips and tucks on the long lingering looks and leisurely strolls could have given it most impetus. But to be fair, my wife and cinema buddy for this film thought it was PERFECTLY paced, giving the story the space it needed for the drama and Juliet’s state of mind to unfold. In fact she gave it “5 Mads” as her rating… top marks! For me though a very creditable…
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Darkest Hour (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Not buggering it up.
As Doctor Who repeatedly points out, time is most definitely a tricksy thing. As I think I’ve commented on before, the events of 1940-45 are not in my lifetime but were sufficiently fresh to my parents that they were still actively talked about… so they still appear “current” to me. But I find it astonishing to realize that to a teen viewer this film is equivalent in timeframe to the sinking of the Titanic! #ancienthistory! So I suspect your connection to this film will be strongly affected by your age, and that was definitely reflected in the average age at my showing which must have been at least 60.
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
ELLDBRY (0 KP) rated The Godfather (1972) in Movies
Apr 16, 2020
10/10
Contains spoilers, click to show
"I believe in America…."
What is it about someone you care about that sets them apart? Are they family, a friend, or someone you feel just needs help? What causes you to go the extra mile to put someone else ahead of yourself? You may find the answers in your religion, your upbringing, or in movies. For example, say your daughter goes out on a date with a guy and she is violently beaten by him and one of his friends. You go see her in the hospital and she cannot even weep because of the pain. So trying to keep your cool you press charges and try by the legal means to bring the young men to justice. It doesn't happen, their sentences are suspended. That may make you lose faith in the system that is supposed to protect you. So now you go to someone else who could help. This person is a bigshot, a pezzonovante in his own way but outside the system. You explain what happened and what you did, and all he says is 'why didn't you come to me first?' How many times in your life have some of us gone to others that don't care and asked for help instead of going to the ones that actually care. And the problem is solved. Imagine for another example that your father is in the hospital and men are coming to kill him. And you are the only one there that can help him. Imagine that you had your own dreams and your own goals that were different to what your father wanted. But in this moment you put all that aside to help your father survive. You assure him that everything will be ok and you are with him now. You bluff out the men trying to kill him and your father is saved. Most of us may never have to defend our dads from someone trying to kill him. But seeing someone laying helpless in a hospital bed in need of help we can all relate to. Every son, every daughter, every parent, every sibling, every friend. You see everybody wants to talk about the gangster mafia element of The Godfather, and say that is what it is all about. But family plays an even bigger role in the story by being the driving force behind the main characters. Family, love, loyalty, sacrifice all these elements are used in the movie to bring a standard boring mafia shootout movie to the level of greatest movie of all time. Francis Ford Coppola used as much he could to bring this point home. The wedding scene was not made up by any means but instead taken from other weddings witnessed by every Italian who has ever been to a wedding. Bringing envelopes filled with money to the bride, nieces dancing on the feet of uncle's, people waiting in line to see the father of the bride, sandwiches in white paper being tossed around. 'two gabagool, one proshootoh!' Then go to the kitchen to make spaghetti. Need a recipe? Try 'a little of oil then fry some garlic, throw in some tomatoes and tomato paste, fry it, make sure it does not stick, get it to boil, put in all your sausage and meatballs, add some wine and a little bit of sugar and that's the trick.' That recipe has been in Italian kitchens long before the cameras rolled. Need an idea for some quality time with the kids, well go to work do what you have to do and pick up some cannolis before you get home. Just remember to leave the gun and take the cannolis. Coppola always said he had to be good or no cannolis when his dad got home to share with the family. Coppola also put in his own family to work, his dad scored the movie, his sister Talia was Connie, and his daughter played the baby in the baptism scene. The family was on both sides of the family. But for me the movie revolves around Don Vito Corleone and Marlon Brando. Mario Puzo based the character of Don Corleone on his mother, everytime the Don opened his mouth all that came out was the passion of his mother, her wisdom, her ruthlessness, and her unconquerable love for her family and for life itself. Therefore only the greatest actor of the day will do to play the part. Coppola agreed and suggested either Brando or Laurence Olivier. Olivier was considered and it would have been interesting but he eventually passed on the role. Only two men wanted Brando, Coppola and Puzo. Brando had a history of being difficult and the studio executives nearly vetoed his casting. Coppola was able to make a deal with in order to cast Brando. Brando had to agree to do the movie for nothing, he had to put up a bond in order to cover cost overruns, and he had to do a screen test. They only got to the screen test because Brando transformed himself from a forty year old man into a sixty year old mafia don before their eyes in a matter of minutes. When the executives saw the footage they said ‘no no no, WOW THAT'S INCREDIBLE!’ Brando would be The Godfather. But Brando still needed a little extra help. If you watch the movie, everytime Don Corleone is speaking and stops and looks off in the distance he is reading from a card with his lines on it. He still won an oscar though. Two scenes are my favorite in the movie. One is the scene in the restaurant, I feel like I don’t need to explain it, because it is the most famous scene. Just know that without that scene the movie would not have existed. When you shoot a movie, the scenes are viewed day by day by the studio decision makers. They were hating what they were seeing, everything shot before the restaurant scene was met with cruel criticism by everyone on the outside not working on the movie. All Coppola could do was show them this scene and the movie was not only saved but validated. There are moments in the movie that other scenes build to, the restaurant was one of those scenes. You know of it’s importance because of everything that preceded it. The other scene is the meeting. Don Corleone stands before the other mafia dons and surrenders to them and their wishes. He reasons with them in order to come to a peaceful solution. But there is a catch: if you mess with my other son or if ‘he’s struck by a bolt of lightning. Then I’m going to blame some of the people in this room and that I do not forgive. So with that aside let me say that I swear, on the souls of my grandchildren, that I will not be the one that breaks the peace that we’ve made here today.’ There is a time for peace and a time for reckoning. This scene is my favorite because you believe him, you go along with his plea for peace. But the other dons do not realize it is not a surrender but a tactical retreat.
So the movie went on to make a lot of money, win a bunch of awards, and won it’s way on a bunch of lists that say it’s great. I was lucky enough to not know that when I first saw the movie. I saw it for what it was: a father and three sons. One son was intense and savage, another was sweet and innocent, another was conviving and calculating, the father was all those combined. But the father was the steadying force in all their lives. That is why when they all find out he was shot they react in ways we all would react. When you see the father lying in the street his second son is there to help but can’t, all he can do is cry and yell ‘papa.’ The first son nearly strong arms one of his father’s closest associates because he wants someone to beat up. The third son panics and tries to do whatever he can to help. That is for the audience, and that that’s how everyone relates. Finally, I’ll quote Martin Sheen: ‘The Godfather is the best filmmaking ever in the history of American cinema. There is nothing that speaks more to who we are, where we came from, what we stand for, and where we’re gonna go. That’s the work of a true genius.’ I agree. It is my favorite, of what I’ve seen of course.
".... Don Corleone."
What is it about someone you care about that sets them apart? Are they family, a friend, or someone you feel just needs help? What causes you to go the extra mile to put someone else ahead of yourself? You may find the answers in your religion, your upbringing, or in movies. For example, say your daughter goes out on a date with a guy and she is violently beaten by him and one of his friends. You go see her in the hospital and she cannot even weep because of the pain. So trying to keep your cool you press charges and try by the legal means to bring the young men to justice. It doesn't happen, their sentences are suspended. That may make you lose faith in the system that is supposed to protect you. So now you go to someone else who could help. This person is a bigshot, a pezzonovante in his own way but outside the system. You explain what happened and what you did, and all he says is 'why didn't you come to me first?' How many times in your life have some of us gone to others that don't care and asked for help instead of going to the ones that actually care. And the problem is solved. Imagine for another example that your father is in the hospital and men are coming to kill him. And you are the only one there that can help him. Imagine that you had your own dreams and your own goals that were different to what your father wanted. But in this moment you put all that aside to help your father survive. You assure him that everything will be ok and you are with him now. You bluff out the men trying to kill him and your father is saved. Most of us may never have to defend our dads from someone trying to kill him. But seeing someone laying helpless in a hospital bed in need of help we can all relate to. Every son, every daughter, every parent, every sibling, every friend. You see everybody wants to talk about the gangster mafia element of The Godfather, and say that is what it is all about. But family plays an even bigger role in the story by being the driving force behind the main characters. Family, love, loyalty, sacrifice all these elements are used in the movie to bring a standard boring mafia shootout movie to the level of greatest movie of all time. Francis Ford Coppola used as much he could to bring this point home. The wedding scene was not made up by any means but instead taken from other weddings witnessed by every Italian who has ever been to a wedding. Bringing envelopes filled with money to the bride, nieces dancing on the feet of uncle's, people waiting in line to see the father of the bride, sandwiches in white paper being tossed around. 'two gabagool, one proshootoh!' Then go to the kitchen to make spaghetti. Need a recipe? Try 'a little of oil then fry some garlic, throw in some tomatoes and tomato paste, fry it, make sure it does not stick, get it to boil, put in all your sausage and meatballs, add some wine and a little bit of sugar and that's the trick.' That recipe has been in Italian kitchens long before the cameras rolled. Need an idea for some quality time with the kids, well go to work do what you have to do and pick up some cannolis before you get home. Just remember to leave the gun and take the cannolis. Coppola always said he had to be good or no cannolis when his dad got home to share with the family. Coppola also put in his own family to work, his dad scored the movie, his sister Talia was Connie, and his daughter played the baby in the baptism scene. The family was on both sides of the family. But for me the movie revolves around Don Vito Corleone and Marlon Brando. Mario Puzo based the character of Don Corleone on his mother, everytime the Don opened his mouth all that came out was the passion of his mother, her wisdom, her ruthlessness, and her unconquerable love for her family and for life itself. Therefore only the greatest actor of the day will do to play the part. Coppola agreed and suggested either Brando or Laurence Olivier. Olivier was considered and it would have been interesting but he eventually passed on the role. Only two men wanted Brando, Coppola and Puzo. Brando had a history of being difficult and the studio executives nearly vetoed his casting. Coppola was able to make a deal with in order to cast Brando. Brando had to agree to do the movie for nothing, he had to put up a bond in order to cover cost overruns, and he had to do a screen test. They only got to the screen test because Brando transformed himself from a forty year old man into a sixty year old mafia don before their eyes in a matter of minutes. When the executives saw the footage they said ‘no no no, WOW THAT'S INCREDIBLE!’ Brando would be The Godfather. But Brando still needed a little extra help. If you watch the movie, everytime Don Corleone is speaking and stops and looks off in the distance he is reading from a card with his lines on it. He still won an oscar though. Two scenes are my favorite in the movie. One is the scene in the restaurant, I feel like I don’t need to explain it, because it is the most famous scene. Just know that without that scene the movie would not have existed. When you shoot a movie, the scenes are viewed day by day by the studio decision makers. They were hating what they were seeing, everything shot before the restaurant scene was met with cruel criticism by everyone on the outside not working on the movie. All Coppola could do was show them this scene and the movie was not only saved but validated. There are moments in the movie that other scenes build to, the restaurant was one of those scenes. You know of it’s importance because of everything that preceded it. The other scene is the meeting. Don Corleone stands before the other mafia dons and surrenders to them and their wishes. He reasons with them in order to come to a peaceful solution. But there is a catch: if you mess with my other son or if ‘he’s struck by a bolt of lightning. Then I’m going to blame some of the people in this room and that I do not forgive. So with that aside let me say that I swear, on the souls of my grandchildren, that I will not be the one that breaks the peace that we’ve made here today.’ There is a time for peace and a time for reckoning. This scene is my favorite because you believe him, you go along with his plea for peace. But the other dons do not realize it is not a surrender but a tactical retreat.
So the movie went on to make a lot of money, win a bunch of awards, and won it’s way on a bunch of lists that say it’s great. I was lucky enough to not know that when I first saw the movie. I saw it for what it was: a father and three sons. One son was intense and savage, another was sweet and innocent, another was conviving and calculating, the father was all those combined. But the father was the steadying force in all their lives. That is why when they all find out he was shot they react in ways we all would react. When you see the father lying in the street his second son is there to help but can’t, all he can do is cry and yell ‘papa.’ The first son nearly strong arms one of his father’s closest associates because he wants someone to beat up. The third son panics and tries to do whatever he can to help. That is for the audience, and that that’s how everyone relates. Finally, I’ll quote Martin Sheen: ‘The Godfather is the best filmmaking ever in the history of American cinema. There is nothing that speaks more to who we are, where we came from, what we stand for, and where we’re gonna go. That’s the work of a true genius.’ I agree. It is my favorite, of what I’ve seen of course.
".... Don Corleone."