The Godfather (1972)

Director: Francis Ford Coppola

Cast: Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, James Caan, Diane Keaton

Have I Seen it Before: I mean, come on. There was one particular Ken in Barbie (2023) that I felt called me out specifically, and that’s probably all you need to know.

I remember first seeing it in the days of the two VHS tapes, as a reward for an unusually industrious book report on the novel in the seventh grade. Before any public school teacher would dare to let me take on such a notoriously vivid novel.

Why has it taken nearly six years to get a review under my belt for this one? Oh, who the hell knows, but I did manage to catch part of it on Thanksgiving while stuck with extended (that word is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this sentence) family. These folks had motion blurring on, drying out every ounce of shadow from Gordon Willis’ photography and rendering the whole affair to look like a soap opera from a third-world nation and not one of the good ones. It was the third most horrifying my senses took in during that particular holiday.

So, yes, I’ve seen the movie a couple of times.

Did I Like It: You might get the sense that I’m spending more time than normal on the “Have I Seen It Before” section than I might for other movies. I’d imagine you’re probably coming to the same conclusion that I did as I started the review: What more can one say about the film that hasn’t already been said?

A movie only runs out of things about which one can say about it if that movie has a nearly perfect degree of staying power. Every single time I see it, I can’t help but think about its airtight plot, its almost overwhelming sense of inevitable tragedy, and the insurmountable need to partake of good Italian food as quickly as possible.

The Godfather has that kind of staying power. If you’ve seen it many times before, but it’s been a while, it is definitely worth another look. If you’ve never seen it, I envy your ability to watch it for the first time. You should take care of that as quickly as possible, and I’m totally fine with being a little bit of a Ken by making that proclamation.

Just, do me a favor: Turn off the motion blurring.

The Godfather: Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone (2020)

Director: Francis Ford Coppola

Cast: Al Pacino, Diane Keaton, Andy Garcia, Sofia Coppola

Have I Seen it Before: It just came out, so no... But then again, how different can it be from The Godfather, Part III (1990)?

Did I Like It: I approach this with the same uncertainty that I approached the multiple cuts of Apocalypse Now (1979), especially since the original films in both cases are ones I have certainly seen before, but don’t know as well as I do, say, the other Godfather films. 

Do I rewatch the original cut first so I’m more aware of the contrast, or do I watch the film on its own?

I opted for the latter, and I think I’ve come to a conclusion that yes, this new cut is an improvement, but only in the ending. 

That’s not dismissing the qualities of this new version. The ending of the original film was likely my biggest problem with the original film. The often flailing main story of the film concludes, and we cut to Michael Corleone (Pacino) as an old man, living in Sicily. And then he dies. Just tacked on there, completely divorced from the movie that preceded it. 

In this new version, we do see Old Man Michael, but it cuts away before he dies, with a final title indicated that he would live for a while, and never be able to forget how he sold his soul and got the exact opposite of everything he wanted. It’s an even more tragic ending than what was offered, even if it means that the film is about many things, but the death of Michael Corleone is not one of them.

The rest of the film is ultimately just the same as its progenitor. The plot is fine, but Sofia Coppola—who would be the first to admit she had not ambition or desire to become an actor—is the weak link in the chain. The ultimate question becomes, do I recommend this new film? If you have never seen any version of the third Godfather film, then I would recommend this version over the original cut. If you are a fan of the series, then it’s worth a viewing, although now I have the movie twice on Blu Ray, when once would have done. If you’re familiar with the original, and interested to see how much the film has changed, I’ve done the hard work for you.  Don’t buy the hype that the beginning is all that different—it isn’t. Just stop your Blu Ray of the original cut before Michael keels over, and you’ll get the idea.

Hearts of Darkness (1991)

Director: Fax Bahr, George Hickenlooper, Eleanor Coppola

Cast: Eleanor Coppola, Francis Ford Coppola, Robert Duvall, Martin Sheen

Have I Seen It Before?: I have a vague memory of watching a battered VHS copy long ago. It is odd that I have stronger memories of this film than of previous viewings of Apocalypse Now (1979).

Did I like it?: Usually when I start these reviews, unless I’m seeing the movie in the theater (kids, ask your parents)—I’m typing as the film still plays out. I’ve had the damnedest time starting (to say nothing of finishing) this review, as the film is so engrossing. Most behind the scenes material is produced with the intention of promoting the eventual finished film. Much of the material here is produced with that same idea, but the work of putting that material together has created something far more honest about art and obsession. Certainly, the talking heads are still trying to maintain their, likely self-serving, version of events. But their facial expressions won’t lie. I don’t think we got all of Coppola back after this movie. I’m glad we got most of Martin Sheen back. Dennis Hopper was largely unaffected either way.

It’s sort of unrelentingly strange that the first filmmaker to kill somebody with a helicopter was John Landis and not Coppola. Whatever insanity the actual film depicts had to be harnessed from the production of the film, and there is plenty to harvest.

To talk more about the film might be to deprive you from experiencing it for yourself. As much as the scene of Willard/Martin Sheen freaking out is unsettling in the context of Apocalypse Now (1979), the uncut version depicted here is hollowing to the viewer, especially when you realize that Willard as a fictional construct barely exists. The helicopters that never fail to impress me in Apocalypse Now becomes all the more impressive when you realize they appear only via a tenuous agreement with the Philippine government, who was also a little preoccupied with a civil war of their own. It’s sort of wild to think about how other troubled productions pale in comparison to this. Somebody like Josh Trank tripping over himself to screw up Fantastic Four (2015) couldn’t possibly know trouble like this.

Community was right. It’s way better than Apocalypse Now. To my mind, it may be the best thing with which Coppola has ever been associated. That’s saying quite a bit.

Apocalypse Now (1979)

Title: Apocalypse Now (1979)

Director: Francis Ford Coppola

Cast: Martin Sheen, Marlon Brando, Robert Duvall, Dennis Hopper

Have I Seen It Before?: Here’s the weird thing, especially when you consider the name of my company. I think I’ve seen it before. I recently procured a deluxe blu-ray of the film that includes the original theatrical cut from 1979, the Redux version released in 2001, and Hearts of Darkness (which, if I’m being honest, is the real reason I bought the set again). The opening minutes of Redux felt like it was significantly different from the film I remember. But, as I restarted the film with the theatrical cut, it’s largely unchanged so far as the first few minutes are concerned.

I’m honestly not sure what the hell I’ve seen.

Did I like it?: Orson Welles tried to make it, and before any sizable portion of the country would be skeptical about war to make it work. George Lucas was all set to make it, before he ended up becoming an action figure salesman. Only Coppola got it done, and given his output afterwards, it probably broke him far more than we could see at the time.

I’d go into the staggering scope of the film, but that may be a topic more at home in my eventual review for Hearts of Darkness. However, I will note that in the early scenes of the film—before it really has said much about war and the madness therein—where helicopters bob and weave off the coastline is staggering. They don’t—won’t, really—make movies like that anymore. Now such terrible things will look only slightly more realistic than Mario jumping for coins.

And they are terrible things. I can’t think of another war movie that not only makes the view feel what I can only imagine is the violence of war, but the deep, unrelenting insanity of the effort as well. It’s also deeply unsettling to see Martin Sheen this upset about anything, but then again I would feel that way about any of the cast of The West Wing.

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

Director: Francis Ford Coppola

Cast: Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Anthony Hopkins, Keanu Reeves

Have I Seen it Before: I’m sorry, I got distracted by the question. I heard a voice whispering for me to see him, whatever that means.

Did I Like It: At this point, I may be burned out on the Dracula mythos (for any number of reasons). But even so, this movie is interested in doing a lot things not necessarily seen before in Dracula films, that I think it all holds together.

First of all, this movie is a marvel of casting. Between Cary Elwes, Winona Ryder, Anthony Hopkins, Richard E. Grant, and Billy “The Motherfuckin’ Rocketeer” Campbell, the call sheet is like a mid-90s party and everyone is invited. 

Even Keanu Reeves, who history and assumption assumes is miscast in the role of Jonathan Harker equates himself well in the proceedings, if his British accent is occasionally wavering, but not in a Kevin Costner sort of way. Gary Oldman is a well-oiled acting machine, bringing vivid life to all of the dread count’s various shades. The only member of the cast who seems in over their head is Sadie Frost as the ill-fated Lucy Westerna. One can’t help but wonder if a bigger star, like a Michelle Pfeiffer* or Julia Roberts** might have offered a more memorable performance.

The movie that surrounds these performances feels a little long, even though it comes in at just a little bit over two hours. This may be a byproduct of the Coppola aesthetic. Still, there is a playful quality about the film. Beginning with an aesthetic pulled directly from F.W. Murnau’s Nosferatu (1992), slowly but surely transitioning into a more modern (or at least, modern for the time) monster movie with sumptuous photography and makeup work meant to startle more than inspire dread. Coppola loves movies so dearly, and he wants us to love this one too. His efforts at seduction are mostly, if not entirely successful.

*Although in that universe, we would have likely been deprived of her performance in Batman Returns, and I don’t think that is a Faustian bargain I am willing to make.

**Which I’m not that in favor of, mainly because Julia Roberts has been and always will be a frightful bore. Prove me wrong.