Reviews

After posting my thoughts on part II, I decided to give equal time here. Part of why GII was such a terrible movie is because this was such a great one.

Coppolla does his best work when he is under career threatening pressure, and perhaps this was it. Here you see what happens when his ego doesn't get in the way, and when that happens you can see his technical genius.

Brando gives the best performance, and one of the great performances of all time by any actor in film. James Caan was perfect. Enough said. The restaurant scene with Al Pacino and Sterling Hayden is indelibly etched on my brain as the most chilling experience I've had in a motion picture. Bravo.

The set, the camera work, the music, the writing, the dialogue, all work cohesively. The hospital scene is an excellent example of creating tension. Quite honestly, I didn't think Coppolla was capable of such Hitchcockian style direction.

If you haven't seen it, you have something to look forward to. There are few movies that I would recommend more than this one.

Why Francis Ford Coppolla received such accolade for this film is beyond me. I suppose he must've hired everyone in Hollywood to do this picture. Do you think everyone had a piece? Piece of what you may ask. A piece of a failure of monumental proportions. This movie reminded me of the Titanic - the boat, not the movie.

Why is this movie a failure? This film suffers from terrible dramatic fundamentals. It is a classic example of the movie drives the plot which is not the way it works. Rather, good drama has as its one trademark, the plot drives the movie. Any first year director in any dramatic medium should know this. You do the scenes so that the plot is revealed, not rewritten. The reader is kept on edge, waiting to see what happens next.

And that is the key. The following notes on the characters are inconsequential. This movie suffers most from appalling writing that undermines everything. Nice dialogue does nothing if the storyline makes no sense. Who cares? In this film, the reader is constantly wondering, 'what just happened there.' Did I miss something? What are they talking about? Do I need to remember all these characters? No, you don't, Francis just wanted to get his cousin in the picture, so he's wasting your time to do it.

That is why the first film, despite its relatively meager budget was a success. Coppola was forced to quell his massive ego and improvise to make it work. He was sloppy and sometimes almost juvenile, but it didn't matter. The plot was so good, all he really had to do is show up. And he almost blew that. Here you see the true Coppola at his ultimate worse. Now you know why the producers of the first film were so worried.

All I could think about during the entire film was, 'Where is Brando?'

Bobby Deniro and the Italian language were annoying. Deniro was annoying, in general. All I could think about was, "okay, so deniro wants to join the gang...of misfits."

Pacino was lost. I started muting his outbursts because they were so predictable. The key to a good outburst is it has to be explosive meaning unpredictable. In Al's case it was just load and annoying. I yawned. The rest of the film focused on Pacino's facial movements from the restaurant scene in the first film. It was like "Okay Al, remember that restaurant scene? Let's have you do those facial expressions again, for three whole hours. Do you think we'll get tired of it?"

Diane Keaton shouldn't have even been there. The stupid and pitiful moral struggles of family life made me wonder if Coppolla didn't spend his entire childhood watching the Brady bunch. What a load!!!!!! I can't believe he even attempted to address such things. Does he think I'm some kind of idiot? Obviously. "But Daddy doesn't spend enough time with me." "Don't worry boy, he's in Cuba. I'll buy you a red toy car. let's go fishing." I vomit.

The first half introduced so many utterly inconsequential characters, I couldn't help but wonder if they were all Coppolla's cousins. I've never seen so many gala affairs and parties in one film. I thought I was reading a travel brochure.

Coppolla had so overextended himself that at some point he was probably no longer even part of the film. I don't care how many hours he worked. All he did was serve the interests of his own ego. The artist was left helpless in a pile of rubble. It was a managerial catastrophe.

This movie was nothing more than a hackneyed soap opera overblown on a proportion that boggles the mind. Great sets, great music, great cameras, do nothing whatsoever if there is no storyline and the characters are uninteresting. ugh. I couldn't help but think that anyone who actually was a mobster would look at this and say, 'what a load of crap.'

Fortunately, you don't have to be a mobster to understand that you are being sold a bill of goods. All you have to do is read this. Oh, and for those who actually liked this film...I'll bet you liked Rocky II.

Don't waste your time.

It is nice to see the likes of Oliver Stone, Brian DePalma, Al Pacino, and even Michelle Pfiefer make one monumental piece of cinematic garbage. It is nice to see people so rich and 'successful' wasting their time on one of the most forgettable, trite, and pathetic pieces of film-making of all time. This movie represents the worst of Hollywood.

What is this? Is it based on a true story. Well, they do start with some basic news bites and facts that they read off USA today. But then the movie departs to some fantasy world and a 'cuban' refugee going to make it in the American drug subculture; kind of like Rocky on cocaine. Is it a movie about Cuba or Cubans? For the life of me I don't believe there is a single Cuban in this movie. The accents are totally fake, and scene with Antonio's mother looks like a poster for midwest American values. The whole scene looks like something out of the Dick Van Dyke show. Is this movie about Miami? It looks more like L.A. transposed in Florida. Afterall, a palm tree is a palm tree. Is this a romance novel. The relationship between Pacino and Pfeiffer is so obvious from the getgo, and there is not one shred of possibility that these two characters could ever care for each other. Is this a drug movie? Well, no issues of obsession or addiction are even mentioned. The behavior of the actors after a line of coke is nothing different than had they had a drink of water. Admittedly, the acting is terrible.

Let's get to the rest. The music is disgusting and sounds like latin elevator music or something out of a Lawrence Welk show. I think I heard a polka? The camera work is shoddy with too much movement and far more cranes than could ever be effective. Clearly, the photography budget was excessive. The sound is bleached in a number of spots, and the dialogue seems to be carried out in a warehouse. The writing is appalling. This is one of those movies were the script writes itself. You are dragged from one trite piece of dialogue to the next, each pushing the plot like a sack of bricks.

So I am going to ask, Is this even a movie? It could be a drama series patched together for two and a half hours. But at least a drama series has some kind of focus. Maybe it is just a bunch of poorly acted scenes taped together. Whatever it is, movie or not, it is a piece of crap.

Okay, so I am not supposed to say anything about other user's comments, but I should mention that reading those comments is what lead me to write this...I don't know if this is an enjoyable movie experience, but it is nonetheless a triumph of cinema.

This film has very little to do with sex. It also has very little to do with the tango, and we might want to add it has little to do with Paris. Someone once told me this movie is about an American businessman. Out of curiosity, are all American's traveling in Europe businessmen? I think not. First of all, he was a boxer, a bongo player, he married a wealthy woman, but nowhere did I see this man as working for some corporation. This man had little money, and he didn't need a 'serious' career.

This film is about abuse; a parable about the overly masculine father who sexually abuses his own son; a child abused by his alcoholic parents; a widower who is abused by his animalistic but deadly honest wife. This movie is about a religious zealot for a mother-in-law in constant denial who shows more interest in her daughter's corpse than in her life. This movie is about an idealistic no-longer teenager who perhaps finds true love the only time in her life, but pays a terrible price. It is as though she has bitten from the forbidden fruit and found that love is an illusion.

To say Brando is superb misses the point. I simply know no other actor that could have pulled this off. His facial expressions are uncanny. It is a most fitting bookend to Street Car Named Desire. One simply cannot deny the final elevator scene. But unlike Streetcar, Brando portrays a vivid understanding of the sensitivity towards women and towards human existence that few men are capable of grasping, and few women could probably appreciate. Brando is himself. But Brando is himself because he understands his character, not because he plays himself.

This movie is an existential parody of the nature of society. It is a bitter reflection of human frailty and vanity. It is a tragedy of a man who has actually found a way to transcend his own suffering, who has somehow managed to cut through the illusions that all of us carry day-to-day. But with that knowledge, he finds himself utterly alone (as so many users here seem testament.)