Category: 1974

The Godfather Part II (1974)

All the power on earth can’t change destiny.

Rating 18
Length 3h22
Release 15.05.1974
Director Francis Ford Coppola
About Vito’s popularity in the underworld is on the rise, while his son, Michael’s career is swinging downwards. In order to redeem himself, Michael must fight his enemies, including his own brother.
Moon: no moon sighting
Where to Watch: Channel 4 Online and Paramount Online
Trailer:

The Good

It is a better made film. I cannot put my finger on what it is, but it feels more accessible to the gangster-adverse like me. Even up to the halfway point I am liking the dual time frames.

Robert DeNiro is incredible as the younger version of Vito Corleone and for me is the highlight of the film. Not only did he give a worthy performance for a character that was played by Marlon Brandon, he also made it his own. I can also now see why there was such a call to have Pacino and DeNiro in a film together.

The music is stunning.

The Bad

Oh the sister can fucking do one! She picks such shitty men. In fact, she’s already lost one brother who was looking out for her, don’t sulk about Michael kicking you into touch. Yes, she was irritating in the first one, but she served a narrative purpose. Here, she’s just fucking annoying.

I don’t think enough was made of the ‘you said you’d be legit in 5years. It’s been 7.’ It felt more like exposition to given the audience an idea of how long it’s been than a reminder of the power of those words.
It just makes me question something I wasn’t thinking about by reminding me, which then brought to my attention how much Michael is no longer conflicted. He’s no longer making decisions for a legacy, but I really do wish there was something that suggested the Marine was still there beneath the mask of being the Don.

The Ugly

I don’t see the connections or complimenting themes that require the two timeframes being in the same film. They are, individually, strong stories. They do not go together. You know they don’t because of how long each runs for before switching.
What perhaps would have worked better would have been had to keep the story from the first film up until Michael executes those who attempt to assassinate his father, and weave young Vito’s story in there. They are then complimentary stories and both timeframes end with the son avenging the father.
You then have the freedom to spend a film focused on Michael’s romance in Sicily, bulk that out and have Michael looking into his roots while in exile. You would then finally have a closing film to the trilogy that looks at Michael’s return home and his accession to the Don of the family. 

Final Thoughts

I good film, that I had to watch in three sittings. Still not getting the hype, but I understand the quality of the craft.

Blazing Saddles (1974)

Mel Brooks’ comic saga of cowboys and imbeciles.

Rating 12
Length 1h33
Release 23.06.1974
Director Mel Brooks
About Hedley Lamarr, a corrupt politician, hires an African-American man as the sheriff of a small town to drive its residents away, but his plan backfires when the townspeople take a liking to the sheriff.
Moon: no moon sighting
Where to Watch: BBC Iplayer
Trailer:

The Good

Gene Wilder was an excellent choice and last-minute replacement for Jim. His relationship with Bart is what the film needs and they truly work together. As always, Wilder is on form with his comic timing.

I saw that Richard Pryor was briefly considered for the role by Brooks, however Pryor’s substance abuse was rather public at the time and so the studio vetoed the choice.
For me, I’m rather glad of studio meddling for once. It meant that we got an incredible and much more understated performance from Cleavon Little. There’s no question, Little carries this film effortlessly.

On the whole, the film is funny while actually broaching some serious social issues. Those without an understanding of satire may incorrectly see the film as ‘racist’, however the film is asking you to laugh at the ridiculousness of hate.

With it being one of Brooks’ early films, there’s not so many references that rely on a person having knowledge of the time in which it was made. As much as it pains me to say this, Blazing Saddles is a much better movie than the Cary Elwes led, Robin Hood: Men in Tights (1993).

The Bad

Yeah… you all bigged up that farting scene way too much. It cannot live up to the way people talk about it. In a world in which we have a film that has two women playing “battle shits” in the college dorm bathroom, the impact of this monumental cutaway scene has greatly reduced.
Not helped by the fact that I’m sure I’ve scene the whole scene play out on no less than 3 ‘best of’ countdowns. It just felt a little ‘that it?’

The dude named Mongo. It’s a personal thing, but to name a character coded as slow and stupid Mongo feels so painfully ‘nudge-nudge, wink-wink’ on the nose.

It’s alway good to see Santa in something, anything, other than Santa Clause: The movie (1985).

The Ugly

The film goes a little too meta at the end for me with the escaping the world of the film, to the behind the scenes. Then it goes and doubles down by going to watch the ending of the film in a cinema on the studio lot.
I’m sure Mel Brooks had that planned from the outset, but it comes across to me as if the story ran out of steam and this gave the film an ending.

Final Thoughts

It’s a film I’m going to wait a while to revisit, but I am glad I finally understand what all the fuss is about.

The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974) Film Review

Rating 15
Length 1h44
Release 12.4.2017
Director Joseph Sargent
About Four gunmen hold a New York subway train and its passengers for ransom. But as the authorities try to negotiate with the armed men, they wonder how the hijackers plan to escape.
Moon: no moon sighting
Where to Watch:  Amazon Prime
Trailer:

The Good

  • This is the first film of Robert Shaw’s I’ve watched outside of Jaws. He’s just as captivating in this thriller. He carries the film on the side of the gunmen. I only wish himself and Walter Matthau had more scenes together. Physically on screen.
  • There’s a reason why this has been remade twice; it’s a damn good story with high stakes.
  • Bloody hell, young Hector Elizondo! I love him, but not in this. It says everything about him as an actor though that he can be this repulsive ‘mafia’ man and make it believable.
  • The setting of the film and the use of an actual New York subway train is incredible. It adds to the realism of the situation and takes away any need for continuous action.

The Bad

  • A sign of the time, but the use of certain slurs and the negative commentary of women really starts to grate after a while. Yes, its brilliant to have as diverse a cast as this film has. However, its rendered moot when they’re there to call them the slurs you do.

The Ugly

  • The Mayor?! I think I was missing something … political, there. It felt like something I’d have understood a little more at the time. However, the big issue I had? Why the fuck did he have a cold?! I don’t get it, it doesn’t add to the narrative.

Final Thoughts

Worth a watch for Robert Shaw and Walter Matthau alone.