I'm not quite sure what the draw of this movie is. I know plenty of people who love it better than the first one, but as far as I can tell the only difference is that there's a lot more Italian. What made the first movie so powerful in my mind was the beautiful study of Michael's evolution into the eponymous character. Pacino's performance, Coppola's pacing and cinematography--a liquid, nearly musical piece of art.
Part II? Not so much. The people who love this movie seem to be drawn by the why and how of the family's development, and the contribution to the mythology of the Corleones, but the difference between I and II in my mind is the difference between showing and telling a story. Sure telling us why Michael et al are the way they are is effective, but showing us the process (as in I) is affective, and, in my mind, art.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment