Paramount Summer Classic Film Series -The Godfather Part 2

If you look elsewhere on the site you will find a list of my 10 favorite films. I cheated on one of the entries by listing both The Godfather and The Godfather Part 2 as a single unit. That's because I always think of them as one big movie that just got separated by 2 years. The stories integrate so incredibly well, and the casting of the younger versions of characters that we come to know in the first Godfather is so spot on, that it feels like it was planned from the very beginning.

I'm so happy that the Paramount scheduled Godfather Part 2 on its 50th anniversary, because this is a movie that should be celebrated regularly. I don't usually wait for a round number to rewatch the film, I think I saw it just a couple of years ago when I was doing my binge on "The Offer", the streaming series based on the creation of the original Godfather. I like to catch up with this movie as often as possible although it is 3 hours and 20 minutes, which means that I'm not sitting down for a casual watch. Fortunately this is an opportunity to see the film on the big screen and once again it is as impressive as I remember.

Actor John Cazale famously made only five movies, all of which were nominated for Best Picture, and three of them won the award. It's amazing to me that Cazale  himself was never nominated. The only reason I can think that his performance in this film was overlooked is because there were three other supporting performances that were also pretty spectacular. It would have seemed odd at the Academy Awards if four out of the five slots had been taken up by actors in this film. Regardless Cazale's performance as Fredo, is both heartbreaking and frustrating. If you've never seen the movie I certainly am not going to spoil it for you, but let's just say that Michael never lets an offense to the family go unpunished.

The parallel structure of the two stories in this film starts with the rise of Vito Corleone as he and his family build a foundation in the early part of the 20th century in New York City , it is phenomenal. Robert De Niro, who did win this supporting actor award for his role in this film, actually looks like Marlon Brando might have looked in his leanest and hungriest years. He starts off as a naive waif, uncertain of where he fits in among the immigrants that he lives with and works around. When he encounters a young Clemenza, played with great personality by the late Bruno Kirby,  Vito finds his way to his true destiny. Young Don Corleone was building his family up, but Michael Corleone in his desire to control his family completely, basically dismantles its core. In Godfather Part 3 we will get to see how it all plays out, but even without that pictures existence, we have a pretty clear idea of the wasteland that Corleone's life had become.

It's hard to imagine that Francis Ford Coppola was reluctant to do a sequel to the movie. He had so much success and a natural affinity for the material that it seemed inevitable that he would take on the task. The fact that he was able to use the studios desire for him to continue the story as a way of financing the film that he made between the two Godfathers, "The Conversation", is just an extra bonus. When you watch the scenes of young Vito Corleone stalking Fanucci across the rooftops of the Italian neighborhood that this supposed member of the black hand was in control of, it's like watching a tiger follow its prey. Inevitably there is violence, but Don Corleone does his best to keep the violence away from his family all of whom are all incredibly young at this point.

Michael's story is of course a huge contrast, he starts off with all kinds of Power, but can't keep the violence from intruding on the most personal parts of his life. The machine gun attack that takes place near the beginning of the film, highlights for his wife Kay, that the family is not really capable of going legitimate. Michael's inability to confront problems with his son, or understand his wife's pleas, makes him seem cold-hearted, when what he really is is a rock hard leader of a criminal organization. He lacks the warmth that his father had with his associates. There's a great scene where he seems to be calling his adopted brother Tom Hagan on the carpet for fielding a job offer from another Institution. He comes across as bitter, and unsympathetic. Contrast this to the scene in the first Godfather when Vito actually comforts Tom when Sonny is killed. The difference between Father and Son is subtly displayed in these two scenes. Vito always played the humble part very well. Michael on the other hand is arrogant and self-assured, and never once allows anybody to see him sweat. Hell even in Cuba Michael has a hard time relaxing a little with his brother or the business associates that he is working with.

Coppola gives us fantastic set pieces, featuring hundreds of extras in elaborate costumes with distinctive music that clearly sets the time and place of the scenes that are playing out. The street festival where young Vito is stalking Fanucci, the confirmation party in Lake Tahoe, and the New Year's Eve Revolution in Havana, are all spectacularly staged and probably a big part of why Coppola received the directors award that he was denied two years earlier. This was a big picture put together beautifully, with a huge degree of thought and care as to how the story was going to integrate the two lives.

I've told the story before of taking my girlfriend to see The Godfather and The Godfather Part 2 playing together back in the late 1970s. When the first film ended as we got up for an intermission to use the bathroom and maybe get something to drink, but the lights went down again and the second movie started immediately. We both sat down, skipped getting a drink, skipped going to the bathroom, and watch the second movie. We were hypnotized by the artistry of these two films. The fact that this woman sat with me for six and a half hours without a break only cemented my certainty that she was the woman I should spend my life with. So there's that story again, hope you enjoyed it.

Paramount Summer Classic Film Series-Young Frankenstein

                        

50 years ago was the start of a wonderful relationship for me. This was the year that I discovered Mel Brooks. Both "Blazing Saddles" and "Young Frankenstein" came out this year, and I saw them with my high school friends who all laughed as loud as I did. We knew we were in the presence of somebody who knew how to be funny, especially to high school boys. "Blazing Saddles" was the first of these two films to be released in 74, and it's raucous, irreverent, and some times down right offensive. It was also a western, which I have a deep abiding Love for.

In spite of my admiration for "Blazing Saddles", I've always felt that it was the second best Mel Brooks film of 1974. "Young Frankenstein" goes beyond silly parody, to be a genuine tribute to and echo of the classic Universal horror movies. Of course it is hysterical, there was little doubt that with the input of Brooks and co-screenwriter Gene Wilder, that this is going to be incredibly funny. It turns out that it is also incredibly sweet, with a soft spot for all of the characters in the film, even some of those loathsome villagers who think it's time for a riot. There is something to laugh at and embrace in just about every scene.

To start off with, they made the film in black and white. In 1974 that was not very typical. Sure there were a few other films at the time that used black and white to suggest the past. Films like "The Last Picture Show", "Paper Moon", "Lenny" and a few more, They all use black and white to draw attention to themselves in a way that made them stand out in the crowded '70s field. But in the field of comedy, you don't get a lot of black and white films that are contemporary, until Woody Allen gets going a few years later. The truth is, this movie wouldn't have worked in color, because our collective memory of the Universal films is black and white. Boris Karloff may have had green face makeup when the original Frankenstein was created, but we only saw the black and white and that's what we remember. It would have been disturbing to have Peter Boyle on screen as the monster with a green face. Besides, all those great sets that were being used to make the movie wouldn't look nearly as Gothic and creepy if they were in color. The villagers walking through the forest with fog rising from the ground in black and white just makes sense.

It would be pretty hard to go wrong with a cast that includes Gene Wilder, Marty Feldman, Madeline Kahn, Teri Garr, and Kenneth Mars, but when you add a surprise guest performance by my favorite actor in a completely unexpected role, I'm just going to have to say this film approaches perfection. Let's face it Gene Hackman, as an avuncular blind man stumbling his way through making a new friend, may be the funniest 5 minutes in the whole movie, and that saying something.

The John Morris score is also something pretty special. It recalls Frankenstein with its limited score, Dracula with its borrowed themes, and classical source music. The little horn section gets its own joke when Marty Feldman as Igor, plays his little horn to accompany Inga on the violin. It's guaranteed to get a chuckle for you. Next to the sequence with Gene Hackman, the dance routine with Gene Wilder and Peter Boyle to "Puttin' on the Ritz" maybe one of the most bizarre, ridiculous, and ultimately perfect realizations of the absurdity of this story. Super duper.

As family-friendly as Young Frankenstein is, there are a couple of raunchy jokes built into the movie, especially at the end. Most of these will sail over the heads of kids, but teens and adults will smile at the sexual innuendo that is never explicitly stated. The film is certainly not as ribald as Blazing Saddles, but it's not G-rated for a reason. We are reminded once again how sadly we miss Gene Wilder on screen, his performance is one for the ages. The moment of his frustration when he can't get his two assistants to understand what he's asking for as he's being strangled by the monster, is both pantomime perfect, and then when he gets his voice back vocally hysterical. I have no patience for anybody who doesn't think this film is funny. It's so funny that I was amused by the slot machine that was based on it and was ubiquitous in Vegas two decades ago. Too bad you can't find those slots now, I'm really in the mood for dropping some coin and hoping to get a bonus.

The Paramount 50th Summer Classic Film Series The Phantom of the Paradise (1974) 2024 Revisit

Hope Springs Eternal that seeing "Phantom of the Paradise" on the big screen will be an annual event. It has been for me for at least the last 2 years, now let's keep our fingers crossed and pray that the streak can continue. This particular screening was opening weekend at the 50th Anniversary of the Paramount Theater Classic Summer Film Series. Since I got to Austin in the middle of the pandemic, I've discovered that the Paramount Theater in downtown Austin is my true second home. The theater is busy most nights with comedy shows and concerts from a variety of artists. In the summer however, especially during the week, the theater is filled with film fans who get a chance to enjoy some old classics in the way they are meant to be seen, on a big screen in a beautiful Movie Palace.

I started coming to the Paramount Theater in 2020 at the end of the summer when the lockdowns and the theater closures were finally dissipating. As it happened, the first two films that I saw at the Paramount were two of my favorite films of all time, Jaws and Lawrence of Arabia. Ever since then I have looked at the schedule for the summer series with anticipation. Last year my daughter and I sprang for the annual Club membership that allowed us to attend almost all of the film screenings in the summer series, as well as the Halloween "Panic at the Paramount" and the Christmas season offerings. This year we had no problem in deciding to renew, because this is how we live, and it's how I roll.

Last year's screening of "Phantom of the Paradise" was at an Alamo Drafthouse with an edited edition of the film done according to the specifications of director Brian DePalma. This version is unofficial, and the studio probably doesn't really approve of it being shared. The version we saw this week was the one that played in theaters in 1974. It includes some of the bad floating matte work that was required to cover the "San Songs" logo, which was a copyright issue with the band Led Zeppelin.  Steven Janice, the programmer at the Paramount, pointed out that the movie only made about $20,000 in its first week of release back in 1974. I'm pretty sure the $3.50 of that came from me, because I saw this film at the UA Theater in Pasadena in the fall that it came out.

It is hard for me to contain my enthusiasm for this movie. Brian DePalma was one of the most reliable directors in my formative years as a movie fan. This was the first of his films that I saw, and I loved it then as I do now. In addition to the outrageous premise the wild costumes and the over the top performances of some of the supporting cast, we have a fantastic score and a dozen songs from The Genius Paul Williams, who also happens to star as Swan, the villain of the movie.

I can never get "Goodbye Eddie" out of my head after hearing it in this movie. It's the opening song played under the titles, and if you look at the promo that I've posted here for the classic summer film series, you'll hear that it is the soundtrack for this ad. Winslow Leach may not approve of the "Juicy Fruits" but I was perfectly happy with their upbeat parody of a a 50s style lament about a rockstar who takes his life in order to increase his fame. Later on, the same band bastardizes Winslow's Faust score to present a Beach Boys Style parody song "Upholstery". This is another one of those Paul Williams tunes that gets hooked in your head and won't go away. This movie is full of earworms.

I was a little brought down by the opening weekend of the summer classic film series because our annual pass was only good for one of the three screenings. We could have bought tickets separately for Casablanca or for Star Wars, but we did have other films that we were seeing that weekend so we limited ourselves to the Phantom experience. It appeared that a lot of other film fans felt the same way we did because they were out in mass on Sunday for this movie. The reception to the film was enthusiastic, and frankly I was sad that it was over because I wanted to do it all again immediately.

I've written about the film in a couple other places here on this blog so I will give you the links for those posts, so if you are interested in knowing more about the movie and the things that make it so special you can visit those musings. For now let me just say at the summer season is off to a rousing start and I have the Paramount Theater, Brian DePalma, and Paul Williams to think for my elevated mood this week. I'll be seeing you regularly down on Congress Boulevard, if you see me say hi I'll be the guy with a big smile on his face wallowing in classic movies.

"Paul Williams and the Phantom of the Paradise"

Phantom of the Paradise Remastered 

Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) Revisit (2024)

 

I so enjoyed this movie when it first came out, I simply could not understand the backlash it got from fans. This is an entertaining caper movie which introduces us to one of the most iconic rogues in movie history. Maybe the controversies about the production are what kept some people from embracing it, but for my money, it is better than both "The Last Jedi" and "The Rise of Skywalker".

We got a chance to see it on the big screen again at an Alamo Drafthouse presentation. Alamo has great theater themes, and the best programming of any movie chain. My major problems with the chain have to do with the fact that it is basically a restaurant with a movie screen, so food and drinks are the attractions that distract from the film. I enjoy most of the food I get there, but I would be just as happy with a concession stand and no servers. 

I thought Alden Ehrenreich was great as a young Hans Solo, but my opinion seemed to be in the minority when the film was first released. I don't think anyone disagreed however with the opinion that Donald Glover was perfect as the early incarnation of Lando Calrissian. The two of them have the best dynamic in the story. Emilia Clarke was fine, but her character is underdeveloped and she needed to be integrated into the earlier sequences a bit more effectively. Ron Howard took over as director of the movie, and his functional, direct style is the right one for a film like this in a series that requires some consistency.  I'm sure that the original directors, Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, had something to offer, but it may have been too outside the lines to work.

I don't have anything too different to say about the movie from my original comments six years ags, you can read those here. I still think John Powell's score fails to do justice to the film, but that it is serviceable enough. Woody Harrelson has become one of those reliable actors who when cast correctly, makes the movie better just by showing up. Harrelson does more than just show up in this film, and we are all better off for it. 

Furiosa : A Mad Max Saga (2024)

 

In the ranks of Mad Max Films, this is probably at the bottom from my point of view. That turns out not to be a knock on this film, but an assessment of my admiration for all the other films in the series. This is still a terrific action film, with an elaboration of the world that writer/director George Miller has created, but it does feel like an appendix rather than another step in the Mad Max world. Part of the reason that this is true is that this is a prequel story, and it does not focus on Max at all, but rather the character of "Furiosa" from, the previous film in the series "Fury Road".

The comparison that can be made here is that of the stand alone Star Wars films, "Rogue One" and "Solo". These movies have a lot to offer by way of entertainment value, but they do not feel essential to the central story that is being told in the series. I found "Furiosa" compelling at times, but I do know from the start where the story is going to end. So although there are harrowing escapes and breathtaking action beats, the conclusion is forgone. While that may be acceptable in a superhero movie or a James Bond film, post apocalyptic films need more uncertainty to keep us engaged. This movie is exciting but not essential.

Charlize Theron does not return to play the character here. Since every iteration of "Furiosa" taht we get for this film is younger than the character we saw in "Fury Road", it makes sense to recast rather than do elaborate de-aging F/X work for most of the film. Alya Browne plays the youngest versions of the character in the story, and I thought she was great. In fact, the two segments of the movie that feature her, could easily have been their own separate movie.   I found the opening sequences of the film to be some of the best tension and emotional payoff of the story, The chases and the fights may not have been as elaborate as we get later, but the stakes feel higher and the character gets the most growth.

When Anya Taylor Joy arrives in the movie, the situation has shifted and we get something that is a lot more familiar, (at least to anyone who has seen Ben Hur). Furiosa has an escape plan that requires a lot of luck. She acquires an ally and lover along the way. She suffers loss and her need for revenge takes precedence over her goal of returning to her home. The whole process of her story sometimes get shunted aside by the story of her nemesis, "Dementus", the character played by Chris Hemsworth. Technically, the character is "Dr. Dementus"" but if I think of that, I'm going to be looking around for a Weird Al Video. Hemsworth gets to chew the scenery effectively as the main villain of the piece, and he hides pretty well under some make-up and costuming, so we are unlikely to thing too much of Thor. 

There are three different wasteland empires that all come under attack at some point in the story. There are also a half dozen various bands of wasteland scavengers that engage in these attacks, so there is always an elaborate combat sequence in the offing. The film is nearly two and a half hours long, and since there is virtually no down time between the sequences of road chases and combat, it feels a bit exhausting. The original Mad Max was under 90 minutes and The Road Warrior was barely over the same mark. The efficiency with which those stories were told should have been present here, but there is too much going on to get it done at that clip.  Yes we get more depth in the characters and the world building, but the action sequence may begin to run together because there are so many of them. 

You will have to commit to the movie because of the chapter structure that is used to tell the tale. Those segments are not really stand alone pieces, but the title cards are as close as you are going to get in a break during the film. I think Miller's ambition may exceed his audiences hunger for this world. If you still have a big Max sized appetite, this will hold you, but it feels like a side dish rather than a main course. 

Hit Man (2024)

       ;

Hitman is a Nifty little Neo Noir from director Richard Linklater and his star Glenn Powell. It is based on the case histories of an actual informant in Houston Texas. The movie is based on an article written in the Texas monthly, which chronicled the numerous incidents in which a college instructor impersonated supposed Killers for hire in order to arrest those trying to hire someone to murder another person.

Incredibly they were over 187 cases where this police informant managed to interact with potential customers sufficiently to incriminate them adequately to have them arrested. Most of the arrests resulted in convictions. The problem with this fantastic true story, is that it is basically a series of incidents where our protagonist portrays himself in multiple different ways so as to convince the contracting client that he really was a hired killer. Now, the movie contends that outside of cartel or Mafia connections, The hired hitman is a myth. So most of these people bought into a fantasy that they could solve their problems by finding someone who is willing to kill for money. As interesting as that might be, it's not a narrative that would sustain a movie. What's happened here is that Powell and    Linklater have created a Noir to go along with these real incidents.

The film is primarily a comedy but it does go into some traditional Noir territory when it introduces a femme fatale who gets involved with our main character. This results in comedies traditional structure of one person trying to hide something from another person and going through desperate measures to do so. The conceit in this film is that the character that our informant creates in order to draw in this woman, becomes a persona that he inhabits a little too comfortably, and with comic consequences. The film is actually quite funny with several ironic components to it. The jealous police officer who has been replaced in these kinds of sting operations by this previously milk toast college professor, is turned into a dangerous rival with an agenda straight out of a 1940s film. Of course it also has a comedic element to it that is quite amusing.

I'm not sure if you can call it a Neo Noir if the result of the story turns out to have a happy ending. That doesn't really fit with the traditional dark themes of that classic format. But because this is a comedy take on the form, it doesn't really feel disingenuous to go in the direction that it does. The characters that we encounter are for the most part very likable, and it would seem unjust for them to end up in the negative for the experiences that they've gone through. Powell and his co-star Adria Arjona, have good chemistry together and they make us care about the outcome. When we meet her husband, the man that she originally wanted to hire someone to kill, we kind of understand that she is not the bad person that we might have assumed simply because she wanted to hire a hitman.

The early part of the film drives most of its comedy from Powell's disguises, characters, and the potential clients who are is inept, venal, and delusional as you might expect. The second half of the film the comedy derives from Powell's attempts to keep his true identity secret, and to hide the romance that has grown between him and the woman that he is steered away from committing a felony. The final third of the film does take a darker turn, but not so dark as to diminish the romantic comedy that has been growing up inside of this movie.

I found this movie to be completely delightful, cleverly acted and very intricately plotted so that it is engaging throughout. It may not be to everybody's taste but it's certainly fit mine, and as far as I'm concerned it is one of the critical hits of the year. This is a Netflix film that is getting a limited theatrical release, which is the reason that it got covered on this site. The screening that I went to was actually the premiere in theaters, and included a live broadcast to other theaters around the country, featuring the tars Glenn Powell, Adria Arjona, and director Richard Linklater. It was a lot of fun to be in the theater with the creators of this film and listen to their stories about how the movie was put together. Hopefully you'll get a chance to see this in a theater, but if you don't go ahead and take advantage of its availability on Netflix, it's better than hiring a hitman.

Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes (2024)

 

I recently complete a podcast covering the rebooted series of  three "Planet of the Apes" movies, "Rise of the Planet of the Apes", "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes", and "War for the Planet of the Apes". These movies took a concept from the original film series and brought it up to speed with the world that we now live in. The most clever element in the series was the explanation of why humans declined and apes rose. It had less to do with apocalyptic war and everything to do with cataclysmic viral pandemics. Pretty prescient if you ask me. This new film tries to bridge the gap a little by tying in a human underground effort to restore humanity to it's place on the planet, while also confronting the ambitions of a striving ape king who has corrupted the beliefs of the hero of the preceding films. So this movie has set up a pretty tough task for itself. I would say it succeeds for the most part, but not with the clarity of those three films.

Hundreds of years have passed since the events of the three reboots. Ape society is largely at a bronze age stage when it comes to technology, and a tribal stage when it comes to culture. Noa, the protagonist of this story, is a young ape on the brink of adulthood, who is carrying on the traditions of his clan. This group of chimpanzees has created a symbiotic relationship with eagles. They assist in expanding the population of eagles by nurturing excess eggs from eagles nests. It is an interesting culture. Many audience members may chafe at the detail that goes in to setting up the clan and it's traditions, but the world building here is essential to contrast the society we are introduced to with the one that invades it as the story goes on. 

Eventually, Noa must engage in a quest to restore the clan to it's home, and simultaneously navigate a dangerous path between aggressive gorilla traditions and unique human contacts. On his travels he encounters an orangutang named Raka, who knows history better than anything else going on in the world. This is a character that I think most of us will have the greatest sympathy for. Raka becomes a mentor on social groups and political issue, almost by accident. It is his tutelage that allows Noa, to make key choices late in the story. Some of those choices pay off, others seem to be setting up a new trilogy of films to tell about what happens in the middle ages of the ape saga. 

The technology in making the films gets better every time out. The characters look more realistic and their behaviors seem more natural by the fourth time we are encountering this story device. The film seems a little long, but I am not sure that there is any element of story that needs trimming, mostly I think brief cuts to many scenes would have tightened thing up a bit.  Kevin Durand, who was in "Abigail" the last film I saw before this, plays the CGI King Proximus Caesar. His outsized motion capture performance is one of the strong points of the movie. All of the actors deserve credit for making us believe that these animals are real characters. 

This is positioned as a Summer film, and it should fulfill those expectations, although I don't know that it will be able to stand out from many of the other movies that are coming in the next few week. The ethical questions raised by some moments of the film, in particular those from William H. Macy, are important, but I don't think the storytelling is quite as strong as it was on those sorts of points in the earlier movies. I think you will be more entertained than enlightened, but there is promise in this type of branching out of the story. I hope future episodes pay off a little more deeply.