A disclaimer is needed before I am rightfully ridiculed for my uninformed views. I am not a film enthusiast, and I am about as acquainted with cinema classics as Donald Trump is with consuming his greens. To illustrate this, I only got round to watching The Godfather for the first time last week, and I am 31 years old.
If you are still reading and are curious why I eventually watched it, it is because I recently completed the first Godfather novel, masterfully written by Mario Puzo. And no, I did not deliberately hunt it down in Waterstones; I actually stumbled upon it in TK Maxx before deciding to read it.
So, bearing that in mind, when I go on to discuss what disappointed me about the film, it is purely based on personal preference, rather than anything sophisticated or perceptive.
To begin with, I adored the book, and with my toddler away for the evening, I relished watching the first film, after having a precious three hours to myself.
Marlon Brando as Don Corleone was outstanding, and certainly a more convincing mob boss than, say, Pierce Brosnan in Mobland. Though, to be fair, there is definitely more comedy in the latter. But probably best not to draw comparisons between those two.
Yet for me, it was Al Pacino's depiction of the Don's son, Michael, which proved the most compelling element. His transformation from the film's opening, where he tells Kay Adams, 'that is my family, it is not me,' to the closing scenes as a ruthless killer, was brilliantly gripping. Admittedly, my knowledge of cinema is limited, but I would have gladly awarded him an Academy Award for that performance.
The legendary set pieces were expertly crafted too, though having already read the novel and knowing the spoilers, moments like the car explosion or the horse's head did not pack quite the same punch as when I had first encountered them on the page.
Right, pretentious waffle about books always surpassing films aside, let me move on to what proved a minor disappointment.
As mentioned, I am not much of a cinema buff, and my sole real gangster comparison point was The Sopranos (Mobland notwithstanding, naturally).
Based purely on gut reaction, I preferred The Sopranos considerably. James Gandolfini as Tony Soprano remains my all-time favourite television character. Put simply, I found Tony's complexity more captivating than even the formidable Don Corleone.
The Sopranos is universally considered amongst the finest series ever made, and its 92% Rotten Tomatoes rating confirms as much. The most memorable moments in The Sopranos were not necessarily linked to mafia activity in my view, but rather Tony's relationships with those closest to him, from touring universities with Meadow and a fateful anniversary meal with Carmela, to navigating AJ's troubles at school.
While The Godfather brilliantly portrayed a tale of organised crime, alongside themes of immigration, corruption and capitalism, I would have welcomed a touch more everyday interaction between the Don, Michael and their nearest and dearest, akin to what we witness in The Sopranos.
Take Michael's first wife, for example. Following her sudden death, she is barely referenced again, with the focus shifting straight back to business.
Yet it is a minor gripe, and arguably an unreasonable one, given that The Sopranos spanned 86 episodes, affording considerably more opportunity to delve into family dynamics.
To be fair to The Godfather, it remained faithful to Mario Puzo's source material, as even in the novel, relatively little time was devoted to domestic life compared to criminal enterprise.
That said, I found The Godfather to be an absolute masterpiece, and can now fully appreciate why it is so frequently cited by film aficionados as one of the greatest motion pictures ever made.
It has inspired me to watch the sequel (anyone available to babysit?), which many argue surpasses even the original. On that note, I might even find time to catch up on other timeless classics that have somehow passed me by, from Jaws and Ghostbusters to Interstellar. But do not hold your breath.
