Assassination

Masahiro Shinoda's Assassination (1964) was the first jidai geki (period drama) for the Nuberu Bagu (Japanese New Wave) director. It dives deep into Japan's history prior to the Meiji Restoration by presenting the story of a talented swordsman who worships the Emperor and is eventually corrupted by the rivalry between the Emperor and the Shogunate.

Shinoda does dig deep into history, but it's also a vivid character study. The fragmented presentation has its ups and downs: while it makes the film ambiguous in an interesting way it relies a bit too much on the assumption that the viewer knows the historical event. I managed to comprehend the film without prior knowledge, but it was a challenging task to say the least. The opening of the film tries to inform the audience of the context, but it's not sufficient enough.

Purely on the level of characters and themes Assassination is a triumph and the form is even more delightful. Breathtaking and menacing compositions, wild camerawork and intense editing make the film a gem on their own. Even ambitious attempts like disruptive freezeframes and first person camera work surprisingly smoothly. Takemitsu's soundtrack is experimental and great yet again.

Assassination takes too many risks in its execution. It could easily be considered a masterpiece if the audience knew the historical context well enough. Shinoda barely manages to make it historically relevant for other viewers (which is a bad hindrance for a film so deeply embedded in it), but even without that it's a rather impressive achievement.

Score: 8 out of 10

Throne of Blood

(image source)

Throne of Blood (1957) is yet another loose Shakespeare adaptation for the director Akira Kurosawa: this time Macbeth was the play Kurosawa used as inspiration. Set in feudal Japan, the film follows the rise and tragic fall of a samurai (Toshiro Mifune). Kurosawa delivers yet another tangible exploration of greed and loyalty. He creates a cast of interesting characters that are introduced remarkably well.

If the writing alone is impressive, then the form is even more so. Captivating camerawork (that calms down for pivotal scenes to a stunning effect), atmospheric lighting and absolutely marvellous sets make this film a breathtaking experience for anyone. Mifune is a scene stealer yet again with his expressive performance.

Throne of Blood is yet another astonishing masterpiece from Kurosawa who is quite possibly my favorite director of all time.

Score: 10 out of 10

Ran

Even though Akira Kurosawa continued making films in the 90's, Ran (1985) is commonly considered his final masterpiece. It is also one of his biggest productions ever - even though he used "only" 1400 extras, it feels like there are a lot more of them (Kurosawa directed the massive sequences in a clever way). The film is the story of an old lord who lets his three sons take his position, assuming that they will work together as he suggested. Shortly thereafter, the two corrupt sons betray their father and the youngest brother.

The film's screenplay was inspired by Japanese history (the daimyo Mori Motonari) and Shakespeare (King Lear). On top of that, it deals with Kurosawa's own views about loyalty. Kurosawa approaches loyalty as a theme in all of the film's storylines (there are a lot of them even though the plot description doesn't show it). He mixes elements of greed, lust, power and guilt with the main theme and thus, it becomes a deep exploration of the ugly sides of humanity. Especially his take on guilt is fascinating: once the old lord has lost everything, he goes insane due to his guilt and even tries to dig himself a grave. Kurosawa's take is ambitious in its complexity - and what's the best thing about it is that he succeeds perfectly.

Surprisingly, there are bursts of cruel violence and blood in Ran. It is something Kurosawa has never emphasized in his films before. Especially for a Kurosawa fan this film hits hard because it seems him go to an extremely poignant level in delivering his message. Kurosawa uses music sparsely in the film, but it even further punctuates the moments he uses it in. The most unforgettable scene is the assault of the third castle during which the old lord becomes mad: the sound effects disappear and there is only music during the disturbing sequence of violence. The silence of sound effects ends to the sound of a gunshot - and its effect is astonishing.

Kurosawa spent a LOT of time (around 10 years) storyboarding the film - by PAINTING each shot beforehand. The result is breathtaking because each shot is so carefully composed. The lines and the colors are in perfect harmony. The editing is also remarkable in how it flawlessly brings the story together and gives it the magnificent pace.

The tragedy in Ran is heartbreaking. The characters are corrupted more as the film goes on - and everything is slowly crushed and taken away. Especially the ending left me a little teary-eyed. It is a simply stunning experience to watch the film.

Score: 10 out of 10

The Godfather Part III

Francis Ford Coppola didnt intend to make the Godfather films into a trilogy - instead there were supposed to be two parts and an epilogue. He wanted to name the epilogue The Death of Michael Corleone, but the producers didnt want that. The final result? The Godfather Part III (1990). It didnt meet the high expectations set by the first two Godfather films, which led it to become a target of angry and negative criticism. The most confusing difference to its predecessors is its more obvious focus on Michael instead of the entire family. The biggest offender for most of the fans was casting Sofia Coppola, the director's daughter, as Mary: her performance is rather terrible.

The film's content is fine as it is: it is a great character study of Michael. As an "epilogue", it doesn't need to be anything else. The ending, however, is a mess: after the great build-up, the ending is awfully forced and disappointing. And not to forget the very last scene which just ruins the rhythm of the entire film.

The film's form is nice although sometimes it is rather plain when compared to the first two films. However, the whole opera sequence at the end of the film was a masterpiece of editing and photography. It's a stunning achievement - not least as a sequence which builds enormous amounts of tension.

While Sofia Coppola's performance was god awful, the other "newcomers" were more or less awesome. Andy Garcia seemed irritating at first, but after a while I realised how brilliant his performance was. Joe Mantegna was also great as the smug Joey Zaza.

In overall, the film is a little unbalanced, but it has a few pros worth mentioning.

Score: 7 out of 10

The Godfather Part II

Even though I had considered The Godfather (1972) overrated back when I watched it, I always thought its sequel, The Godfather Part II (1974), deserved all the praise it received. I'll put my answer as briefly as possible: While the sequel is as cinematically sophisticated as the original, its subtlety wears it down a bit and makes it feel a bit unbalanced on an emotional level.

Score: 9 out of 10

PS: I know this review is awfully short and disappointing, but I struggled with writing the review for over 2 days so I figured I should do it as briefly as possible.

The Godfather

The Godfather. The film that has received more praise than any other film ever made. It has been over 2 years since I watched the entire trilogy for the first time - and now I'm going to do it again. Back then, I admitted that it was a great film, but I considered it a bit overrated. Do I still consider it overrated? Keep on reading to find out.

The Godfather (1972) is the epic tale of an Italian American organized crime dynasty in the 40's. The film's major conflict is a violent power struggle between the "Five Families" of New York and New Jersey. Coppola captures the attention of the viewers by offering us a world of great characters in rich detail. We are there to witness several brilliant storylines: Michael's painful development from a respectful and caring man to a cold and calculating Don, Don Vito's desperate fight to keep his family safe and the troubled marriage between Connie and Carlo, among a few others. The running time of 3 hours is certainly worth it even if only for the perfect montage used at the end of the film.

Coppola's form is amazing as well. The beautiful lighting, great camerawork (gracious and used only when needed), magnificent compositions, fascinating editing and on top of it all, an unforgettable musical score.

While acting in general was very good in the film, there were a few performances which stood out as too melodramatic and distracting. For example, Talia Shire's performance as Michael's sister always distracted me and made me cringe. Luckily, there were a few brilliant performances as well, such as Marlon Brando's and Al Pacino's performances.

My conclusion? While I admire it greatly for most of its aspects, I still consider it slightly overrated.

Score: 9 out of 10