THE WEDDING SINGER

Here's an Adam Sandler film from his early film career before he went on to starring in films that were beyond bad, then his early ones. This is...




 The film takes place in 1985, and Adam Sandler plays the role of a (You guessed it) Wedding Singer, who gets stood up at his Wedding from his girlfriend Linda (Angela Featherstone). A heartbroken Adam Sandler, falls in love with a woman named Julia (Drew Barrymore) that works at the place where he sings at, and he falls in love with her. However, she's engaged to marry a millionaire named Glenn (Matthew Glave). However, she too falls in love with Sandler. When I heard that this film is an 80's period film comedy, starring Adam Sandler as a Wedding Singer singing 80's hit, and having Drew Barrymore as the love interest, I was hoping that this was going to be Sandler's best work. However, I was utterly disappointed.



Adam Sandler, well, I'm glad that he isn't playing the childish character that he was known for at the time. I'm also glad, that he isn't playing the straight uncaring asshole either. He's basically just playing a regular heartbroken guy. While he's decent at playing the role, I found him and his character very boring and uninteresting. I honestly don't find anything memorable about this character or performance. Even when he tells jokes, I don't find myself laughing at all. What about his singing, that's got to be good right? Well, I love the comical songs he writes, I think he's great as Operaman, but since his singing and songs isn't played for laughs in this film, it's actually not good. Even the songs that were made for the film that Adam Sandler sings aren't funny either. His heartbreaking song that's in the style of songs by "The Cure" called "Somebody Kill Me", is depressingly unfunny and awkward; and his love song "Grow Old With You" is corny as crap! Drew Barrymore, she's charming, but her performance and character is still bland, corny, and forgettable. In fact, the love between her and Sandler is not only corny, but it's predictable and cliche as hell. You know that the two will get married in the end. I mean you have the whole I'm engaged to another person cliche; the friendship that obviously becomes a relationship cliche; and plenty of misunderstandings along the way that become a real tease. If the actors and characters weren't so boring and actually had chemistry, then I wouldn't mind the cliches so much. But sadly, this couple has neither of that.

 

The supporting cast and characters fail just as much as our two romantic leads do. Christine Taylor as Barrymore's best friend, I keep forgetting that she's in the film. She does so little and is so boring, that every time I see her on screen, I keep thinking "Oh yeah, forgot that you were in the movie". Matthew Glave as the man that Barrymore is engaged too, is not only boring, but he's really just a one dimensional antagonist. Allen Convert as Sandler's best friend, is not funny in the least, and is just as dull as all the other characters. Angela Featherstone as Sandler's ex-girlfriend, she's ok and is more memorable than the film's main antagonist, but never the less, she's still a bland character. Ellen Albertini Dow as the old lady that Sandler gives singing lessons too, is a really annoying character and performance, and that scene when she talks about a man's private, is really gross, unfunny, unnecessary, and awkward as hell! There's a cameo of Steve Bucesmi as the drunk party guest, and while I enjoy him in almost every role he takes, I sadly didn't get a laugh out of him when watching this film. The only character I liked was Jon Lovitz as Sandler's competitor, who I personally think would be more suitable for this role than Sandler, however, he only makes a cameo in this film.



The film taking place in the 80's really fails at being a period comedy film about the 80's. I know the film is trying to look like the 80's with the clothing, music, and  pop culture references, but I'm sorry I still get a strong vibe of the film taking place when the film was made. The 80's humor and pop culture references feel more forced and are dully played out, then they are funny. It's like watching a bad parody film like "Date Movie" or "Epic Movie";  it's just making the reference, than it is trying to do something funny or clever with it. The 80's music being played in this film, felt forced too. In fact, I don't think they played enough of it to really capture that 80's feel. Most of it is sung by Sandler, which feels like that he's in a bad 80's tribute band, than he is actually performing in that time period. The film also has a band members played by Alexis Arquette who is a parody of the 80's singer Boy George, and while I liked the idea of the character, he's just as forced and unfunny as the whole film trying to capture the 80's. There's even a cameo of 80's singer Billy Idol, who's just in the film so the film can at least have one iconic 80's performer appear in the film. I wasn't around in the 80's, so maybe this film does represent the 80's fine for the people who lived it, but for me and what I've looked up and learned about the 80's, this film being set in the 80's felt so forced and so phoned in, that this film might as well take place in the 90's.

While the film isn't as insultingly or annoyingly bad as most of Sandler's films, it's still bad. It's cliche, bland, boring, and unfunny with its story, forgettable characters and performances, and forced 80's pop culture references.

RATING 1/5

WHITE CHICKS

Here's a film that I've been wanting to review for a few months now, but never had the time to do it. Well, here it is, a film starring The Wayan Brothers called...

 

Shawn and Marlon Wayan play two FBI agents who suck at their job. Two rich girls are targeted to be kidnapped, and the Wayan Brothers are given the job to pick them up from the Airport and take them to the Hampton's, where they'll be under protection by the FBI. However, the Wayan Brothers screw that up, by getting into an accident, which wounds the girls that they are protecting. The Wayan Brothers, decide to pose as the two WHITE girls and try to catch the criminal themselves. I'm going to say this about the plot, the film completely downplays the whole mystery aspect on who the real kidnapper is. In fact, I don't think the 7 writers who wrote this film cared about it either (7 WRITERS, PEOPLE!). It's just there as an excuse for the Wayan Brothers to dress in drag and wear white make-up.

The minute when the film started with the Wayan Brothers in disguise as Latinos, I was ready to turn the film off. It's so offensive, stereotypical, and unfunny that I felt like I was watching a Latino ministerial show done by African Americans. However, and sadly, I let the film play on. When I finally saw the Wayan Brothers in White Face AND IN DRAG, I was just as disgusted as when I saw them in the opening. I'm not offended by the fact that they're in White Face; as a white American, I have a sense humor, and I have seen that concept done before, which I found funny. What I'm disgusted about is how horrible they look. They don't look like White Girls, they look like Mike Myers playing the Cat In The Hat in drag, and they're creepy too. What kind of idiot would actually think that they're White models. It's as stupid as if someone thought a guy in Blackface with the giant white lips, and stereotypical mannerisms, was actually a real black man!  Their personality as these White Girls is so annoying and obnoxious that I cried when I found out that I was only 30 minutes in. I was willing to give up reviewing this film knowing that I'm going to be stuck seeing scary as crap White Face, with horrible childish humor throughout the rest of the film. As for the Wayan Brothers themselves without the make-up, they're boring and forgettable.



The supporting characters suck just as bad the Wayan Brothers themselves. It's pointless for me to talk about every White Girl in this movie, because they all have the same exact personality, and that is ANNOYING AS JAR JAR BINKS! They all act like the stereotypical rich white girl, only they're not black actresses in White face, they're real White actresses. All they do throughout the film is gossip, shop, look good, act spoiled, and bitch and moan, which gets annoying really fast. They're just as annoying as the Wayan Brothers themselves! Then there's Terry Crews as a rich black man who digs young White woman, and constantly hits on Marlon Wayan in his disguise. Gee, a rich guy hitting on a Woman who's really a man in disguise, haven't seen that before! The relationship between them is not funny as Jack Lemmon and Joe.E Brown in "Some Like It Hot", it's annoyingly unfunny. I like that Marlon Wayan tries to act all gross to shake off this rich man (AGAIN, HAVEN'T SEEN THAT CLICHE DONE BEFORE!), but adding the disgusting scenes with the White make-up and drag, makes me want to look away in disgust, even thinking about it now makes me want to barf. There's a News reporter that Shawn Wayan falls in love with, by switching between identities from a White girl, to a rich black man, who actually pretends to own the mansion that the rich guy owns, while the rich guy is dating Marlon Wayan. Yeah, haven't seen that done before either. Unlike in "Some Like It Hot", where that concept worked between Tony Curtis and Marylin Monroe; here it plays little to no part in the story, and feels forced into the story as filler. The moments that are supposed to be funny between them aren't funny; and the romance is not only as forced as this subplot, it's really corny and unengaging. Marlon Wayan also has a Wife, who thinks that Wayan is cheating on her for another woman, and while it doesn't feel as phoned in as the whole subplot with Shawn and the News reporter, it's still not as funny as it could have been, it just feels dully played out. There's not even any chemistry between the Wife and Marlon; its just fight, argue, and make up, that's it. Oh, and John Herd is in the film, and not only am I wondering why he'd agree to be in this picture, but I'm completely bored by him since the film gives him nothing to do. You also have Two white FBI agents, who spend most of the film playing games that are as pointless and unfunny as the whole film is. As for the FBI Chief, he's as forgettable as John Herd's performance in the film.

So the concept sucks, the casting and characters suck, and it's cliche as heck. The main problem the film suffers, out of the three problems that this film has aside from the Wayan Brothers acting like annoying White demons from hell, is it's cliche. Seeing these cliches done so poorly, and unfunny, as well as looking at the Wayan Brothers in that hideous make-up, this film makes me wish that I was watching a more sophisticated film where people have to dress in drag, like "Mrs.Doubtfire", "Tootsie", or "Some Like It Hot". The only time I ever laughed at the film is when the rich guy finds himself in bed, with the guy that tried to help him drug Marlon Wayan, that's it. The rest of the jokes in this film are annoying and dull than they are offensive. By the way, when they use the audio clip of the line "Where are the White Woman at" from "Blazing Saddles", or when I hear Dean Martin's song "That's Amore" play during a painfully unfunny scene, I can't believe I'm seeing such high art, be included in such a trashy stereotypical film. It's really a god awful film, and I hope that they don't make a "White Chicks 2".

RATING 0/5

MUPPET TREASURE ISLAND

Last year on Christmas Day, I reviewed a film that was a Muppet twist on the timeless classic Charles Dickens story "A Christmas Carol", which was a really fun take on the story, while also not shying away from the serious and grim parts of the story. Well, here's another classic and timeless story with a Muppet twist, that I remember vaguely seeing in the theater when I was three, which is...



Based on the novel "Treasure Island" by Robert Louis Stevenson; a young boy named Jim Hawkins (Kevin Bishop) and his friends Rizzo The Rat, and Gonzo The Great, work and live at an Inn in England, and dream of going off on adventures on the high seas. One night, a person staying at the Inn named Billy Bones (Billy Connolly) is visited by an old friend of his, who is a blind Pirate named Blind Pew, who comes to give Billy Bones the black spot as a message that the pirates are going to kill him and take the Treasure map, that he stole from them. Billy dies from a heart attack, but gives the trio the treasure map before he dies and warns them about a pirate called "The one legged man", and the trio escape from the deadly pirates. A Squire (Fozzie Bear) helps the trio embark on a journey to Treasure Island, on a ship captained by Captain Smollett (Kermit The Frog) and his first mate Mr.Arrow (Sam Eagle). However, the one legged ship cook Long John Silver (Tim Curry), who he and Jim quickly become good friends, happens to be a pirate along with the crew that he was given permission to hire, plans a mutiny and take the treasure once they've reached the Island.



Let's start with our Muppet friends, despite that they are the supporting characters. First, there's the comic relief team Gonzo and Rizzo, who are funny as always. Gonzo loves getting into danger and enjoys the coolness of nearly every situation that he's in, while Rizzo cowares and fears. Then there's Fozzie Bear as the Squire who's a ham as always; gets some hilarious stupid moments; and gets a running gag of a man living in his finger, which is funny here and there. It's mostly the reactions from the Muppets and people who find out about it that makes it so funny. He's also assisted by Dr.Bunsen Honeydew and his assistant Beaker, who are as smart, clever, and funny as they usually are. Of course you have Kermit The Frog, as the Captain who is serious as this Captain, but has a good heart, like how Kermit tries to keep "The Muppet Show" in order. While he has some funny moments, with his worried, frightened, or beat-up facial expressions, his best scenes are with him and Sam Eagle as the first mate. Kermit tries to calmly keep the peace, while Sam is demanding and harsh towards the crew, while at the same time fearing the Captain, even though he's not as threatening as Sam builds him up to be. And I just find it downright hilarious since it should clearly be the other way around! Then there's Miss Piggy who plays the Captain's ex-love interest Benjamina, who was marooned on the Island, but is worshiped by a huge Pig Tribe. Miss Piggy is always a riot in every scene she's in, and the chemistry between her and Kermit is indeed adorable, while crap your pants funny at the same time. There's such a huge cast of Muppets that I simply just can't name them all since it will ruin the fun for newcomers. You'll see plenty of Muppets playing the role as Pirates, A native Tribe (Not just Pigs), a tourist group of Rats, and plenty of Muppet cameos that will all make Muppet fans laugh. Despite The Muppets being supporting characters, they still have more than plenty of time to shine in this film!

 

The human cast, are they as good as The Muppets themselves. Kevin Bishop as Jim Hawkins is actually the only serious character in the film, nor does he get a funny moment, but that doesn't mean he's boring or not interesting. He actually plays the role of Jim Hawkins really well. He has the innocence, the spirit for adventure, the likability, and even the right amount emotion that the original character is known for. Some people find his voice annoying, or too whimsical, but I personally don't mind it at all. To me, it fits his character fine. Then you have Tim Curry as Long John Silver, and to be 100% percent honest, this is one of his best performances of all time. Like top 3! He's fun and as over the top as you would expect him to be; but he does have a good decent amount of subtle and serious moments. He's villainous as every fan of Tim Curry would hope for; but there's still a strong likability to his character. In fact, his relationship with him and Jim is treated just as well and effectively as all the other great adaptations of this classic story. There is a decent amount of time to fit their friendship into the film, it doesn't feel forced or shoehorned in, it fits in the film fine. Tim Curry is just perfect for this role, and every time when I see him on screen, he's literally the focus. To think that he was afraid of being upstaged by the Muppets, he was way off his numbers. Billy Connolly as the ex-pirate Billy Bones, is another fantastic performance that does indeed bring both the humor and drama, to both his character and the film itself. Finally there's Jennifer Saunders as the Inn keeper, and while her performance is not as memorable as all the previous human characters I've mentioned, she still gets one or two funny scenes, including a running gag, where she can hear what people are saying from a far away distance, resulting to the catchphrase said by the characters that she ease-drops on, "How does she do that?". With that said, I still think a Muppet would be more memorable then her, but it's still not a bad performance from what she was given.



Next, the songs, I mean, what's a Muppet film without the songs? Every single song in this film not only hold up since I saw it as a kid, but I find them extremely memorable. I haven't seen the film in years, and I still remember the songs. You have the opening number "Shiver My Timbers" with the Pirates burying the treasure, which always pulls me into the film. There's Jim, Gonzo, and Rizzo's dream song "Something Better", and while some may find it a little too whimsical, it's still a nice and cute number. There's the sailing song "Sailing For Adventure" sung by the whole entire crew, which is funny and does bring that adventure spirit. Does Tim Curry get his own song, yes he does; he sings the villain song "Professional Pirate", which gives the film it's epic pirate feel, along with "Shiver My Timbers". Kermit and Miss Piggy, also get a love song to sing together called "Love Led Us Here", as they are being dangled towards their death, which is both cute and emotional. By the way, when Miss Piggy enters the film, she gets a beyond catchy chant by the tribe and talking Pig statues called "Boom Shakalaka". There's a song played during the credits called "Love Power", which is a catchy reengage song, but sadly it's not only not as memorable as the other songs, but I feel like that it felt outplace to close the film. I was expecting something a little more epic as "Sailing For Adventure", "Shiver My Timbers", or "Professional Pirate". The last musical sequence that I'm about to talk about is perhaps the most random and pointless scene in the whole entire movie called "Cabin Fever". It starts out with the crew sitting in boredom with no wind or tide to move the ship forward; and all of a sudden, the crew breaks out in madness and sing an over the top musical about them getting "Cabin Fever", which is so wild, crazy, and over the top, that it's fun, catchy and entertaining. Once the song ends, all the characters who part take in the number are embarrassed and try to act as if nothing happened. Pointless to the story, but entertainingly awesome!



Now the film itself is as entertaining and fun as you would expect to get from a film starring The Muppets, I mean there are so many hilarious and funny moments that the list is endless.  However, what I'm more surprised about from seeing this film, is not only does it treat the classic story with the same respect as The Muppets did with "A Christmas Carol", but also brought a dark and epic feel too it. Now don't get me wrong, "The Muppet Christmas Carol" did have some dark moments and a dramatic feel at times that you would get from the classic story too, but that concept has been done to death before, and most of the dark stuff in the film usually comes from the scares that the film brought. This film is a little more darker. The opening number "Shiver My Timbers" for example, not only has some dark lyrics, but it opens with the Captain killing off his Pirate crew. We don't see them get massacred on screen, but it's there! A trio of Muppet pirates, who are usually played out for laughs, love to torture people. They try to kill Rizzo with a flaming hot sword as he's tied up; and they actually sing about their love for torturing  people, and while all that too is played out for comedy, it's still really dark and sadistic for a Muppet film. The look and feel of the film with its shots, sets, and music is what make the film so big and epic. It doesn't feel like a typical Muppet film, it feels like an actual pirate adventure film, like "Pirates Of The Caribbean" for example. In fact, I wouldn't be too surprised if "The Pirates Of The Caribbean" films, actually took some of the films style and atmosphere.

The fact that a Muppet film can look and feel epic, along with adding some dark material that wouldn't be considered kid friendly; while adding dozens of over the top humor, is quite an accomplishment for a Muppet film. The Muppets are great; the casting and performances from the human actors (Especially Tim Curry) is great; the songs are great; the humor is great; it's just an altogether great Muppet film and is an adventure with the Muppets that I plan to to set sail for, for many years to come.

RATING 5/5

THE GODFATHER: A NOVEL FOR TELEVISION

While I was reviewing "Apocalypse Now" the redux version, I mentioned that I would review Coppola's alteration of "The Godfather" as well. Well, here you go, my review on...

By order for Coppola to raise money for his next epic classic "Apocalypse Now", he asked his editor Barry Malkin to make a 7-hour Television mini-series of his films by putting them in chronological order and add the deleted scenes in. This version never got an official DVD release, but it did get two VHS release's, but none of them have all the deleted scenes, or was shown the same way, that they were aired on TV.  As you know, I wasn't happy with his restoration of "Apocalypse Now", since it broke the flow, dragged on, were too boring, and some I couldn't believe made it into the Redux version (Brando in broad daylight). Knowing that "Godfather" 1 & 2 are my all time favorite movies, will this mini series make me love these two films more than ever, or will it be fixing something that's not broken ("Apocalypse Now" the Redux version). Join me as I review and talk about each Deleted scene in chronological order, starting with Vito's rise to power.

Before I begin, let me just say, I think they did a great job putting the two films in chronological order. Usually I'm against that. It'd be like seeing "Citizen Kane" or "Once Upon A Time America" in chronological order, it just doesn't work and takes away the narrative and mystery, as well as the themes of the films. Here, it's done right, as well as bringing a new feel to the film with a new narrative and adding in new scenes. It really shows the rise and fall of The Corleone family really well, and on top of it, it'll make more sense to the people who got lost in between plots of the second film. The only problem I have is in the 2nd film whenever we enter Vito's story, we can tell by his looks, new born babies, and rise to power that time has gone by. In this version on the other hand, if you haven't seen "Godfather Part 2" in its original cut, you'll think the event's happening with Vito is happening over the course of a few days, if you don't look at it carefully. For example, when we first see Robert DeNiro as Vito, his son Sonny is an infant, and after when Vito shows infant Sonny the rug, we cut back to Michael's story. When we cut back to Vito's story, baby Sonny has grown-up a bit; and we see Fredo and Michael as babies, but Michael is only an infant, and Fredo looks slightly older than Michael. Here, since there's no transition scenes, most people will assume that Vito is getting powerful really fast. To be fair (as much as I love "The Godfather" films) the films themselves at times get the dates mixed up as well, especially during the Senate hearing scene with Michael for example, which even I noticed when being a young film buff and Godfather fanatic. Michael killed Sollozzo and McClusky in 1946; the Senators say he killed them in 1947. Michael ordered the Five Families to be killed in 1955; the Senators say he killed them in 1950, when he hasn't even left Sicily yet. The 2nd film also doesn't match up the dates to Vito's Birthday, nor his age when we saw him in 1901, as depicted on his tombstone in the first film; however, since the dates on his tombstone are blink and miss and are not clearly shown, I can't really count that as a major flaw. Still with time flaws aside, the films are still awesome masterpieces and the way they managed to put them in chronological order works really well!

DELETED SCENES FROM THE PREQUEL PORTION OF "GODFATHER PART 2".

Now we head on to the Deleted scenes, which scenes do I think should be in this cut, and which scene's do I think should have stayed on the cutting room floor. Well, the first added scene is, after when young Vito's brother Paolo gets killed by Don Ciccio, two of Ciccio's henchman (Who look for Vito after he gets away from Don Ciccio) go to his home and tell his Mother that they're taking him away. Instead of Vito's Mother allowing it, she's tells them that he'll take him to Ciccio herself, which gives a better explanation of why Vito's Mother went to see him. Ironically, when grown up Vito visit's Sicily, in two back to back deleted scenes during his visit, he actually kills the two henchman that were looking for him. He kills one with a knife in his own bed, while taunting him with the words he said when looking for Vito when he escaped Ciccio; and the other one he beats to death with an oar in the middle of the sea. Those revenge scenes are both sweet and awesome, but I guess they were probably cut for time, and the tame violence for when Vito is slicing up the first guy.



Ever wondered what inspired Vito to kill Fannuci? There's a scene where Fannuci is seen taking on three punks, but fails and gets his throat cut by one of them, resulting him screaming for help. The scene that follows is Vito and his friend Genco talking about the event and showing that Vito would be willing to kill him if told to do so. I know the violence is tamed and Coppola also cut it to probably keep Fannuci threatening, but this does lead up to Vito's idea of killing him. Also Vito says to his friends that "there's three of us, and one of him", sound familiar?



Speaking of his friends, we get to see him spend more time with the people around him. Ever wonder what Vito and his friends racket was? Well, there's a deleted scene of them in a warehouse smuggling weapons; loading a truck of stolen dresses; Vito meets Tessio for the first time; and the gunsmith who is named Augustino Coppola has his son Carmine play the flute for them (Which is a tribute to Francis Ford Coppola's Father and Grandfather). I'm glad to see this scene, but I'm glad it was cut out of the original film, not that it's bad, but I honestly don't know where Coppola would have put this scene in the theatrical version. Would it take place after we see a sick baby Fredo, if so, that would mean a few years has past do to baby Sonny looking older, and Michael still being an infant. However, what was Clemenza and Vito doing over the last two years? It's Vito's first time in a warehouse that stores weapons (Which explains what Clemenza was going to do with the weapons that he had Vito hide) and the first time that he ever meets Tessio; wouldn't Vito have been working for them for the past two years after stealing that rug, hiding stolen goods, and gaining Clemenza's trust? What makes it more confusing is the deleted scene that follows. After they load a truck full of dresses, Clemenza tries to sell a dress to a married woman, but ends up having (Off-Screen) sex with her, while Tessio and Vito wait outside. That scene takes place on the same day as when Vito meets Fannucci face to face. Also notice that when Clemenza visit's her, it's night time, and when he comes out, it's daylight, are Vito and Tessio that patient or was that not a dark window between those drapes? It's nice to see these scenes and I do personally enjoy them, but personally, I'd rather see those scenes in the deleted scene category than in this cut. However, maybe the scene when Clemenza is selling dresses to that girl fast forwards to a few years later, which would explain the various crimes that's been mentioned and how they were able to get $600 dollars and perhaps more.



If you remember on "My Top 20 Favorite Villain's List", I talked about the deleted scene, when Vito first meets Hyman Roth, and with Roth being the primary villain of the second film, it amazes me that the scene was cut. It shows you where Hyman came from; where he got his name; how he joined the family;and showing Vito having second thoughts about him. Why did they have to cut that scene out? The rest of the scenes are alter scenes. There's a bit of extra dialogue with Clemenza in the cafe; a longer version when Fannucci tells Vito about paying him; an extra part of the dinner conversation with Vito and Tessio; an introduction to Vito's Wife's friend with the Apartment problem; and a lengthened version of Vito's first meeting with the landlord Roberto. While, I enjoy seeing more of these characters, I still think Coppola did the right thing cutting those scenes out for timing in the theatrical cut.

DELETED SCENES FROM THE FIRST GODFATHER FILM



When watching the first film (Without seeing the 2nd Film yet), did you ever wonder who Genco was when Sonny said to Tom "Pappa, Genco, look what I got", or who was Genco that Vito's business was named after. In the second film, we find out that Genco is the son of The Grocery Store owner who took Vito in when he was a kid, and let him work at his Grocery store. He and Vito had a close friendship, and it becomes obvious that the two would do business together. However, what was Genco's role in the Family business? In this deleted scene, before Vito goes to take the picture and dance with his daughter Connie at her Wedding; he gets word from Hagen that his old consigliere Genco is "not going to last out through the night" at the Hospital. So Vito asks, Sonny, Fredo, Johnny Fontaine, and Michael to visit Genco on his deathbed. After the Wedding and before they visit Genco, we see Vito and Michael talk for a bit. We find out through their brief conversation that Vito is not a fan of Kay by referring to her as Michael's "American girlfriend"; he insults Michael's service in the army by calling the medals on him "Christmas ribbons" and that Michael would risk his life for strangers (Which was talked about in the very last scene of "Godfather Part 2" when Michael tells the family that he's enlisted in the Marines); and Michael reveals that his plans are to go to school, which Vito approves, but tells Michael that he has plans for him when he's finished with school. After the conversation, the group visits a dying Genco (Franco Corsaro) who begs Vito to help him get better. Vito regrettably says that he doesn't have the power to cure him, but tells him "Not to be afraid of death". Genco concerned that no one would be good enough to replace him as consigliere, he begs Vito to stay with him and help him meet death, hoping that death would be afraid of Vito, and leave him in peace. Vito agrees to aid is dying friend and the sons slowly leave as the scene fades to black. While I understand it was cut for timing, it's a wonderful scene. The acting is perfect and moving; we get to actually see Vito and his son Michael together before Michael gets mixed up in the family business; and the scene with Vito and Genco is really touching, and shot extremely well.



We all know Woltz as this famous Hollywood big shot who wouldn't give Vito's grandson Johnny a part in a film that can make him a big star, only to find the head of his prized horse in his own bed. However, what some of you didn't know is that he's not only a perv who sleeps with young beautiful woman (As mentioned in the dinner scene), but also sleeps with underage Hollywood actresses as well. In the theatrical cut, remember that young actress that Woltz briefly hugs before talking to Tom? In this version, we find out that this actress is one of the girls that Woltz has sex with. When we first meet Woltz, we see an extended scene of him throwing her a birthday party, and giving her a Pony as a present. Scenes later, as Tom leaves Woltz's mansion, he sees the actress that we saw earlier crying in tears as her Mother forcefully takes her back to Woltz's bedroom where she was raped by him earlier. We then cut to Connie and Carlo arguing for the first time, which pisses Sonny off. However, Vito tells him not to interfere. Tom tells Vito about what he just witnessed, and that he's not as tough as he makes himself out to be. Vito then tells Hagen to send Luca Brasi to "reason" with Woltz, which then cuts to the famous horse head scene. Again, I can understand that these scenes were cut for timing, but I love these scenes for a few reasons. One, the fact that Woltz is pedo, gives us more of a reason to hate him, and I'll be honest when I saw that revenge scene in this cut, I was smiling more than I did when I saw the original cut. I also love that we find out that it was Luca, who killed Woltz's horse, that gives him a much bigger and more memorable role in the film, than what was shown of him in the original cut. I guess some can argue also that the casual viewer will think that Brasi traveled to Hollywood within minutes since it happens in between conversation, but in the scene when Tom tells Vito about Sollozzo, we cut back and fourth between  Sollozzo's arrival for his meeting with Vito, to Vito's current meeting with Tom and Sonny. So the horse head scene, could have possibly happened within a few days like how the whole discussion about Sollozzo sequence was done.



Right after we see Luca in his apartment, getting ready for his meeting with Bruno Tattaglia and Sollozzo, we see Michael and Kay in bed in their hotel room getting a wake up call at 3 P.M. so they can go to Vito's house for dinner. Michael and Kay decide to not go, and Michael calls Tom and lies to him that he and Kay are stuck in "New Hampshire", but will see the family on Christmas. While it's a cute scene with Michael and Kay together, aside from Michael later telling Sonny that he called Tom, it's obvious why they cut it out in the film version. It fits in this version, but let's be honest, most of us want to see Luca get whacked, than just see Michael and Kay fool around.



The next few scenes are Sonny on the phone, trying to figure out if his Father's dead; where Tom is; his suspicion that Clemenza might have set up the Don; and wondering where Luca is. We also see a brief conversation between Sonny and his Mom spoken in Italian. These scenes do bring great suspense to what's going on, as well as seeing Sonny for the first time act as the Don; but again, most viewers will think that it'll make the film longer than it is.



After when Michael gets the news from Clemenza that his Dad is going to "Pull through"; Michael takes Tom's wife into the study where Sonny and Tessio are wondering if it was Paulie or Clemenza who set up the Don. Sonny happily greets his brother, and tells Theresa that Tom will be released soon. Sonny asks the two to leave, but Michael stays and tells Sonny that he wants to help, despite not wanting to get mixed into the family business. Michael thinks that it was Paulie who set his Father up, and he was right, because Sonny got a phone call from an Agent that Paulie has been getting calls from the pay phone across his Father's building while he was sick. Michael then tries to convince Sonny to not kill any of the Families until their Pop is better, but Sonny refuses, and a few seconds later, Tom joyfully comes back hugging his Wife, telling everyone that he talked his way out of being killed by Sollozzo, after when Sollozzo hears the news about Vito surviving. This scene greatly shows Michael getting into the family business for the first time, as well as proving that he'd be a more suitable Don than Sonny. It also makes it clearer to the viewer, how they knew it was Paulie. It was probably cut out for timing, but personally I think it would fit the film fine in the theatrical cut.



The next two scenes happen during Paulie's execution sequence. The first scene is a brief conversation between Clemenza and Paulie's replacement Rocco, before Paulie's arrival. Clemenza gives Rocco the gun that he will use to kill Paulies and tells him one of my favorite lines that he will be "making his bones off of Paulie". After the trio leave Clemenza's house, Clemenza helps let Paulie's guard down by telling him that he's going to make a phone call. However, it turns out that he's having a quick lunch at his favorite restaurant, (Which is probably where he got the Cannoli's from). While being faithful to the book, it's pretty obvious why this scene was cut. Most of us (Including myself) just want to see Paulie get whacked and we can already assume that Clemenza got the Cannoli's during their trip. So it was really wise of Coppola to get rid of those two scenes. Though personally, I wouldn't mind the first scene being kept in out of the two, since we get a bit of insight with the character Rocco.



During Michael's walk with his bodyguards in Sicily, we see a few extra scenes. They see a bunch of communists marching through the hills; they find Vito's old house; but the biggest scene during the journey is, Michael and the bodyguards are relaxing, however, Fabrizio (The guy who killed Michael's Wife) tells Michael that he knows who he is and where he is from, and asks him about America and begs for Michael to take him there one day. That scene alone really shows how desperate Fabrizio is to go to America. What becomes a very relaxing and humorous conversation, turns into something big later on in the film. Again, understandable why Coppola cut the scene, since most of us want to get to Michael's first meeting Apolloina, but this is a character who will not only betray Michael, but will take away the love of his life.



After when Vito tells Tom that "it was Barzini all along", we cut to Vito and Michael standing by Vito's garden. Michael knows that his Father swearing to not break the peace with the other families is a sign of weakness; so he convinces his Father that he will take over as Don, since Michael never gave his word that he would not break the peace. Vito smiles and tells Michael "We have a lot of time to talk about it now" and the two walk off screen. I'm really unhappy that this scene was cut. It shows Michael's final transformation of becoming the criminal that he never dreamed of becoming; it's well acted; and it answers the question that I hear many people ask about if Vito went against his word. Great scene, and it should have never been cut.



Other scenes that didn't make it into the first film are a scene where Michael is lying in bed in shock after the death of his Wife, ordering Don Tommasino to find Fabrizio; Connie and Carlo are arguing in the bathroom after Connie receives the phone call from the woman asking about Carlo; Tom Hagen asking Michael "Why is he out" as consigliere is extended; but the scene that I'm ticked about that didn't make it under the deleted scenes category of the DVD, nor is it on the VHS copy that I own, is the scene with the undertaker. Before, he performs the service that Vito has asked him to do; we see him getting ready and angrily tells his wife how unhappy he is that he made a deal with Vito. That scene truly shows aside of the character that we never seen before; and not putting it on the tape or under the DVD bonus features, when it was shown on TV and is a scene that lasts for more than 30 seconds really ticks me off.

DELETED SCENES FROM THE SEQUEL PORTION OF "GODFATHER PART 2".

Most of the deleted scenes that are shown in the sequel portion of "Godfather Part 2" take place during the events of Michael's Son's communion party. We see a scene of Michael giving Santino's daughter Francesca his blessing to get married; we see Michael's son wander off towards the house where Michael does business, with Mafia men guarding the place, while Kay tries to keep him away from the house; and we see Fredo and his Wife fight when they enter the party. There's also two deleted scenes involving Frank Pentangeli. One scene is him refusing to drink champagne cocktails which leads to the scene when he's drinking from the garden hose (As shown in the film); and the other scene is him bonding with Michael's son which I thought is both fun and cute. It's obvious why Coppola cut those scenes out since they play little to no part in the story, which will only make the film longer than it already is; but it's great to see them in this cut. I don't know why, I just enjoy spending time with these characters. Also, Michael's meetings during the party has been rearranged. Instead of it being Senator Geary, Johnny Ola, and Connie; it's instead Francesa, Al Neri, Connie, Johnny Ola, and Senator Geary. I don't know why Coppola tried to fix something that's not broken, nor would it make a huge difference, but it surprisingly works fine!



In the theatrical cut, we hear about a Casino owner named Klingman who the Corleone's plan to move out of the Casino business. However, we never see him, or see the Corleone's take action in moving him out of the business. In this deleted scene, Al Neri, comes to the Casino and fires Klingman telling him that the Corleone's now officially own the Casino. Klingman in disbelief calls the security service to toss Neri out, but the security doesn't respond since they're under Corleone control, and Neri starts slapping him around, chases him through the Casino and into a showroom during a dress rehearsal, and just as Neri is about to hit him with a chair, Klingman surrenders and clears out. Afterwards, Neri tells the showgirls to continue their rehearsal, and as the girls continue, Neri sits down to enjoy the show. I don't know why Coppola cut it out, because the Corleone's in the theatrical cut do talk about moving this businessman out of business. If they weren't going to include this scene, then why mention moving out Klingman at all? It's a badass scene with this great Corleone mobster and I personally wished that they kept it in the theatrical cut.



This next deleted scene is when Michael finds Fabrizio, and has him get killed the same way when he killed Michael's wife in Sicily. I already talked about this scene when I put Don Barzini and Hyman Roth as my 10th Favorite Movie Villains, so I won't talk too much about this scene. I will say that I honestly wish that this scene made it into the theatrical cut as well. I guess Coppola cut it out since the car explosion wasn't as big as when Michael's wife got killed, but personally I don't care. Every time I see this deleted, I smile at seeing Michael taking revenge on the man who killed his Wife, and seeing him crawl out of the car before collapsing made this revenge a lot sweeter.

 

After Michael's flashback of The Corleone family in the good old days (Which I'm more than glad that they didn't put it in chronological order, since it fits the ending so well), we see Kay alone in a Cathedral lighting candles for Michael as the credits role, thus concluding this 4 part mini-series, which I think is a wonderful and moving conclusion.

Putting the two films in chronological works better than you think it does! Even if it does make Vito's back story look like he's getting power really fast, I personally don't find it that distracting. The deleted scenes, while it's obvious why most of them were cut in the theatrical cut, I still think they're all wonderful and fit the story really well. What makes the whole entire concept work is that it is a four part miniseries made for TV. Each episode is 2 hours long, and the fact that the series breaks up this cut into four episodes, gives the viewer enough time to relax and take a break from watching the series, than feeling forced to sit through a whole 434 minute film. Like I said, it's extremely hard to find; all cuts of showing the films in chronological order don't have all the deleted scenes; and they only show it on TV once in a blue moon, with the violence and language edited. I hope someday that Coppola will release this cut in its entirety, with not only all the deleted scenes and being in 4 Parts; but also not editing the violence and language. This is indeed a director's cut that's not only as good as the original, but in my opinion, better than the original!

RATING 5/5